Electric Starter for Matchless Single

John, there are a LOT more standard frame models ww. Moreover, there were different Seeley frames (Mk1 through 5) and equally many Rickman Metisse versions (although geometry didn't vary as much as for Seeley frames). Jean-Paul wants to fit a starter to a G50 Seeley Mk3. The frame tubing is obstructing the starter motor as fitted for the G80. I will help him to work out a solution.
Unfortunately it's not possible to meet everyone's wishes .....
 
Further to my entry #59, I would rather look into providing an electric starter kit for the Dominator 500, 650 & 750's, thereby finally providing an alternative to the dreadful sheet metal covers. I think this could really boost the project and may spawn interest from Andover Norton, for instance.

-Knut
 
Last edited:
Now I understand. I think that working on a solution that will benefit the most people is the best way and like you said it isn't possible to meet everyone's wishes. If this starter kit can hit the mark and cost around $2500 which is around what the CNW and Alton kits cost for a Commando that would be great.
John in Texas
 
mdt-son said:
Further to my entry #59, I would rather look into providing an electric starter kit for the Dominator 500, 650 & 750's, thereby finally providing an alternative to the dreadful sheet metal covers. I think this could really boost the project and may spawn interest from Andover Norton, for instance.

-Knut
Click to expand...

Yes Knut, you're absolutely right -



I'm very familiar with the Rickman rolling-chassis because I was the distributor in France for a while, of those made by Pat FRENCH (MRD Metisse), much less well the Seeley frames.


That's why I was forced to cut the frame in front of the location of the starter motor. The frame will be reinforced later by an outer tube bent and welded.


Also, as the market for Rickman or Seeley electric starter equipment is very small, it is better to focus on equipment for twins (G12 / 15 - P11) and make a set of foundry patterns to cast new different primary crankcases. than those of the original G80 / 85.



I also had a very interesting discussion recently with Paul HAMON who is a friend of mine but especially the manager of ALTON Co. He told me that he was currently working with an Englishman on the possibility of mounting an ALTON type starter on the Norton Dominator (500 - 600-750cc), while keeping the primary cases in sheet metal, but with a special internal system, because the manufacture of cast aluminum casings would be much too expensive !!
Finally, I think we have to stay only on a new kit for twins G12/15 and P11 !!
 
If you plan to make retro starter kits for classic bikes you need to be aware a patent exists.

GB2471022

It was issued in 2010 and covers the retrospective fitting of an electric starter to Classic bikes, the problem being it is couched in such general terms to cover any arrangement of gears and starter fitted on a pre unit engine.

Alton must be aware of it as they look to be in breech of it but was their kit available before 2010 ?.

It was set up by Stewart McFarlane who bought Devimead which became SRM, which he sold off a few years ago. He currently makes and sells Starter kits for BSA A10 twins.

Quite how he got a patent for what is really just a collection of existing parts is beyond me but then so are the Patent battles between Apple and Samsung for curved bezels etc.

Whether he intends to defend the patent or just use it as a marketing ploy I leave to you to decide.

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-find-publi...53&DocTypes=A&ResultsPerPage=50&Start=0&epj=y

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2471022
 
kommando said:
If you plan to make retro starter kits for classic bikes you need to be aware a patent exists.

GB2471022
Click to expand...

kommando,

thank you for the heads-up! As i understand the patent it is applicable to GB only, very much taylored to suit BSA pre-unit twins. I am surprised the patent application was granted, the only "invention" being location of the starter motor below the frame rails and thus hidden by the engine and the g/b. The abstract title is "Engine arrangement for a motorcycle in which the starter motor is hidden by the gearbox", which is a rather misleading title.

The claimed novelty of the starter motor not spoiling the appearance of the bike is debatable. Apart from the unconvential location, remaining parts are standard mechanical parts (chains, gears, sprag unit) and there is nothing special about them as far as I can see.

Anyway,I don't see an infringemen of the UK patent by Richard MacCoon's design. I will enquire with the business manager how IP rights were secured and claimed in the first place - if at all.

Thanks,
Knut
 
Last edited:
Yes, GB only, no idea if there are any other patents pending, low volumes of sales compared to the costs of worldwide patents would make it prohibitive. Not sure why he went that route, a registered design based on the A10 solution would not be so generic and cost less and provide more protection. The Pearson Gold Star starter must also be at risk but that seems to pre-date the A10 version.
 
You want to screw something up, get a lawyer involved! You have to wonder how it is that a patent would still be enforce when the original manufacturer went out of business 50+ years ago, but I'm not a patent attorney and don't have a clue how things like this work. If this was China they would ignore the patent rights and just go ahead.
John in Texas
 
N0rt0nelectr@ said:
You have to wonder how it is that a patent would still be enforce when the original manufacturer went out of business 50+ years ago, <...>.
Click to expand...

BSA and the successor NVT never made a starter for BSA pre-unit or unit twin motorcycles, or any other motorcycle for that matter (apart from the built-in starter on the T160). However, the applicant is in business, AFAIK.

-Knut
 
N0rt0nelectr@ said:
Now I understand. I think that working on a solution that will benefit the most people is the best way and like you said it isn't possible to meet everyone's wishes. If this starter kit can hit the mark and cost around $2500 which is around what the CNW and Alton kits cost for a Commando that would be great.
John in Texas
Click to expand...

Hi Knut & John,



Manufacturing the electric starter system is not very complicated !!

From the design initiated by Alex Taylor and Dick MacCoon for Matchless G80 / 85CS singles, it's easy to extrapolate the same system for G12 / 15 twins.


The distance between the engine driving shaft and the axis of the gearbox output is the same for each model - However, given the presence of the magneto behind the cylinders, it will be necessary to change the position of the starter motor.


In addition, it will be necessary to pay attention to the lateral position of the internal primary case, so that the sprocket of the starter is in the right place, without rubbing on the cases.


You can see on the attached photos, this type of manufacture, for a starter prototype for a G50 / SEELEY: - a foundry wooden pattern, made by me, the rough piece of silicon aluminum alloy casting, and it machined and mounted for a first test. (The photos will be inserted later !!)


I had to cut the frame at the starter motor, but later I will weld
a reinforcing bend tube at this level - I will have to realize the outer casing.


An idea of the prices: (it is about non negotiated prices and for a prototype)
The starter motor with its solenoid: 480 € / £ 418 / 550 $
The rough primary casing of foundry: 260 € / £ 230 / 296 $
Primary crankcase machining: 85 € / £ 74/97
Manufacture of the starter sprocket (Laser cutting - Toothing - Fixing on the clutch crown): 350 € / £ 310/400 $



I'll inform you about the advancing of this job

Electric Starter for Matchless Single


Electric Starter for Matchless Single
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jean-Paul,

Are you sure the distance between shafts is identical for singles and twins? I don't think so, but I am out of town now and can't verify. I note outer primary covers and gaskets differ between singles and twins. Singles have a much bigger flywheel and crankcase than a twin (reciprocating mass is less than half the size of a single, per cylinder). Therefore I expect drive shaft of singles to be positioned further to the rear compared with the twins. This would require a longer primary cover for twins, which coincides with my impression. The gearbox is in the same position. For an e-starter kit, the gearbox has to be locked in position for obvious reasons, hence new engine plates and a primary chain or belt tensioner is required.

You are progressing fast - good work! However, I proposed a different location of the starter and I think this would have been advantageous in your application. Viewing your image above, the chain runs very close to the L-shaped boss at the inner chaincase. Have a look at Richard MacCoon's video and you will see how the primary chain in the G80CS dances a lot up and down while running, so if yours does too (and I guess it will) it will grind away the boss in your design rapidly. You need a lot more clearance here. Maybe you need to reposition the boss, or fit a different clutch and drive sprocket. Torque capacity of the clutch is probably exhausted anyway. With this large starter gear wheel in place, why not go all the way and construct a primary drive using gears?

Designing and manufacturing the covers and the gear wheel isn't difficult. The difficult part is to make it all work together in every application, create the necessary "bling factor", managing tolerances, keeping to the budget, and being so confident in the design that a limited 5 year warranty may be offered.

Thanks for the price estimates. You quoted machining to adapt your crancase. Machining of inner and outer covers as well as polishing is the cost driver of the kit.

Regards,
Knut
 
Last edited:
mdt-son said:
Jean-Paul,

Are you sure the distance between shafts is identical for singles and twins? I don't think so, but I am out of town now and can't verify. I note outer primary covers and gaskets differ between singles and twins. Singles have a much bigger flywheel and crankcase than a twin (reciprocating mass is less than half the size of a single, per cylinder). Therefore I expect drive shaft of singles to be positioned further to the rear compared with the twins. This would require a longer primary cover for twins, which coincides with my impression. The gearbox is in the same position. For an e-starter kit, the gearbox has to be locked in position for obvious reasons, hence new engine plates and a primary chain or belt tensioner is required.

You are progressing fast - good work! However, I proposed a different location of the starter and I think this would have been advantageous in your application. Viewing your image above, the chain runs very close to the L-shaped boss at the inner chaincase. Have a look at Richard MacCoon's video and you will see how the primary chain in the G80CS dances a lot up and down while running, so if yours does too (and I guess it will) it will grind away the boss in your design rapidly. You need a lot more clearance here. Maybe you need to reposition the boss, or fit a different clutch and drive sprocket. Torque capacity of the clutch is probably exhausted anyway. With this large starter gear wheel in place, why not go all the way and construct a primary drive using gears?

Designing and manufacturing the covers and the gear wheel isn't difficult. The difficult part is to make it all work together in every application, create the necessary "bling factor", managing tolerances, keeping to the budget, and being so confident in the design that a limited 5 year warranty may be offered.

Thanks for the price estimates. You quoted machining to adapt your crancase. Machining of inner and outer covers as well as polishing is the cost driver of the kit.

Regards,
Knut
Click to expand...

Hello Knut,
I'm sorry but the distance between engine and gearbox is the same for singles and twins - The theoretical size is 230mm (verified on two kinds of primary chaincases).
You were right for the deflection chain: after the first tests, I found that the tension of the chain was not good: the chain was worn over part of its length and the gap between the starter pinion and the starter gear wheel was too weak.
So I moved the gearbox forward, put a new chain (equipped with a half-link) and so I was able to lower the L-shpped boss.
I still have to define the finishing price of the outer casing as well as the adjustment and polishing operations -
I'll keep you posted on further developments.

Regards,
Jean-Paul
 
Jean-Paul ALTAYRAC said:
Hello Knut,
I'm sorry but the distance between engine and gearbox is the same for singles and twins - The theoretical size is 230mm (verified on two kinds of primary chaincases).
You were right for the deflection chain: after the first tests, I found that the tension of the chain was not good: the chain was worn over part of its length and the gap between the starter pinion and the starter gear wheel was too weak.
So I moved the gearbox forward, put a new chain (equipped with a half-link) and so I was able to lower the L-shpped boss.
I still have to define the finishing price of the outer casing as well as the adjustment and polishing operations -
I'll keep you posted on further developments.

Regards,
Jean-Paul
Click to expand...
Wonder if you could put a guide over the L-shaped boss like the lower one?
John in Texas
 
Jean-Paul ALTAYRAC said:
Hello Knut,
I'm sorry but the distance between engine and gearbox is the same for singles and twins - The theoretical size is 230mm (verified on two kinds of primary chaincases).
You were right for the deflection chain: after the first tests, I found that the tension of the chain was not good: the chain was worn over part of its length and the gap between the starter pinion and the starter gear wheel was too weak.
So I moved the gearbox forward, put a new chain (equipped with a half-link) and so I was able to lower the L-shpped boss.
I still have to define the finishing price of the outer casing as well as the adjustment and polishing operations -
I'll keep you posted on further developments.

Regards,
Jean-Paul
Click to expand...
Any progress on this project? Just had my knee operated on and I'm down for a bit on non-E-start bikes.
John in Texas
 
N0rt0nelectr@ said:
Any progress on this project? Just had my knee operated on and I'm down for a bit on non-E-start bikes.
John in Texas
Click to expand...

Yes. Working on the CNC tooling to improve accuracy and lower manufacturing cost. I had some input from Andover Norton actually.

-Knut
 
Input from Andover, that sounds interesting. I will be stopping by to visit with Matt at CNW next month, I should ask him who does there primary's.

John
 
Got some info from Matt at CNW. Here is what he said.

The guys name is John Snead and his machine shop (STS) is down in Florida. We had been talking about creating a starter kit for the Atlas but it didn't go far as so much would have to be re-designed, tested and then machine a relatively good amount of them to make sense out of a production run. In other words, just making a few is hard as no one would want to pay the price for a short run considering the development costs. We are nearing 200 Commando kits sold and we have not broke even yet
So to do something like that for the Matchless may not be in the cards unfortunately. Not for us anyway
 
N0rt0nelectr@ said:
Got some info from Matt at CNW. Here is what he said.

The guys name is John Snead and his machine shop (STS) is down in Florida. We had been talking about creating a starter kit for the Atlas but it didn't go far as so much would have to be re-designed, tested and then machine a relatively good amount of them to make sense out of a production run. In other words, just making a few is hard as no one would want to pay the price for a short run considering the development costs. We are nearing 200 Commando kits sold and we have not broke even yet
So to do something like that for the Matchless may not be in the cards unfortunately. Not for us anyway
Click to expand...

Pretty sure John is a member of the forum.
 
Back
Top