On my frame I used carriage bolts pointed up through the 4" channel iron used for the side rails of the frame. To keep them from turning I drilled the hole just a bit over 1/2" and used a 3 sided file to make square holes to fit the bolt. The bolt heads sit on the 4X6 underneath the channel iron.

My frame is really an iron frame, I just have the 4x6's between the legs of the channel iron for a bit of cushion. There are 5/8" x 20" foundation tie down bolts embedded in the concrete block. These go through the top and bottom channel iron and the 4x6 timber. 
 

Thanks Tom for the info. I like your idea with the triangle file making straight edges for securing the bolt heads from turning.

How exactly do you attach the ST Generator to your frame, also allowing movement for tensioning?
Many off the pics I see (except rocketboy's) do not show this detail.

regards,
Matt

Hi Montana,

Get the Utterpower CD and/or the Kit Engine Report (parts 1-3)  by Quinn on the Utterpower web site.

(Quinn I am curious about part 4. Willl it ever come? I want to know what you did with your flywheels!!)

Also, download and print out the original 1970 CS manual from Rocketboy's website.

I printed it out on the printer's double-sided setting, and then bound it all together with the binding machine we have at work.
Looks great and is very handy when rebuilding.

All torque settings etc will be found in these places, as well as a great deal of helpful hints for rebuilding a Listeroid.

Hope you have fun with your new toy!!

regards,
Matt

According to David Edgington's very much worth having book, The Lister CS Story http://www.stationaryenginebooks.co.uk/listercs.htm, (pages 35 - 36) the 8/1 first appeared in 1958 as the CS 6/1 was showing its age: too heavy, too expensive, old technology.  According to Edgington's book, Lister was scrambling to compete with more modern engines in a post-war economy where construction was booming.  Lister's management decided they had to both increase power and reduce manufacturing costs in order to remain competitive.  The 8/1 had an aluminum piston to lower reciprocating weight, and as a cost cutting measure, did away with the "Listard" chrome plated cylinder bore in favor of cast iron, with a chrome plated top compression ring.  The dual chamber head was modified to include the now ubiquitous plug,which reduced the compression ratio from 19:1 to 17.5:1 for both start and run conditions.  And though there appears to be more metal in the 8/1 flywheel disk, Edgington says the flywheels were lighter than those of the 6/1s, although the air cooled VA variant that was manufactured mainly for export had flywheels that in some cases were heavier than those of the standard 8/1 for generator service. 

The Indian variants seem to simply use a 6/1 piston (cast iron) and flywheels.  I've only seen one or two examples of Indian 'roids with the "proper" 8/1 flywheels.

As to what the draw of the 6/1 is over the 8/1 or 10/1, I think it varies.  Seems the 6/1 and 10/1 are popular, but not the 8/1 so much.  Edgington's book says the 8/1 was capable of running at both 650 rpm (6 hp) and 850 rpm (8 hp).  For my part, I wanted low fuel consumption.  I didn't foresee any need for more power.

Quinn

Hi Quinn,

My apologies. I stand corrected. (I should have known better than to question you )

I too have Mr Edington's excellent book, but I my recollection of the detail written therein was substantially lacking.

Now having found out that the aluminium pistin was originally supplied, I am now curious to try one.
Was it a flat top piston?

regards,
Matt

Hi Compig,

Those flywheels are the original standard 8/1 type units used on original Lister standard (non SOM) 8hp CS engine.

They seem to be stronger than the spoked type, presumably for safety at the higher speed of 850rpm.  There is extra cast metal between every second pair of spokes which gives the triangle look.

The 8hp Listeroids also seem to have kept the same type of flywheel.

The question then is...why does everybody seem to buy the Stadard 6/1 listeroid? The price is nearly the same between the 6/1 and the 8/1 'roids.
The 8/1 and the 10/1 appear to have much more sturdier flywheels - not to mention the extra hp available if needed.
Yet despite the others having many advantages, the 6/1 seems to be the most popular.

This I cannot understand.

Can anyone fill me in on what I am missing here?

regards,
Matt

PS Quinn I think the 8/1 had the CI piston like the 6/1. In fact they were nearly identical in every way except the Flywheels and lack of Compression change over plug in the 8/1.

The air cooled units always catch me by surprise.  Trough thinking is what I call it when others forget the alternatives.

Casey

Hi Casey,

It dosen't look like an air cooled unit to me. There is a radiator attached so it would be water cooled.
The air cooled models had a massive cowling around one of the flywheels that had attached a super-sized fan.

regards,
Matt

funny you should mention the 200mpg carburator

it is no urban legend, it actually existed 

I'll second that!

I have heard exactly the same info before.

Bob G knows his automotive history well!!!

regards,
matt

Any opinions on the Chicago 10KW 3600 rpm gen head quality? It appears it would be unsuited to 6/1 8/1 lister pair-up
2 pole rated 16hp
http://www.harborfreight.com/manuals/45000-45999/45416.pdf

It would be ok for listeroid use. You just need to get the right pulley diameter on the gen to get the right gen rpm.

I suggest you start a new thread for this change of topic.

regards,
Matt

Click the link to the topic in the Market Place Thread....

http://listerengine.com/smf/index.php?topic=4035.0



regards,
matt