My God there is some crap going on here.

[GuyFawkes]

Hold on you guys don't attack the messenger. You can't have it both ways by saying its OK to mount a Listeroid on skids and support it with some comments about a Briggs or the fact that you haven't seen a broken crank. No offence but:  Who are you anyway? How long have you been around? Are you an engineer? The discussion clearly explains the reasons why the manufacturer recommended the mounting method and why it is necessary. 

If you were going to depend on it 24/7 and work it's ass off You might be interested in knowing these things. I know I am.  What you do with the information is your gig.  Build it your way but don't discount  the facts just because YOU are not doing it. Argue the facts. I learned a ton of information from this thread and it only took 30 minutes to read. I look forward to many more threads like this. Don't fuck that up for the rest of us.   

I had a 3 way conversation many years ago with a rigger who built a 75 mile ropeway carrying god knows how many 40 ton payload coal carrying cars from the mine to the railhead (Maamba collieries in Zambia up to the railhead near Choma) and a guy who worked for Otis specifying lifts.

Lifts (at the time anyway) for carrying human cargo had an 8x safety factor, that meant if it was rated to carry ten / twelve people at an average weight of 200 lbs each the lift had to operate normally and within parameters when the car was loaded with 8 ton of sandbags.

The ropeway wasn't carrying humans, and travelled over jungle, but downtime was a bitch.

The conversation started about long splices in the cables that didn't increase diameter of cable or resistance to bending or reduce strength significantly, people able to do this work may not work that often, but it is (or was) a skill so rare they could write their own cheques and behave any way they chose.

That conversation soon degenerated when the guys who rigged the cranes and winches joined in (these were general purpose things like you'd find in any junk or construction yard)

The crane and winch guys poo-pooed all that the rigger and Otis guy were saying, basically all the same arguments and excuses you see here, over kill, technology has moved on, new materials, never seen one break anyway, blah blah blah.

The rigger and Otis guy were more like, it is not enough that it never breaks in service, and never means never, but it can't fail in service either, and even if it did fail in theory that failure had better be minimal, confined, and easy and cheap and fast to get the system back up and running.

What killed / closed the argument was a comment from the Otis guy, "you blokes fuck up, you maybe kill yourselves and cost the company a few thousand in downtime, we fuck up and we kill a bunch of civilians, never work again as long as we live, and maybe bankrupt the company with the lawsuit and bad rep that follows."

One of the crane guys said "are you calling us blokes amateurs?" in a very upset tone.

The Otis guy replied "Yeah, what else do you call people who can afford to play fast an loose with systems that aren't mission critical*** and don't bring everything else to a halt when they fail?"

*** First time I ever heard that phrase, kinda why I remember the conversation because I asked afterwards, he worked on the lifts at cape canaveral...

Now that's the thing here, some want power when the next katrina hits, some want power like mr belk, off the grid, and some want power when the grid gets too expensive.

The professional is the one who realises that when you want power, when you need power, and there ain't none, and there ain't none because you cut a corner and saved youself 5 minutes of inconvenience and 5 bucks of consumables two years ago, and everything stops because you have no power, you had a mission critical system that you treated like a standby system, and now you better pray nobody has their life depending on power, because they die and you killed them.

Lister were professional engineers, the CS was made to last and run forever, and even if it did somehow die, that failure mode would be minimal, and easy and fast and cheap to repair, it absolutely would not be a show stopper like a broken crank.

if you play the odds, cost and convenience against reliability, then you are playing a different game.

if you want a listeroid as a hobby say so, nobody has a problem with that.

if you want a listeroid as a standby say so, nobody has a problem with that.

what you don't get to do is act like an amateur and strut around calling yourself a professional.

for example the lister cs lube system, it does not have a failure mode, if there is oil in the engine and then engine is rotating then everything gets lubed, the oil pump can die and it still gets lubed, and it will do 100,000+ hours at full load and 100% duty cycle, and still not be worn out or unserviceable, and even then if it does fail because yau ran it out of oil or used kerosene to lube it with, you can fix it fast and cheap and easy, because you hav eonly worn out things that were designed to be sacrificed.

omit the concrete or other mass to shift the c-o-m and your amateur, it prolly still won't go wrong, but it might, and if it does you are fucked, no easy repair, no cheap repair, no fast repair, pray nobody has a life depending on it.

so you go from an Otis style failure mode to a Briggs and Stratton style failure mode, you make something that was as close to perfect as you get in engineering to something that itself needs a backup in case of emergency, and you did this to save a buck and to prove you were right and the pros who were telling you to do it another way were wrong.

I repeat, I posted a picture to this very forum of a busted crank, and that was a genuine quality Lister crank, no some knock off clone of unknown quality, and it was busted by being run for some time without being bolted to a block.

All of you listeroid guys put together don't have the engine hours my single engine has, where do you get off claiming this lack of data is somehow statistically significant? it demonstrates nothing except the fact that you don't understand chance.

I flip a coin, it is a normal coin, 50/50 chance of heads or tails

I can flip ten heads in a row and ask you to bet one the next show, even those who say they know it can still be 50/50 will want to bet on tails.

I listed three books, go and read at least one of them, you will learn so much, and some of it will even be about fatigue as it applies to your listeroids.

RUSSIAN ROULETTE

(not to be confused with irish roulette, whicb uses a semi automatic)

6 shot revolver, one bullet, two ways of playing, one is spin the drum every time, the other is spin it once only to start the game.

spin every time you could in theory play a million straight turns and walk away with an undischarged gun, you have a 1 in 6 chance every time, works the same way as flipping the coin, because you are in effect re-setting the odds against you to zero every time, there is no cumulative probability.

play the spin once one way

VERY different, and difficult to calculate the odds.

IN THEORY the  first turn is still a 1 in 6 chance, in practice the very fact that the odds in this game will drop to unity after an absolute maximum of 5 turns skews the odds against you before you even start, because every turn brings the inevitable closer.

IN Theory the second turn is a 1 in 5 chance, and so on down to a 1 in 1 chance, or certainty, unless you wanna play lotto odds and pray for a misfire

in russian roulette two players take turns.

in listeroid roulette one player takes every turn, and you do not rebuild the motor to factory spec after every revolution, wear and fatigue are cumulative, same as the no spin the drum roulette game.

adding the concrete or other block changes the odd from a no spin the drum game to a spin the drum every turn game, the odds, whatever they are, never shorten no matter how long you play the game.

the listeroid is not a six shot revolver, it is potentially a millions of chambers revolver, nevertheless, not shifting the centre of mass changes the game from spin every turn and reset the odds against you to the ticking clock of spinning once and ever shortening odds.

those of you attempting to quantify this in probability terms need to EASILY be able to give the correct answer to this question.

Fact. A coin has a 1 in 2 chance of landing heads. If it lands ten heads in a row that is a 1 in 1024 chance. If it lands ten heads in a row the chance of the next turn being heads is still 1 in 2.

Fact. A six shot revolver used in spin once only russian roulette has a 1 in 6 chance of discharging the first turn, a 1 in 5 the second turn IF it did not discharge the first turn, and a 1 in 4 chance the third turn IF it did not discharge on the first two turns.

Question. Three turns with no discharge out of six possible turns = a 1 in 2 chance, how do you arrive at 1 in 2 from a 1 in 6 followed by a 1 in 5 followed by a 1 in 4.

Question. The russian roulette odds work on theory, the assumption being that the bullet is in the last or sixth chamber, it might be in the first, or third, in which case the REAL odds of a discharge will be quite different to the THEORETICAL odds of a discharge. DO the math to reconcile the fact that in real life on average every six games will result in a 1 in 1 chance, or certainty of a discharge, on the first turn.

The thing you need to wrap your head around with these probabilities is that the game ending in discharge is absolutely guaranteed if you only spin once, and when the game is over there are no more odds and no more probabilities, you just became a statistic, a fact, past tense.

The concrete block allows you to spin the chamber every turn, the odds never shorten on you, it's like the lottery again, you keep playing, and mostly it is a game where the number never come up.

[GIII]

One thing we can say about GuyF. is that he may be right or he may be wrong, BUT he can sure type a lot!  Where is this picture of the only LISTER crank ever damaged in service?  I'd like to take a look.

[xyzer]

I repeat, I posted a picture to this very forum of a busted crank, and that was a genuine quality Lister crank, not some knock off clone of unknown quality, and it was busted by being run for some time without being bolted to a block.

Guy....
1. How long was some time?
2. How balanced is a original Lister? (will they sit on a concrete floor not bolted running?...hey I don't know!)
3. How balanced was that lister? (no one knows this I'm sure)
4. Was there a defect in the crankshaft? ( another unkown)

All of the above reasons are also reasons for the failure correct..? You have to answer these questions to even attempt to convince this amature of your statements. 

 I bet if you look hard enough there are broken cranks out there that were mounted as Lister recomended.....now what? If I was running a life support system I sure as hell wouldn't be doing it with a Indian Lister!....

I think my statement.."An old engineer told me figure what you need to do the job then go to the next size up....no one will know....to small and you'll never hear the end of it!"....that pretty much falls in line with what the Otis guy said.

[Guy_Incognito]

... lots of fluff deleted....

All of you listeroid guys put together don't have the engine hours my single engine has, where do you get off claiming this lack of data is somehow statistically significant?

The lack of data is the issue. It's a completely different mount, for one, which you claim will have a completely different effect to the mount you have. So why should I use your hours and mounting system and try to somehow compare it to a resilient mount? Chalk and cheese. If you told me that there was 100K hrs of trials on twenty different types of resilient mounts and 45% of them broke a crankshaft... then I'd take more credence in your words. At the moment, you're just giving me "wooooo! Non-standard mounting baaaaaaad!" noises and much,much handwaving.

it demonstrates nothing except the fact that you don't understand chance.
.... lots of fluff about statistics and russian roulette deleted....

Please calculate the odds of a listeroid crankshaft failing in 20,000 hours on a resilient mount. Do not use your, or listers, existing mounting as a basis of expected life on a resilient mount.

Calculate the crankshaft deformation at a varying engine loads and rpms, taking into account the orbit and loads of the block, piston, conrod and flywheels on resilient mounts. Take crankshaft materials into account, add factor for variable indian quality, add in factor for variable indian balance (which, as I posted somewhere earlier, would be completely missed if bolted rigidly to a bloc-o-crete)

Can you give me a respectable, well-calculated MTBF for that setup? Well, I can't. So I look at the dozen-or-so listeroids here on this forum that have been resiliently mounted in all sorts of conditions and balances and uses, which should give a nice averaging effect to the time between crankshaft failure. So how many hours have they cumulatively done? 20K? 50K hours? How many crankshafts have broken? I've heard of one. Can anyone definitively say, "Oh, yes, this crankshaft was most definitely broken due to internal stress from not having the centre of mass outside the crank radius?".

We're in the field trial here and now. Listers have the advantage of 90 years of field experience, and practically everyone mounted them to blocks - which only shows that blocks work. It doesn't show that anything else will be a miserable failure.

[mobile_bob]

Guy: "the concrete block for an iron base such as SOM or pump base will be correspondingly more massive than a concrete block for a bare CS only. you are introducing a variable on one side of your argument and then ignoring the effects of that variable on the other."   

  no sir i am not changing the variable or introducing anything,, we have the following components of the arguement

1. an engine bolted to a concrete block (may) have its center of mass moved to a point within the concrete 
 
2. an engine bolted to a cast iron base such as the SOM will not be as effective as example #1

 i am not ignoring the effects, just trying to understand them,,, it has taken some blind faith on my part that indeed the engineers sat down and built their engine with the concrete block as the corner stone of their design.... ok i will accept that for the moment.... but.....

 the vectors are all different when you go from engine to SOM cast iron base to concrete,,, now you are asking me to accept and swallow something i am unwilling to chew, based on your statement of "fact".
 sorry but i am going to have to see a lot more documentation to support the claim

"the base serves many purposes, most of them "engineering" eg ensuring easy mounting and alignment, the SOM has a larger footprint and therefore a correspondingly larger concrete block.... there is nothing to reconcile as you are looking at literally two different structures, not one."

of course we are looking at two different structures, the concrete blocks,,, but just because one claims the result to be the same, does not make it fact.  it is fairly easy to conceptualize and figure the vectors from engine to concrete, but quite another from engine to concrete via the som base.  my contention is there is no way that the center of mass is transferred useing the som base.

 "the stresses on the engine mounts, whether bolted to concrete, the SOM base, a pump base, or a fabricated steed base, are identical, think about it, you did not redesign the crankcase.

" WOW... i will come back to this statement,,,, seems like perhaps a slip on your part or a clever trap 

"you are doing it again. the Lister design was first class, someone dicked with it and made a twice the size engine, and that may have issues, the SOLE person to blame here is the person who dicked with the design. I really don't think you, many other people here, or people who write "many texts" understand the Lister lube system. THERE IS NO FAILURE MODE FOR SPLASH LUBE, OR FOR OIL RING LUBE. Got that, it can NEVER go wrong or stop working, as long as there is oil in the crankcase. As long as there is oil in the crankcase, there is sufficient lubrication to achieve near idefinite lifespans at full load. The KISS principle taken to the extreme. Do you not get this, Lister were quite aware of other methods of lubrication, but NOTHING even comes close to the simplicity and resilience of splash and oil ring, if the motor is turning and it has oil, then splash and oil ring will lube everything, there is literally nothing to go wrong and nothing to service or wear out, EVER. The problem IS NOT higher power densities, the problem is some doofus simply making everything bigger and assuming it will work as well in a 25/2 as it did in a 12/2, that is a basic, simple and fundamental engineering mistake. That is not listers fault, or a design flaw.""

 first of all i have no doubt that the overall design of the lister is quite good, machining top notch, metals .. virgin... etc.. but...just because something is adequate does not make it of superior design (again i am only in reference to big end oiling) and your points are very valid that it is not listers fault how others have bastardized their design without reguard to consequences.

"what is this fixation / mind block about the SOM base?"

vectors!!!   that is the fascination/fixation/problem with your arguement simply put the som base works against the arguement that using vectors to support the transfer of the center of mass.vectors work to support the arguement that the center of mass is transfered directly thru an engine base into the concrete block what fascinates me, is how these vectors forces can be used to transfer the center of mass to the concrete via the som base, you have a much more, vastly more complex vector problem to prove out in support of moving the center of mass.
basically in either arrangement the vectors lines pass thru the engine mounting pad/bolts then...into the concrete on the discrete unit, and ... with the som style mountthru engine mounting pad/bolts then ....these vectors go where?  out at approx 90 degree's plus the draft angle of the crankcase, to the flange of the som base i find it unlikely as hell that the lister engineers spent the resources to sort out those vectors,

 so i am left with the following it is an assertion on listers part that they the claim that moving the center of mass was no more than a coverup or marketing ploy, designed to make things work, when it was determined that there engine was not rigid enough to work without it.

i have to go on a service call i will continue with your statement later tonight

""the stresses on the engine mounts, whether bolted to concrete, the SOM base, a pump base, or a fabricated steed base, are identical, think about it, you did not redesign the crankcase."

i would like to explore this statement, based on the assumption that lister based their original design on the use of the concrete block.

later

bob g

[mobile_bob]

Guy:
to continue the arguement

""the stresses on the engine mounts, whether bolted to concrete, the SOM base, a pump base, or a fabricated steed base, are identical, think about it, you did not redesign the crankcase."

i have thought about this statement all day,, and would like to comment.

 if as you say "bolting the engine to a block of concrete moves the center of mass" then yes you have indeed redesigned the crankcase. if as you say the concrete was a intregal part of the original design then it is indeed part of the crankcase
just as bolting it to a SOM base become part of the crankcase.

bolting it to a steel base becomes part of the crankcase, just as bolting it to a pump base etc.

this is precisely where the flaw in your arguement lies, anything bolted directly to the crankcase becomes part of the crankcase. so...

there is radically different forces, vectors, torques, moments, thumps, or whatever you want to call it when using different bases, so this is precisely why the engineers could not have began their design based on the use of a concrete block. further...

if the stresses on the mounts are identical whether one uses concrete, steel, or SOM, then the stesses where they originate are still the same, presumably from your arguement the crankshaft. because no other stresses are introduced back from the concrete, steel or som base (provided they don't reintroduce feedback harmonics).

concrete is unable to simply absorb these stresses, it is dead. it does not absorb,, it returns whatever is sent to it,  or alternatively if you like, it does absorb,,, and therefore is nothing more than a extremely high density ( but not very resilient) mount.

this is my theory of what happened at lister,,, and i figure it is just a viable  as your assertion that they engineered the engine based on a block of concrete (at least until someone can come up with documentation of them actually designing the engine on the block of concrete to begin with, and not after they had an engine built)

they built their engine, and it was good, perhaps even great..

then they found that it costs alot to finely finish these engine's complete with excellent balance,, the cost was too high.
someone decided to see where they could cut corners, and powers that be looked at where they could economize.
they did not want to cut back on quality of material, fit and finish,,, but they decided to scrimp a bit on the balance.
with the idea that all would be well if attached to a block of concrete,, hell folks had to bolt it down anyway right?

so now then how do you sell this engine with the idea that it has to be installed on a block of concrete?  just like they do it
today, take a negative and turn it into a positive... it is all in marketing and customer perception.

tell em the concrete was engineered to be an intregal part of the engine... the consumer would look at that and think to himself,, seems reasonable,,, boy those guys are really sharp engineers...

and oh wow,,, they are even going to send out an engineer to oversee the installation!  they must really make a superior product!

the reality is the engines are great,, they run forever,, mounted to the concrete block...

but this in no way proves or disproves whether or not a well balanced engine, mounted on resilient mounts would experience a higher rate of crankshaft failures.

if you want to sight facts,,, the fact is there are no reports of broken crankshafts that are attributed to not mounting them to a concrete block,, one anecdotal example does not support your arguement.

tag

bob g

[Doug]

I just thought I would post a few of my thoughts on the subject....

Then I realized I don't care.
And I'm fed up with the tone of this post.
And I deeply respect both Bob and Guy for being more clever than me on the physics of shaking the crap out of things.
But I just don't care, and rather than argue about the benifits of mass dampening vibration and center of mass crap VS internal vibration cancelation and isolation why can't facts and options be posted along with how too and let the user decide what he wants to try.

Honestly No one wants to reads debates that don't come to a resolution we wants facts and answeres.

DOUG

[Guy_Incognito]

I just thought I would post a few of my thoughts on the subject....

Then I realized I don't care.
And I'm fed up with the tone of this post.
.........
Honestly No one wants to reads debates that don't come to a resolution we wants facts and answeres.

DOUG

*cough*

http://listerengine.com/smf/index.php?topic=1097.0

We're (well - I am  ) working on the facts and answers for resilient mounts there. Everyone seems to have agreed upon what's required for solid mounting. I think this thread's more for the introspective, meaning-of-it-all, navel-gazing discussion about the how's and why's of engineering theory past and present. Or perhaps it's just a place for opposing views to clash in a controlled environment  .

[Doug]

Good on you then.

Show me the light.

Doug

[mobile_bob]

to all concerned or not concerned whichever side you are on:

my participation in this ongoing thread was more of an excersize in theory, and not so much a "to do" or "not to do" for the DIY'er.

i know this thread may have become quite tedious for some, and believe me it was one hell of a lot of work for me to continue the arguement in support of resilient mounts.

the debate stopped a few days ago, because of some off forum communication i received from someone i have alot of respect for (he will remain unnamed by me at this time).

suffice it to say we came to a resolution on the topic in general that both can agree to and also he brough up a very salient point that perhaps has more bearing on the discussion or provides an overriding support for the use of concrete as a foundation,,, that being safety.

i have to agree and stand shoulder to shoulder with him when it comes to concerns of safety.

before i alienate anyone here or piss anyone off, let me start off saying i too am human and have taken risk's that i should not have in my life, so far without serious consequence.

aside from the issue of concrete mount vs resilient mount, i have to agree that mounting to concrete is always the preferred method when it comes to overall safety. Quite frankly rigid mounting to a ton of concrete is hard to argue against as being far safer than any other mounting method.

Sadly there will be those of us that will turn a blind eye in haste and throw together some form of mount without due attention to the consequences of not doing it right, usually when something bad happens someone gets hurt.
i know because in my younger years i too took short cuts and have the scar's to prove it, just as many of you have the same. the problem is one of experience, rather in some cases lack thereof.

it is very easy for someone that has never worked around machinery, to severly underestimate how dangerous mechanical stuff can be.

when you couple this with a beginners basic misunderstanding of horse power, then the problem can really take off.

for instance, a child can use a shop vac with a peak hp of 6hp, no one worries about the kid getting hurt, no one worries about useing a 6 hp lawn mower either,,, so when you think of 6 hp some folks don't see it as much of a threat, until ...

you consider a hp lister with 300 lbs of flywheel has the equivalent of perhaps 300hp available for a second or two, which is an eternity when things go wrong.

it is so easy to become enamored by opening a crate, and if you don't have the experience of being around machinery before, being lulled into complacency and thinking it is only 6 hp.

the concern brought forward by the other party, is very valid, you all know that there is a risk of someone that will underestimate the forces involved and throw together some form of mount that may fail and get either him or a loved one hurt of killed.

you know he is right to bring this point forward, i believe it and so should everyone here.

again my participation in the arguement for the use of resilient mounts was theory, and i no way should steer anyone in the direction of using that sort of mounting unless he is willing to do it right, and accept the risk's envolved in doing so.

i have clearly outlined what i feel is a minimum in the construction of a steel frame for the use of resilient mounts, should you choose to do something less the risk is all on you, also

i would suggest you seek professional advice before constructing any sort of engine mount, and unless you have the capability of constructing the subframe yourself with quality welds and using quality components you should also have someone build it that knows
how to build it right.

i would also like to thank Guy for the vigorous debate, hopefully others might have learned a bit from it too.

i know i did

bob g

[Doug]

I just thought I would post a few of my thoughts on the subject....

Then I realized I don't care.
And I'm fed up with the tone of this post.
And I deeply respect both Bob and Guy for being more clever than me on the physics of shaking the crap out of things.
But I just don't care, and rather than argue about the benifits of mass dampening vibration and center of mass crap VS internal vibration cancelation and isolation why can't facts and options be posted along with how too and let the user decide what he wants to try.

Honestly No one wants to reads debates that don't come to a resolution we wants facts and answeres.

DOUG

Maybe I was too blunt with this comment. Sorry guys.

I recieved an email today from someone out west of guy who did something the wrong way instead if using the proper tools and recomended methods. Lots of people have there own ways of doing things and find it easy to justify what they did and why its faster easier of better than the accepted norm.

Never crimp a blasting cap with your teeth....
Bolt a Roid to a block of concrete rather than let it dance....

Doug

[rcavictim]

the debate stopped a few days ago, because of some off forum communication i received from someone i have alot of respect for (he will remain unnamed by me at this time).

Wasn`t Doug or Dinsdale Piranna was it?  I`ll fully understand if you don`t want to say being that there seems to have been a run on soft cushions and comfy pillows at Wallmart recently.   

[listeroil]

I got my first 2.5KW Lister startomatic 5 years ago and had no documentation or experiance of these bits of kit.
I got the set home checked the engine oil connected up 2 batteries and fired it up. It ran for a good 6 hours then I switched it off. Next morning I tried to remotely start it and it just made a loud squeeling noise the engine was siezed solid. What had happened was that the oil pump plunger had been pushed down and stayed down and didnt pump any oil around the engine for 6 hours  the trough below the crankshaft ran out of oil because it wasnt geting refilled from the main bearings and the crankshaft was siezed to the main bearings. I couldnt get the engine dismantled and the price of just 2 main bearings and 1 bigend bearing was 250GBP let alone any work that might need doing to the crank.
 
There was a 4.5KW startomatic advertised in the local paper for 350GBP so I went and looked at it Included in the deal I got was a spare engine this engine had got a broken crank and had still been running when the guy switched the set off but was making a funny noise. This engine was bolted to a concrete plinth and the crank broke.

I ran the 4.5KW for 8 to 12 hours a day for 4 years every day and never bolted it down to anything it never moved at all just stayed where it was and never broke its crank

I am rebuilding 2 4.5KW startomatics at the moment for my own use with Indian spares and I for one am delighted with the quality and price of the indian spares time will tell but they certainly look good. These engines will be bolted to concrete blocks.

Anyway 2 points to make
The genuine lister oil system is not failsafe.
Lister crankshafts break whether bolted to a concrete block or not.

Mick

[GuyFawkes]

I got my first 2.5KW Lister startomatic 5 years ago and had no documentation or experiance of these bits of kit.
I got the set home checked the engine oil connected up 2 batteries and fired it up. It ran for a good 6 hours then I switched it off. Next morning I tried to remotely start it and it just made a loud squeeling noise the engine was siezed solid. What had happened was that the oil pump plunger had been pushed down and stayed down and didnt pump any oil around the engine for 6 hours  the trough below the crankshaft ran out of oil because it wasnt geting refilled from the main bearings and the crankshaft was siezed to the main bearings. I couldnt get the engine dismantled and the price of just 2 main bearings and 1 bigend bearing was 250GBP let alone any work that might need doing to the crank.
 
There was a 4.5KW startomatic advertised in the local paper for 350GBP so I went and looked at it Included in the deal I got was a spare engine this engine had got a broken crank and had still been running when the guy switched the set off but was making a funny noise. This engine was bolted to a concrete plinth and the crank broke.

I ran the 4.5KW for 8 to 12 hours a day for 4 years every day and never bolted it down to anything it never moved at all just stayed where it was and never broke its crank

I am rebuilding 2 4.5KW startomatics at the moment for my own use with Indian spares and I for one am delighted with the quality and price of the indian spares time will tell but they certainly look good. These engines will be bolted to concrete blocks.

Anyway 2 points to make
The genuine lister oil system is not failsafe.
Lister crankshafts break whether bolted to a concrete block or not.

Mick

So let me get this straight.

You bought one start-o-matic, took it home, did fuck all of even the most rudimentary checks, ran it 6 hours with no oil pump and it only siezed on cooling after shutdown.

Then you bought another one and the vendor threw in a spare engine that he said ran after the crank broke, and it was bolted to a concrete plinth, as though this is supposed to stop cranks breaking even under negligent operation.

And from this nightmare of machanical abuse and neglect you deduce that the Lister oil system isn't failsafe and even a concrete base won't stop a crank breaking.

Personally I deduce that, though it ain't needed because there is no shortage, it is yet more evidence that you can't make anything idiot proof.

Please post the serial numbers of the two start-o-matics so we can all avoid them like the plague when they come on the market.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A sincere warning to all, now world + dog has realised Listers are worth a bunch of moolah, I'm starting to see some right shit being sold, and I mean run away screaming stuff.

If they were classic bikes or classic cars they would be called "basket cases".

Caveat emptor.

Incidentally this is where british bikes got the reputation for being shite, at one time you could buy honest, used, tired old jampot nortons for a tenner, then they started to get worth money and all of a sudden real heaps of shit were being sold for several hundreds of pounds.... I expect there are parallel scenarios in all markets, guns etc.

There is a lot more I could say but I won't because it involves persons on here and I don't want to make anything personal out of this, suffice to say I know people who will sell cars that I would ask a tenner for as scrap for a few spares but they will sell as runners for lots of money.

Time I quit these forums for a while again, doesn't do me any good to see whats going on and get hot under the collar, and doesn't do anyone else any good to watch me vent spleen.

[binnie]

Guy,
You are living in the land of Lister...and most of us on this site are remote & far from contact with original "Lister" hardware. What you have to offer us on this forum  is both valuable & first hand information from observation & as a passionate owner of an SOM Lister original  yourself, it is both trustworthy & knowlegeable ... We are all just guessing on this side of the pond with only the Listeroid copy to compare.
It would be a pitty to have you leave us. We do value your input and there is nothing like info from someone who has been there, done that.
I know another side of you, since I have commissioned you personnaly for my own purchases in the UK, and I am more than pleased by what I have recieved from you in return. The communications were great, the final evauation, with suggestions & concerns were both astute, unbiased, realistic and honest. I could not have asked for more. The pictures....supurbe down to the last detail. Thank you and please stay with us. The game is not over yet! It is just beginning. binnie