Forums

All Ob A Sudden, Starter Motors Is So Small & Light You Can Carry 'em Home In A Filmy Shoppin Bag

Started by Bret Cahill September 9, 2019
Summin didn't look right.  The replacement starter motor was 2/3rds the dia of the original, mebbe haf the wait.

I tink, WTF?  Weren't all them optimum nummers well settled back in the early Nicolacene?

I toght, heck, no need to strap it onto the bike rack.  I'll just stick hit into a shoppin bag.

Affer an easy installation, the thang _akutually werked._!

Affer about 2 days a theory hemorrhaged:

Rare earf magnets is so cheap now they look good on any motor's cost spread sheet.

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 19:10:28 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<bretcahill@aol.com> wrote:

>Summin didn't look right. The replacement starter motor was 2/3rds the dia of the original, mebbe haf the wait. > >I tink, WTF? Weren't all them optimum nummers well settled back in the early Nicolacene? > >I toght, heck, no need to strap it onto the bike rack. I'll just stick hit into a shoppin bag. > >Affer an easy installation, the thang _akutually werked._! > >Affer about 2 days a theory hemorrhaged: > >Rare earf magnets is so cheap now they look good on any motor's cost spread sheet.
Or copper is so expensive.
> >Summin didn't look right. The replacement starter motor was 2/3rds the dia of the original, mebbe haf the wait. > > > >I tink, WTF? Weren't all them optimum nummers well settled back in the early Nicolacene? > > > >I toght, heck, no need to strap it onto the bike rack. I'll just stick hit into a shoppin bag. > > > >Affer an easy installation, the thang _akutually werked._! > > > >Affer about 2 days a theory hemorrhaged: > > > >Rare earf magnets is so cheap now they look good on any motor's cost spread sheet. > > Or copper is so expensive.
Or some combination thereof. The new motor was more expensive than the old by the usual inflation rate. This is the sort of thing that makes you optimistic about CAGW.
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 20:04:16 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<bretcahill@aol.com> wrote:

>> >Summin didn't look right. The replacement starter motor was 2/3rds the dia of the original, mebbe haf the wait. >> > >> >I tink, WTF? Weren't all them optimum nummers well settled back in the early Nicolacene? >> > >> >I toght, heck, no need to strap it onto the bike rack. I'll just stick hit into a shoppin bag. >> > >> >Affer an easy installation, the thang _akutually werked._! >> > >> >Affer about 2 days a theory hemorrhaged: >> > >> >Rare earf magnets is so cheap now they look good on any motor's cost spread sheet. >> >> Or copper is so expensive. > >Or some combination thereof. > >The new motor was more expensive than the old by the usual inflation rate. > >This is the sort of thing that makes you optimistic about CAGW.
Gear reduction starters are another way to make the starters much smaller, (if you had one of those you'd probably notice that the motor is offset to the pinion gear - not in line with it) It costs more for the gears, but the motor is smaller and there's a lot less load on the electrical system so the wire to the starter can be smaller, or the battery located further from the heat of the engine, the battery can be smaller... https://www.elreg.com/blog/direct-drive-vs-gear-reduction-starters/
>Summin didn't look right.
It takes less torque to start more modern cars, mainly because of the camshaft. Because of more valve overlap the effective compression ratio at idle and below is less than the theoretical. It is not for pollution as some may think, it increases the volumetric efficiency of the engine which helps it more easily attain the higher RPMs. I had a Buick with a V6 and I swear that thing took more juice to run than to start. The alternator quit and it stalled out but it would still crank.