Name That Flywheel (and magneto coil)

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration
Model T Ford Forum: Forum 2012: Name That Flywheel (and magneto coil)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Charles W. Little South Paris, Maine on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 09:40 am:

I am having the engine redone on my 1913. I need to redo the transmission. The flywheel/magneto assembly that was in it is pictured here:
pic 1

I have Gail Rodda's books and a chart that Ron Patterson recently put up on the forum. From these I believe that this is a 1917/18 flywheel (3/4" magnets).

The magneto coil that was with it is pictured here:
pic6

I believe this is a 1919+, it has a starter notch.

I also have an earlier double stacked ring (1915/17):

pic3

Have I identified these correctly?
Am I correct that the double stack would not work with the flywheel because there would be insufficient clearance?
Is there any advantage/disadvantage with the double vs the single stack?
Any advice?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Charles W. Little South Paris, Maine on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 10:35 am:

A couple more pictures:
The magnets on the flywheel:
fly1

and, is this a casting date?
fly2


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ted Dumas on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 10:44 am:

Since much is not original, have you considered changing the flywheel and adding a ring gear so you could more easily add an electric starter in the future?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jerome Hoffman, Hays KS on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 10:51 am:

I once owned a Sept 1913 engine, it as in your last pic had a dated trans main shaft. It was only two days diff from the casting date on the block.
Not sure about the mix match of mag parts, but the only way anyone will see the wrong year parts is to take the hogs head off. IMHO if you're building up a car to drive and make a strong original coil system later parts that match is what I would do, plus they are more common(cheap too.)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By James A. Golden on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 11:03 am:

Charles, I posed a similar question last month about a Hand Crank Coil Tester that I am restoring. It came with a later notched coil ring and a flywheel with a ring gear. I wanted to use a 1913 flywheel with 5/8th inch magnets and no ring gear to catch on clothing, etc.

My question was, "should I use the 3/4th inch magnets on that early flywheel?"

The answer was NO.

When I assembled the unit, I could easily see that it would not work well with a .250 inch gap.

Gap


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Randy Driscoll on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 11:30 am:

Other than the modification done in 1919 for the ring gear, all flywheels have the same dimensions from 1913 to 1927. Flywheels with 5/8" magnets are interchangeable with the ones with 3/4" magnets. The earlier flywheels that used 1/2" or 9/16" magnets are considerably different than the later ones.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By R.V. Anderson on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 11:37 am:

Charles, in my '14, which uses almost exactly the same pan as your '13, I have installed a ring gear flywheel, 3/4" magnets, and a later single stack mag field coil with notch in case I (perish the thought) or a later owner should wish to install a starter. It works just fine; plenty of clearance and the mag puts out 17.5 volts at fast idle, way over 30 at speed.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Randy Driscoll on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 11:58 am:

I might as well add another 2 cents. As Ford went from 1/2" to 9/16" to 5/8" to 3/4" magnets, the distance from block to flywheel remained the same. With each successive change in magnet thickness, the coil ring was made thinner. The 3/4" magnets came out in 1915 along with the oval pole mag ring and that was the last dimensional change.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Charles W. Little South Paris, Maine on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 01:43 pm:

Here's the evolution chart that Ron posted recently

.chart

The way I interpret this is that 3/4" magnets appeared in 1915, and from 1915 to 1918 they were used with double stacked coil rings. Is that right? If it is, then my flywheel should work with my double stacked coil ring. Correct?
Were the double stack ones round until 1915 and oval from 1915 until the single stack came out?

I have considered the later toothed flywheel idea, but am leaning towards using "parts on hand"


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By R.V. Anderson on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 03:26 pm:

"The way I interpret this is that 3/4" magnets appeared in 1915, and from 1915 to 1918 they were used with double stacked coil rings. Is that right?"

Almost. The 3/4" magnets appeared with the double oval field coil in September 1914.

"If it is, then my flywheel should work with my double stacked coil ring. Correct?"

YES.

"Were the double stack ones round until 1915 and oval from 1915 until the single stack came out?"

They were round until Sept. 1914, then oval up to 1918. The double-oval frames went through 3 different configurations, but will all interchange.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Charles W. Little South Paris, Maine on Sunday, April 22, 2012 - 12:38 am:

Thanks!
Now, is there any advantage, or disadvantage, in using the oval double vs. the oval single stack coil rings? I have both and I'm going to have one or the other rewound, so which is better?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Randy Driscoll on Sunday, April 22, 2012 - 10:49 am:

Randall, what are the differences between the 3 configurations of the double-oval frames? Is it all in the reinforcing rib?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By R.V. Anderson on Sunday, April 22, 2012 - 03:03 pm:

Or lack thereof: the first ones had no ribs at all. The inner circumferential section looked just like the double round field coils--very flat. Then Ford used a large rib as a reinforcement that looked very similar to a pair of parentheses: ( )

After that, the third configuration looked exactly the same as the early single stacks on the inside edge along the top.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Charles W. Little South Paris, Maine on Sunday, April 22, 2012 - 05:35 pm:

Is this the third configuration?
ring


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Wayne Sheldon, Grass Valley, CA on Monday, April 23, 2012 - 02:10 am:

Charles,
It looks like a good time to rebuild that transmission. I see a broken thimble under some magnets.
Have fun, and good luck!
Drive carefully, and enjoy, W2


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.
Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration