From the Rolls-Royce experimental archive: a quarter of a million communications from Rolls-Royce, 1906 to 1960's. Documents from the Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation (SHRMF).
Comparison of starter motor engagement systems, including Westinghouse, Bijur, and Bendix types.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 40\5\ Scan106 | |
| Date | 19th December 1922 | |
| Oyl-W-121922 -5- backfires). It seems as though this might destroy it in time, though actually the starting system on the Buick never appears to give any trouble. I understand that the peak current is higher with this system than with the "inertia-shifts" (Bijur or Bendix), because everything has to be started at once. Though this instantaneous peak load never seems to do any harm to the battery. To get away from back-fire shock, Westinghouse use a multi-plate friction clutch with a spiral spring in a cylindrical box (similar in appearance to the Bijur pinion spring and casing) to drive the pinion (see enclosed print). This slips at about four times the normal torque and prevents backfire damaging the pinion, shaft or free wheel. We have had this system now on 102-CE for 800 starts and 6500 miles, with satisfactory results. There is no damage to the flywheel teeth with this system. It is, however, more difficult and complicated to link up with the operating means than is the Bijur shift, and the operating mechanism has to be strong enough to take full foot pressure (say, 150 lbs.). Its chief disadvantage, however, is that with a 14 to 1 ratio, such as we have, the speed of the pinion when the engine starts, is so great as to cause a regular screaming noise. We think this puts it out of the running for our use, as the present starter always excites comment for its marvellous silence. Note: We have found that with a feeble battery, the Bijur pinion will sometimes butt and fail to engage. This is particularly true if the ends of the flywheel teeth are already damaged. Releasing the starter button, however, will generally release the pinion. Oy. | ||