Heyyyy, Did you steal my manual? Lols. Thankyou kind sir.
And FYI that is actually a model 2 engine. But correct in the fact that its the first Victa stamped engine.
The model one has no makers mark and is not listed in the manual.
There is a discrepency I wanted to confirm , but unfortunately its not listed in this Diagram.
Known Common differences are barrel carb head crank and crankcase style as well as a few other minor differences. My issue is, The use of support washers under the stator plate for model 1, Barrel length, Conrod lenth.
These are different specs for the Roto model 1 and I want to add the specifics to my archives, as well as amend the differences correctly on my rebuilds as ive a few More model 1's to rebuild.
This has long bugged me. My best guess is that the Green Manuals are authoritative in that they provide replacement parts for the varied parts that made up early machines.
It may be that early manufacturing and assembly practices were ad-hoc and not documented - or at least, not considered important in Victa Parts Manuals.
It may be that we can only record noted difference by experts like yourself. Those early days of Victa would have been exciting, but things were done on the run.
As we develop the History Forum we will need to rely on your expertise in having extended experience with early rotos.
The Model one has a diagram and a V code...But effectively its a prototype used in production, and was only intended to quickly fill a gap until the first Victa engine was released. So as you say "it was done on the run". All the failures they found were also amended by early Roto 2. Barrel head carby axles and QUALITY.
Head was to thick affecting cooling, barrel and crank cases were very poor, ports were partially blocked, brass nut expanded with heat and loosened. Front axles bent easily and rear axle had no lateral support causing excessive wear. The model 1 in my opinion was effectively just the "Break in Model"
The Time to pump out 8000 model ones would have been over in the blink of an eye and with the knowledge of the new Victa engine there would have been no time nor need to produce a seperate breakdown or parts list as, A the majority of parts are interchangble and B, They had no name on the Engine. All amendments are in the First Victa Manuals.
So time and cost played a major part.
Many people for years said it was a Hurricane engine....Rubbish. It was a prototype made for/by Victa and put into service to assess its reliablity. Another reason not to have a name....In case it failed!
