Abby’s Guide > Outdoor Power Equipment (Lawn Mowers, Snow Blowers, Chain Saws and more) > Discussions > A rookie looking for advice on the big ones
Outdoor Power Equipment (Lawn Mowers, Snow Blowers, Chain Saws and more) Discussions |
|
djbutz
Joined: Jan 24, 2009
Points: 2
|
|
A rookie looking for advice on the big ones
Original Message Jan 24, 2009 1:51 am |
|
I've just stumbled on to this web site and think it's great! I'm totally new to the snowblower world, but would like to jump into it. I have a 650cc four wheeler that I put a plow on that does an awesome job on my 32 ft x 45 ft driveway and 250 ft of sidewalk, because I have room to push it all, but now have been offered a side job clearing 24 drives in a condo complex, which are all sloped, and the plow isn't going to work well there because lack of places to push the snow. The guy who has done it for the past few years has a front mounted blower on a walker riding mower. I've doing some research and thought I was set on a Ariens 1336, but after reading some of the things people have had to say about them I'm back to square one. I'm hopeing that you guys can give me some insite as to what would be a good purchace to get the job done in a timely fashion. I usually keep any thing I buy forever, so I kind of believe in " you get what you pay for ", but since I'm new to the snowblower world I'm not sure if that still applies Thanks for Your time and Knowledge- Dan
|
nibbler
Joined: Mar 5, 2004
Points: 751
|
|
Calculations
Reply #3 Jan 24, 2009 9:24 am |
|
To calculate blower time: - Take the swath width of the blower;
- Subtract 2"-3" for overlap
- Divide each driveway width by the number from 2, rounding up to next even number;
- Multiply this number by the length of the driveway;
- Figure out your average speed while blowing;
- Divide the total length by the speed;
- Add 10%-20% for turning;
- Either multiply by the number of driveways or repeat for each driveway.
I.E. Swath is 28", driveway is 108" wide and 50' long 108 /( 28-2) = 108 / 26 = 6 ( round up) 50 * 12 * 6 = 3600 feet 3600 / (2.5MPH x 5280) = 3600 / 13200 = .28 Hours = .27 *60 = .16.2 minutes 16.2 + 20% = 16.2 + 3.2 = 19.4 minute So it takes about 19 minutes to do the driveway. Note I just used 2.5 MPH as an example. From this you can figure out how long to do the entire job and therefore whether you have a viable solution. don't forget to factor in fuel, maintenance and wear on the blower. You could also consider a mixed solution. Use the plow to collect the snow and then use a blower to put it somewhere else.
|
djbutz
Joined: Jan 24, 2009
Points: 2
|
|
Re: A rookie looking for advice on the big ones
Reply #4 Jan 25, 2009 12:32 am |
|
Thanks for the info, I'll have to look at some of the rider models, and do some calculations on the size of the drives, I have to admit I've never of a calcuation to figure out snow blowing but I'll give it a try, I did see that there is some used riders that are pretty close in price, and they come with other attachments. Do they throw the snow just as well, and how about the clean up, do they leave much behind? If anyone else has anything good to say about a 2004 or newer ariens 1336 I'd be interested to hear about it, or any comparable machines. Thanks again for the info and advise. And for krislu, the drive ways are two car wide, barely, and a plow truck would fill it up lenght wise. They are all kinda steep drives, all the condos are built on a hill with a culdesac at the bottom.
|
awl51
Joined: Jan 25, 2009
Points: 1
|
|
Re: A rookie looking for advice on the big ones
Reply #5 Jan 25, 2009 6:17 am |
|
I also would think about a mixed solution.
Sounds to me like there are 3 critical constraints for any equipment to contend with in this particular situation: grade, turning radius, and where to relocate the snow. You'll want to be doing productive work on every pass, and have something that has traction and is still doing work as you do the "up" pass on each drive. Because the areas are narrow as well as steep, a tight turning radius will minimize unproductive time spent jockeying the equipment around. And for snow relocation....well, it sounds like a blower has to be involved there somewhere. Given the building density, just pushing the snow around appears not possible; however, a plow is still typically far faster than a blower.
The previous contractor's setup sounds very effective, but those things seem a bit spendy. If startup $$$ are a little tight, you might want to consider keeping the ATV rig and use it in combo with a robust blower.
One strategy: Use the ATV plow to make a couple quick passes on each drive to windrow the snow; not to 'pile' it, but to windrow the snow cover to your blower's maximum depth - what you want at the end is a set of large clear plowed areas combined with a small set of snow rows that are just below your blower capacity. Then blow the suckers. In a light /medium snow, you will bless your ATV, because you may end up with only 1 or 2 windows per drive to blow (as compared to going over the whole thing).
I'd for sure get a remote angling kit for the ATV plow if you don't already have one. And if you want really happy customers whose steep, slippery drives are squeegee-clean after each storm, check out a down force kit for the plow as well.
Good luck.
|
Snowmann
Joined: Dec 3, 2003
Points: 494
|
|
Re: A rookie looking for advice on the big ones
Reply #9 Jan 27, 2009 10:35 pm |
|
Now, other people on this board have the same machine with the same parts and claim nothing but good things.
Let's clarify a bit. Your machine is at least 5 years old. It is the 924,XXX variety which ended production in 2004. This particular platform was in production for decades. When it's inferred "they don't make them like they used to", the fact is that your machine for the most part -is- made like they used to. It shares no common parts with jdmcsnow's machine. The differences are significant. As you have no experience with a new Ariens 1336, perhaps your advice to others should say "don't buy a 5 year old Ariens 1336". Even then, this would be perplexing to some as relevant threads on forums such as this largely speak to the fact that the old models (of which your unit is a member) are "tanks". While I think the older platform is a fine machine when properly set up, maintained, and operated to a practical duty cycle, there is definitely an arguable case to indicate the newer platform is superior to the former. Dual belt auger drive (few or no adjustments needed, ever), higher volumetric capacity, far stronger gearboxes w/faster ratios, increased throwing distances, fully automatic differential, stronger shear bolts, beefier frame, stronger axles, better final drive ratio (more wheel torque/slower speeds), easier to service, halogen lighting, freeze resistant impellers, and the list goes on... I don't see a thread anywhere about how "cheaply" the old units were made because they had one auger belt, manual differential locks, no subframe, incandescent lighting, etc... Not sure I can sign up to the philosophy that everything made now is junk. The idea is to put the right amount of money in the right places to make them last longer, perform better, assemble faster and be more manufacturable (when it snows do you want your snowblower or service parts now or in 6-8 weeks?), service easier, etc... To use an analogy, most cars now last twice as long (or longer) than they did in the "good old days" and there are now laymen cars that corner, stop, and accelerate better than "hot" cars of old. The 2010 base Camaro (V6) has 300+ hp and the 1967 base Camaro (I6) had 140hp. The cheap base Camaro is in the league of "hot" cars of the past, not the base cars. You do the math, and I don't think I need to say which is better in all facets (except nostalgia). Top end muscle cars (even Subarus) are putting down high 4 second 0-60 passes now. Mid 6's in yester-year at best. Metaphorically, Muncie Rockcrushers and dual quads are gone, but I'm not sure I would call current cars crap. PK
This message was modified Jan 27, 2009 by Snowmann
|
aa335
Joined: Nov 29, 2008
Points: 2434
|
|
Re: A rookie looking for advice on the big ones
Reply #10 Jan 27, 2009 11:12 pm |
|
While I think the older platform is a fine machine when properly set up, maintained, and operated to a practical duty cycle, there is definitely an arguable case to indicate the newer platform is superior to the former. Dual belt auger drive (few or no adjustments needed, ever), higher volumetric capacity, far stronger gearboxes w/faster ratios, increased throwing distances, fully automatic differential, stronger shear bolts, beefier frame, stronger axles, better final drive ratio (more wheel torque/slower speeds), easier to service, halogen lighting, freeze resistant impellers, and the list goes on... I don't see a thread anywhere about how "cheaply" the old units were made because they had one auger belt, manual differential locks, no subframe, incandescent lighting, etc... Not sure I can sign up to the philosophy that everything made now is junk.
The idea is to put the right amount of money in the right places to make them last longer, perform better, assemble faster (when it snows do you want your snowblower or service parts now or in 6-8 weeks?), service easier, etc... To use an analogy, most cars now last twice as long (or longer) than they did in the "good old days" and there are now laymen cars that corner, stop, and accelerate better than "hot" cars of old. The 2010 base Camaro (V6) has 300+ hp and the 1967 base Camaro (I6) had 140hp. The cheap base Camaro is in the league of "hot" cars of the past, not the base cars. You do the math, and I don't think I need to say which is better in all facets (except nostalgia). Top end muscle cars (even Subarus) are putting down high 4 second 0-60 passes now. Mid 6's in yester-year at best. Metaphorically Muncie Rockcrushers and dual quads are gone, but I'm not sure I would call current cars crap.
PK Nicely put. I'm glad "they don't make them like they used to." I used to subscribe to the "knuckle test" as a measure of quality. If I rap on the body panel and it feels tinny, it is a cheap car. Well, I bought one of those cheap car, a 1998 Honda Accord that felt tinny when I rap it. Well, that tinny sound has no direct correlation on how well the car held up. After 10 years in salt and snow country, the car did not have any rust spots on the paint. The car was still tight and rattle free. I had to get rid of it at 250,000 miles. Nothing was wrong with it. I just got bored of it and I wanted something new with more get go and more electronics like Bluetooth, heated bun warmers, rain sensing wipers, navigation, ect...
This message was modified Jan 27, 2009 by aa335
|
|
|