Outdoor Power Equipment (Lawn Mowers, Snow Blowers, Chain Saws and more) Discussions

I never realized that by explaining how the friction wheel drive on another thread would cause such feelings of inadequacy in one poster that he felt compelled to pretend I had personally attacked him, which was never my intention.  But now that this has come to be a subject worthy of discussion, let's explore the comparison.   Most snowblowers of the two stage variety use the very simple, easy to understand friction wheel drive to propel them.  Here then is the system explained so we all can begin with a clean slate. 

  The snowblower engine drive shaft will have a pully on it to drive a Vee belt that is attached at the other end to a 'Drive Plate'.  So long as the engine is running, the plate is spinning thanks to that belt.   The wheels or tracks of the snowblower are connected to the drive system through a rubber faced friction wheel that rides at right angle to that 'Drive Plate', and the shaft the 'rubber faced friction wheel' rides on is one the rubber wheel can slide along from one side to the other.  That sliding motion then positions the rubber tire like friction wheel on the 'Drive Plate' depending on where you place it.  This is done with the cable running from the notched speed change lever on the operators console of the machine.  When you, the operator, squeezes the handle that engages the drive you are lifting that engine driven 'Drive Plate' into contact with the rubber faced 'Friction Wheel' and if the rubber is in good condition, and properly adjusted , it makes contact with the drive plate and the snowblower will begin to move.  How fast or whether you move forward or reverse is dependent upon that speed control that usually has something like 6 forward speed noitches, and two reverse.  That cable running to the friction wheel will allow it to ride across the drive plate at the center, for low speed, closer to the edge for high speeds, and even on the other side of the drive plate's center to make the friction wheel spin the opposite direction.  This puts the machine in reverse.  This then is what plays the role of a transmission on all 'Friction Wheel Drive' snowblowers.

The problem is that if the drive belt slips, the machine will not move.  If the rubber tire like friction wheel becomes hard and glazed, it will not properly grip the flat metal Drive plate, and you again, won't move.  In fact if the plate surface is slick from wear, or the friction wheel rubber is worn down, like when the tire on your car becomes bald it will again not properly contact the drive plate and transfer the engines power to those tracks or tires. Usually before this occurs you get a period of use when the machine requires the operator, You, to push it when it encounters greater resistance.  So it may move forward until it has to push itself into that heavy salt laden "end of the Driveway" pile, and then the friction wheels reduced 'Friction' ability causes it to spin no longer as the drive plate becomes polished from rubbing against the immobile rubber surface.  Here you have two options, first is you shove the 200 pound machine into the snow, or second, you stop, take it back into the garage where you better have the new friction wheel rubber and the tools and know how to replace the worn one that has rendered your snowblower useless.  This happens to such machines as a result of normal use, and depending upon how much wear that friction wheel suffers from the normal use of the machine.  Thus a snowblower moving light powder all the time will go much longer than the same machine used to throw, and push itself into wet heavy snow which wears the friction wheel more, and thus wears it out much faster.  If you happen to live in a climate where the snow is often wet and heavy, rather trhan light and fluffy powder, you should evalutae your ability to deal with this maintenance item.  Your owners manual will supply the repair procedure for this in most cases, as well as a parts diagram so you can order, and have on hand the necessary new rubber tire for that friction wheel.   The manufacturer supplys that information precisely because they recognize the fact that your snowblower will, at some point, require this work be done.  I personally understand all this from about ten years owning an Ariens Snowblower, followed by 15 years with an MTD built Sears Craftsman snowblower, both with the same friction wheel drive mechanism.    Where I live in southeastern New York State, wet heavy snow is the rule, light fluffy powder is the exception.  This resulted in having to change these friction wheel rubbers about every two years on average, so my next new snowblower choice eliminated the problem entirely, albeit at some considerable cost.

The alternative system employs an actual 'Transmission'.  My John Deere Lawn Tractor ( X-300R) has such a transmission, and it has been problem free for many years.  So I paid as much for a new Honda, hydrostatic Transmission Driven snowblower (HS 928 TAS) as I paid for that John Deere tractor.  The extra cost to me was worth it. 

Now I do not tell everyone to buy the same machine I did, or even to avoid the friction wheel drive system common to most other snowblowers.  I simply think that BEFORE you spend the money on that new snowblower you know what you are buying.  The manufacturers, store clerks, and even Consumer Reports magazine will NOT tell you, as I just did, the Reality of owning those simple less expensive drive systems.   By reading this you now understand : A)- How the thing works, B)- What To expect, and WHY, and C) - You now can buy based on an Informed Choice without discovering the hard way what will happen from normal use to your snowblower. 

Thankyou for that long explanation of how the disc drive system works , although I think that most of us know how they work, if we have ever owned one.

Yawwwwwwnnnnnnnn........

I suspect if you were wearing out your friction disk out every 2 years you were trying either moving too fast through the wet snow or the spring tension on the drive plate was inadequate to keep good pressure on the friction disk causing slippage.  If the snow blower is allowed to process the snow through the auger and impeller there should be little resistance due to forward motion to the drive train, thus little to no slippage between the friction disk and the drive disk resulting in virtually no wear. The main downfall of the friction disk is that it will dry out and get hard thus loosing traction, but this takes a long time to happen 8 to 10 years.  Trying to move the snow blower faster than it's ability to process the snow will result in the friction disk slipping and thus wearing out prematurely.

A new set of tires on a performance car will generally last 25,000 miles if driven easy.  If you abuse them you can kill them is less than 2,000 miles.

The weak link in the friction disk design is people think the snow blower is a snow plow.   The drive system is designed to propel the machine forward not push snow.  

Understanding how your machine works and using it properly will go a long way to it living a long and trouble free life.

I just replaced the original friction disk on a 1983 Large Frame Cub Cadet when i rebuilt it this past summer.  The friction disk showed no signs of cracking or chunking but was getting hard.   While it still pulled well enough that i could not hold back the snow blower on dry pavement, it was an inexpensive part and as i was replacing all of the bearings and bushings as well as the engine in this rebuild.

This machine had the original friction disk in it for  28 years.


While Hydrostatic transmissions are nice, for a residential snow blower in the northeast the friction disk is more than adequate of used properly.


Carl

royster wrote:
Yet many people do not and certainly very few people contemplating the purchase of their first two stage snowblower understand how they work. The manufacturers don't seem to provide any such explanations.  They seldom even tell us how much the machine weighs, or what the Horsepower or Torque the engines provide.  It is also worth knowing how they work because some brands made a friction wheel and drive plate larger, and thus more capable than others.   If you were, for example, to call the tech line at Ariens they would provide you with that data, though they do not actually post it anywhere as a specification.   I have not found that any other brands even provide the same data when asked.   When you consider that the power from the engine cannot drive the machine except through these 'Friction Discs' and their rubber tires, then the width of that tire and diameter of the tire will be useful information, just as a truck wears a larger tire size than a car to be capable of more severe use.    If you take the time to research this, you will discover the friction discs are not the same size for similar size engines.  If you were to order the replacement 'Tire' for the friction disc from two different brands of similar size snowblowers, you can prove this yourself.   You would do well to then purchase the one with the larger friction tire capable of doing heavier work, and lasting longer when tasked with the heavy work of snowblowing.  
. 

New_Yorker wrote:
My point is that if the machine is used properly there is very little stress on the entire drive system.  The drive systems only purpose it to move the machine forward or backward,  95% of the energy from the engine should be going to the task of snow removal not to the propulsion of the machine. Driving the snow blower into the snow until either the tires or the friction disk is slipping means you have not processed the snow already in the bucket and must slow down and let the machine do its job.

carlb wrote: You make the mistaken assumption that the machine must be abused or misused to have the friction disc fail.  If you regularly plow wet heavy snow, and have a steep uphill driveway, or some other factor that taxes the drive then it fails more quickly.  I had a track driven MTD machine that did this kind of work, and the tracks grip so well they never slip on the surface when the forward motion of the machine hits an impediment like heavier snow or a block of ice.  What ' SLIPS' then is this rubber Friction tire against that Drive Plate.   Each person has different conditions, and the ability to understand the mechanism and its limitations is just a part of making a wise purchase.  A friction disc that goes 28 years is certainly an exceptional case.  Most people will replace their snowblower long before it is that old.  I doubt even the manufacturers would ever suggest the whole machine they sold you would last so long, much less the rubber tire on the friction disc.   Your last statement for me, any obviously most of us who pay the far greater cost of the Honda snowblowers, would not seem to hold up.   Nice that your machine was never taxed quite as severely and was thus able to last so long, for many people that is just not realistic to assume.   

carlb wrote:

Carl,

These are your opinions, and they add to the discussion, so Thank You for them.  But you are replacing bearings and even the engine on a snowblower whose friction wheel tire hasn't worn out in 28 years, If I accept what you say.  The manufacturer supplies the procedure in the owners manual for replacing the Rubber Tire of the friction disc.  The Owners manual expects that to wear out on a regular basis, as mine did.  The owners manual DOES NOT provide instruction for replacing the engine, as you have had to do.  This suggests that your example is fairly UNIQUE.  Most snowblowers have their friction disc rubber replaced regularly, and their engines replaced very, very seldom, almost never.  This accounts for why the owners manuals contain the information they do, and it does not include engine replacement.   I accept your 'experience' then as a Rare, Highly Unusual Exception that most peoploe who buy Friction Drive snowblowers will never experience.  But thank you for the story it is indeed unusual.

As for a residential use of the snowblower, the hydrostatic Transmission driven machines simply makes it less maintenance intensive.  Any and All who doubt this fact need only investigate the many, many opinions about Honda Snowblowers over the years to discover that their owners universally rave about their performance, their longevity, and their low maintenance.  

*sigh* here we go again ... NY is right next to NJ, isn't it?

New_Yorker wrote:
We are talking about snow blowers not snow plows

Here is a picture of my 28 year old 11/26 Cub Cadet snow blower.  I suspect it will last at least another 28 years.  26" wide 22" tall bucket 11hp, 12 volt electric key start with backup pull start, on board battery, 16" augers 14" impeller 328lbs and a true posi-traction differential for effortless steering.  Since this photo electric chute controls, hand warmers and roller skids have been added

New_Yorker wrote:
All of the bushings and bearings were replaced not because they had failed, they were replaced because the entire machine was being re-built and needed to be striped down to paint.  Anyone who would not replace these parts in this instance would be a fool. The old 8hp flat head was loud and somewhat tired,  The 11hp OHV engine now on it was well worth the money and gave me a lot more power.

Carl

carlb wrote:
Very Admirable, but as I said you are the exception and not the rule.   I have a neighbor with a Packard he restored, but I would not buy a new car by considering his experience with the beautifully restored Packard. 

New_Yorker wrote: Ok your neighbor has a restored Packard and my uncle went to the moon in July of 1971, what do either have to do with snow blowers.


This is a work machine not a trailer queen and can not be compared to a restored automobile. I have restored 1969 Camaro with over 600hp but I would not recommend it as a daily driver.

Comparing a modern automobile to an old Packard is comparing apples to oranges.

 But i would argue that my 28 year old machine will perform as well or better than most  modern 26 to 28" wheeled machines Honda included.

I will no longer respond to this thread because it is like beating a dead horse. I will gladly give you the last word.


Carl

Is DavidNJ back for another round of Hydrostatic vs Friction disk?

Fact DavidNJ had his friction disk drive wear out in 2 years, Coincidence? I think not.

My friction drive is 3 years old and had some wear to the belt as it sucked in a Cristmas wreath and then proceeded to throw fairly heavy snow for about 30 minutes or so.

The dealer took it apart adjusted it and it's fine.

Why David always reverts back to the very topic that got him banned over and over again I will never know.

My friction drive works fine, probably will for years. Hydrostatic is nice but Friction drives work and last a lot more than 2 years.

My thought process:

1. 40 year old Ariens snowblower, friction disk, works perfectly fine - $250
or.
2. Brand new Honda snowblower, hydrostatic drive, works perfectly fine - $2,500

Remind me why I should choose the Honda again? ;)

Friction disks have been working fine for 50 years..its simple, proven technology.
sure they eventually wear out and can break down..so does everything..including expensive hydrostatic drives.

NewYorker, your points are valid..however its obvious you are seriously biased..people are doubting your opinions
because its SO very obvious you are greatly exagerrating the drawbacks of one system,
while implying the hydro is perfect and trouble-free! which obviously isnt the case.
you gave us three long paragraphs, going into GREAT detail, about the dire problems and drawbacks of the friction disk,
while your review of the hydro consisted of " so my next new snowblower choice eliminated the problem entirely"
and " it has been problem free for many years"..basically implying the disk will *always* give you trouble while the
hydro will *never* give you problems..and you wonder why people question your conclusions? ;)
you couldnt be any more biased if you tried..

obviously hydros break down..obviously they need repairs..obviously a broken hydro can make the snowblower unusable..
no different than a friction disk drive.

Both systems are great..one is not *better* than the other..
personally, I would take the friction disk over the hydro any day..
because it works fine, (same as the hydro)
it works fine for years, (ame as the hydro)
and I can easily and cheaply fix it myself..(NOT the same as the hydro)
I see NO advantage to a hydro whatsoever..and one major drawback..cost.
both initial cost to buy the machine, and higher potential repair cost..and to me, I gain nothing by the extra expense.

Scot

carlb wrote:
Sorry obvious off topic for sure, but that picture looks like the snowblower was part of the red Infinity G in the  background.

I do like hydrostatic transmission for the benefits of infinite adjustment of speed, ability to go forward and reverse without declutching.  However, I would not use a snowblower as a snowplow.  If the auger is not able to process the snow in front of it, using any transmission to ram the bucket into the snow is abuse and will break.  Doesn't matter what transmission is used, the only purpose for it is to move the bucket forward so that more snow can be fed to the auger. 

now it looks like its part of my 69 camaro



Or maybe both

Nice Cub Cadet.  What is the size of the impeller?  It looks huge.

Augers are 16" impeller is 14"

New Yorker is a troll. 

Trying to talk sense to him is like hitting yourself on the head with a hammer.  It feels much better when you stop.

Ignore him.

We have all been informed how the "Friction Wheel " works, The friction wheel is a simple design , dependable and economical  used on thousands of snowblowers, over many years.

 I would like to explain how the "Hydrostatic Drive" works in my Husqvarna  although most people already know

how this drive system works, being in most riding tractors.

Like most snowblowers, there are 2 levers: auger control lever and traction drive control lever.

The auger control lever is the same as on the friction drive machines. squeeze down to activate the impeller/auger and let it up to stop  the impeller/auger.

The traction drive control lever only sends  the power to the hydrostatic transmission

The third lever is the drive speed control lever , this controls the forward and reverse speeds, it is  variable, has no set positions.   Neutral is between  forward and reverse

To move the snowblower forward after holding down the traction drive control lever, move the drive speed control lever forward from the nuetral position, move the lever back to go in reverse.

Declutching   the traction drive control lever is not required .

The hydrostatic transmission consists of  the engine driven hydraulic pump and a hydraulic motor in one unit. When operating the drive speed control lever you are adjusting

the amount  of oil and flow going  to the hydraulic motor from the hydraulic pump. allowing  you to  go forward or reverse as required.

The advantages of the hydrostatic transmission  are many:

After the traction drive control  lever is held down, no further use of it is required to move the snowblower, until you  stop snowblowing,

The speeds are variable, you can shift from forward to reverse and back without declutching.

The hydrostatic transmission allows the snowblower to go much slower than the friction drive, but still have the same power to the wheels  (at all speeds  ,Torque is increased  20-1)

While blowing heavy snow at the end of the driveway,  this slower( full power) speed  will easily out perform a frictiomn wheel drive. 

Last winter my  neighbour and I made comparisons  at the EOD, His  new John Deere and my Husqvarna have identical Briggs 1450 engines , both are 27 inch.  

I could easily go through the EOD snow  without stopping in a single first path,  my neighbours friction drive, in  its lowest gear  had difficulty doing that, he had to back up

twice , his wheels were spinning  but he was having  a difficult time  moving forward. , he was jerking his   machine from side to side and trying to push it forward..

My engine speed and noise remained the same all the time, while his was speeding up and down on the governor and making a lot of noise.

These  hydrostatic transmissions are dependable but if anything goes wrong, they are more expensive to repair.

Royster:

Any chance you know how to use a snow blower and your neighbour doesn't. 

I have a Simplicity which is pretty much the same as the JD.   I get some serious e.o.d. accumulations here and if I select the correct speed, the machine will keep powering through.  Even my old Craftsman machines would do the e.o.d. job with little aggravation but not quite as effectively as the Simplicity.  If the e.o.d. is deposited as slush and freezes up, I don't care what machine you have.  It will have trouble getting through it.   

You can give anyone a machine.  Doesn't mean they know how to use it properly.   

carlb wrote:

I don't know about that ... keep caring for it like you obviously have been, and it'll probably go 38 or 48 more!! But I'd plan on an engine rebuild/swap somewhere in there :)

borat wrote:

Maybe so, but something doesn't sound right. 

I've moved a lot of snow in my day, including five foot high e.o.d. using a few brands of machines with regular friction wheel drive.  Some jobs were tougher than others and some machines were nicer to use than others but I've yet to experience the difficulties you've mentioned. 

borat wrote:

 I have used many different makes of  "friction wheel" snowblowers in various  sizes over the years to do the end of driveway snow, but none have done the job  as easy as my hydrostatic Husqvarna.

I am nothing against any  friction drive machine, most do a fine job, but  in my opinion   , It is  not as easy as  with  hydrostatic drive.

I have no doubt that a hydrostatic drive is superior to a friction drive, but if your at all mechanically inclined and keep your blower in good repair, you can replace quite a few friction disks for the cost of a hydrostatic drive, and if the hydrostatic ever needs repair, pull out your wallet.  

In my opinion.  Any problems that are encountered with moving EOD piles and the friction drive system. 
Are not really short comings in the drive system.  It is the fact that most blowers using that system simply don't have a slow enough first gear. 
Which is why the blowers with hydro drives seem to perform better under those conditions.
They can be slowed to a snails pace. Which is sometimes the speed that is needed.  To keep the blower operating at peak efficiency.
There is no question that the deeper and denser the snow gets. The slower the forward speed must be. 
And that forward speed will need to be slower on a 5hp than it will be on a 10hp blower.  With the same bucket size and running components being of equal size.
I hoping that having added a slower first gear to my blower this fall.  Will prove out my thoughts on this issue.  We'll see.

jrtrebor wrote:

l agree 100% with jrtrebor comment/opinion

I too have my machine adjusted so that it is very, very slow in first gear, but with 5 forward speeds it is still plenty fast,  actually it's faster than I can comfortably walk in fifth gear.  Another advantage to slowing down first gear is that you also speed up the reverse gears.

Slowing down first gear in a 'friction wheel" snow blower: 

 Cutting down the engine rpm is not the answer as this reduces power and would also slow down the impeller

  Reducing   the size of the engine pulley that drives the disc .

Making sure that the rubber clutch wheel is properly positioned to make contact with the disc  as close as possible to the center of the disc.

Changing the size of the  rubber clutch wheel,

 Recalibrating the engine to develop its max power at 3000 rpm rather than 3600 , the impeller could be speeded up with a larger engine pulley.

Changin the size of the gears or sprockets  to reduce ground speed in all gears.

Any other suggestions?

"Any other suggestions?"

Leave them as they are.  They work just fine right off the assembly line.

royster wrote:
Running a snowblower in a lower gear has no effect on the engine RPM.  In fact running anything in a lower gear reduces the amount of engine power that is needed to pull or push an object.
That is what gear boxes are for.  Riding a bike up a hill takes far less effort from you legs if you do it in a lower gear.  You don't go up as fast.  But it's easier to pedal up the hill.
Anytime, any snowblower lugs or boggs down when trying to clear piles, or deep dense snow.  The forward speed needs to be reduced.  On some models the optimum forward speed
for the snow conditions is available (hydro drives).  On quite a few blowers with friction drives.  Even the first gear setting is not slow enough.  But that is not a flaw in the drive systems
ability to transfer power to the wheels.  It is simply a design decision on how slow to make first gear.  How close to center to have the friction wheel when first gear is selected.
It's like having a Granny Low in a truck.  You don't use it very often.  But in certain situations it's very useful and necessary to have. 

Hello everyone;

I have been fallowing this debate all along; this is going around in LOOPS.

I’m a professional in private tutoring, and I also have many years experience on my belt and I was also very successful in “declutching” loops...

First, lets clear up the confusion, and then we will all be on the same page.

The topic here: "Friction Wheel" versus The Hydrostatic Transmission:

Okay, Lets break this question apart:

What we are doing here, is comparing both drive systems, and then discussing which system is “BETTER”.  That is all fine and good till…. - - - -

Let me explain:  Let’s forget about Snow blowers for a minute, and let’s talk about a Woman.

A Woman:

1)      What is her purpose that she was created for?

2)      In general, what is expected from a woman?

3)      What are the standards that every woman will do the same?

4)      Under what condition will a woman perform at her best?

5)      Where are the standard boundaries for use/abuse?

6)      About maintenance, is it possible to set a standard for when, or how often?

7)      In terms of Durability and fragile, is there any standards in woman?

8)      Is there a standard how much it costs the upkeep of a woman?

Now, let’s replace the word “Woman” with “Snow Blower”, and let’s paste the “same” questions again.

A Snow Blower:

1)      What is her purpose that A Snow Blower was created for?

2)      In general, what is expected from A Snow Blower?

3)      What are the standards that every  Snow Blower will do the same?

4)      Under what conditions will A Snow Blower perform at her best?

5)      Where are standard boundaries for use/abuse? (in A Snow Blower)

6)      About maintenance, is it possible to set a standard for when, or how often?

7)      In terms of Durability and fragile, is there any standards in  Snow Blowers?

8)      Is there a standard how much it costs the upkeep of A Snow Blower?

 

The Man:

1)      What is bothering you?  The Snow.

2)      Why is it bothering you? The fact that I can’t walk/drive in snow.

3)      Are you okay with the bother or you don’t want it at all? I’m okay, till it disturbs my daily life.

4)      Does the bother give you any good side to it, or only negative? Well, after all snow is fun too.

5)      Do you want to resolve the bother yourself, or you want get help resolving it? I myself cannot resolve it, I need the help of a OPE.

6)      Do you understand that resolving a bother, is a bother all by its self?, Oh yah! And I’m ready to go to work to earn money and spent it on a Snow Blower.

7)      Are you aware of the fact that every positive in this world comes bundled with sacrifice? Yes, a snow blower is not an automatic robot; I must walk behind it and control it. And that is a learning curve all by its self.

8)     What are your personal boundaries in suffering? I don’t understand, can you ask again please?  YES, SURE, What are your personal boundaries in suffering? - - - - - - -

LETS ROLL BACK WERE WE LEFT OFF: …  What we are doing here, is comparing both drive systems, and then discussing which system is    “BETTER”.  That is all fine and good till…. - - - -   till we ask our selfs question no. 8) “What are your personal boundaries in suffering?”

Answer:

Man A: Dish out my savings and get a heated cab with a heated seat and some top-notch high end attachment with….etc...

Man B   Carefully calculate my budget, then buy a Snow blower that will pick up snow from point A and deliver it to point B, with the maximum comfort that I can get for the money I spend.

Man C   Spend the least amount of money, and BUY A SNOW BLOWER. As long it is making progress in moving snow, I’m happy!

LET’S CONCLUDE:

Everyone - including New-Yorker -agrees, that Friction Drive works for Man C!

The debate you all have falls in “only for Man B”. Which leads again to question 8) “What are your personal boundaries in suffering????”  And the correct answer came from: Arians, Toro, simplicity, JD, etc. for about the same amount in price range, A man in category Man B, now has a wide verity to choose from!

For New_yorker, hydry is top priority, go ahead and buy a husky with hydro. (or pay $$$$ for a Honda) or etc...

For steve_Cabu, A Toro with the friction drive is doing the job.

For ????_??? an electric shoot Control is High Priority.

And we all know and agree that hydro is a step up and higher priced from Friction Drive.

To debate what system is better, vs. a failure, cannot happen unless we are all answering the same answer to all of the above quotations, and as long we all have different modal Snow blowers is a clear indication that everyone here has his own unique priority layout.

As a matter of fact, for so many years “a shovel” was used by human-power to clearing tons of snow, and every one buying and using the shovel "HE" liked and  shovel different with different techniques, in different snow and health situations, and yes; a Human-Shovel also have limitations, and maintenances…  and can also “break-down”. The same is true for friction and hydro.  

  

Our topic: "Friction Wheel" versus The Hydrostatic Transmission:

We can only discuss and share ideas how “We can implement and improve my snow removal experience”

 

Thanks for listening.

jrtrebor wrote:

I did not say that running a snowblower In a lower gear has an effect on engine RPM, 

The discussion was how do we make the first gear slower

What  i said was, "Cutting down the engine RPM is NOT the answer as this reduces power and would also slow down the impeller".,

although the ground speed of the snowblower in first gear and any other gear would be reduced.

borat wrote:
I agree 100% , My  HUsqvarna 14527 is perfect.

JoelKlein  :

 Thankyou for your post.

I would call it "Paralysis by Analysis"

royster wrote:
My misunderstanding, I didn't really know what your point was about the RPM.  Because obviously "Cutting down the engine RPM is NOT the answer as this reduces power and would also slow down the impeller"

"The discussion was how do we make the first gear slower"  There wasn't really a discussion going on about how to make a first gear lower.  I simply made that comment.
It's funny how sometimes on these threads the discussions get so of topic. 
joelklein posted  "Friction Wheel" versus The Hydrostatic Transmission drive debate.  That isn't really what the debate has been about.
Because no one would debate that a Hydro system is a step up from a friction drive system.  As no one would disagree that an automatic transmission is easier to use
and more efficient than manual shift.  It's a fluid drive system versus a mechanical system.  In the fluid drives systems the effect of operator misuse on the systems performance
is greatly diminished.  And there are fewer external mechanical parts to wear.  And fewer external mechanical parts exposed to the elements.
The debate has really been about some of the misconceptions that were stated regarding the friction wheels durability.  In those somewhat questionable and very general statements.  It was inferred
that anyone buying a blower with a friction drive system should be made aware of the potential problems the system can have.  As if it's the system itself that is normally
responsible for the problems.  Which I would argue, is not in most cases the truth.  It's operator misuse and the age of the rubber on the friction disc. 
The same discussions could be had regarding a clutch disc in a vehicle.  Discs can last for decades or for two weeks.  Same car same engine.  The life of the disc in most cases
depends on how the vehicle is driven and how the clutch is operated over a period of time.  Old ladies don't blow clutches but a teenager will.
Of course the older lady may slip it and ride it till it burns up.  : )  If they understood what can happen if they continue operating the vehicle in that manner then they probably wouldn't do it.
Well, maybe not the teenager.  The same can be said for the friction drive systems. 

A friction drive CAN SLIP when used in accordance with the operator manual and common sense IF THE MACHINE HAS A POOR DESIGN.  I see inferences that operator error is likely to blame. Could it be that they slip because moisture has accumulated on the drive plate? My Ariens 926 has so many holes, seam openings, cable penetrations and so on that it is unlikely not to slip because snow blows into the drive housing from all directions. I compleately dissmiss the notion of operator error here. It seems like one platform served many different models. There must be upwards of 20 penetrations to the housing. Last summer I closed them all, I'm sure I missed something though. FrigginSlipDrive.

O

Most snow gets in between the belt cover and engine.  Seal that up properly and there should be virtually no slipping.

My  Craftsman 33 inch 13.5 horsepower Tecumseh,worked very well for the first 13  years, only replacing the rubber clutch wheel  once  , regular maintenance.     .It  got a lot of hard use , heavy snowstorms, 30 inch or more  at a time.   most winters.   I never had a problem with the driven disc until the old Tecumseh started leaking , and blowing out oil through the breather..  I put an extension tube on the breather and let it run out down by the left wheel, This helped some, but I still had   to remove the botton cover, clean the disc with alcohol, this was getting to be a more often procedure in the last few years that I owned it.  I even put 4 bolts with wingnuts on the bottom cover so I could do the disc cleaning easier,.    However, this was not the fault of the "friction wheel" system.  it was just hard to keep the oil in the old Tecumseh, after many years of hard use.  I could probably have rebuilt the engine,  replacing  gaskets and seals  to stop the oil leaks, but  I gave the blower to my nephew who had a newer Tecumseh engine for it,   He has been using it for 2 years and tells me ,he  has not had any friction wheel problems ,  I thought it was time to upgrade so I purchased a Husqvarna  hydrostatic .

iLikeOrange wrote:
Without question the drive can and will slip if water gets into the belt area or onto the drive plate.  But slippage due to water intrusion is to be expected and not the fault of the friction disc design.
Your being very general by saying that the "MACHINE HAS A POOR DESIGN".  When it is actually just the drive housing that has to many places for water to get in.
Obviously that problem has nothing to do with the operator or how the machine is being used. 

From time to time there have been comments made here about that problem. 
Just recently, someone posted that one of the manufactures was putting a piece of some sort of rubber underneath the engine to stop that problem.  On most blower there
are a number of drilled holes that are not used underneath the engine.  And some holes that are totally exposed on the top of the drive train housing as well.  It's the holes on top that
most often are responsible for slippage due to water.  Any snow that hits the engine melts and runs right down onto the top of the drive train housing. Also a poor fitting belt cover doesn't help.

I in no way meant to infer that most snowblower disc drive problems are caused by operator error.  That would be foolishness and untrue.
Operator misuse can accelerate the wear on the fiction disc.  Which can lead to slippage.  Especially if the blower is older.  But even then, as the rubber wears down it doesn't really effect
the ability of the disc to grab.   The rubber getting hard and cracking or splitting is what can really effect the grab of the disc.  Or burning slight flat spots on the disc can cause it to jump just slightly.

borat wrote:

That was the first thing I did a few years ago. Either I didn't do it well enough or that wasn't the problem area.

>>But slippage due to water intrusion is to be expected and not the fault of the friction disc design.

Are you kidding?? TO BE EXPECTED??  thats nuts.

>>Your being very general by saying that the "MACHINE HAS A POOR DESIGN". When it is actually just the drive housing that has to many places for water to get in.

Gee isn't that part of the design?

>>And some holes that are totally exposed on the top of the drive train housing as well. It's the holes on top that
most often are responsible for slippage due to water. Any snow that hits the engine melts and runs right down onto the top of the drive train housing. Also a poor fitting belt cover doesn't help.

EXACTLY!!

>>I in no way meant to infer that most snowblower disc drive problems are caused by operator error

 VS >> It was inferred
that anyone buying a blower with a friction drive system should be made aware of the potential problems the system can have. As if it's the system itself that is normally
responsible for the problems. Which I would argue, is not in most cases the truth. It's operator misuse and the age of the rubber on the friction disc

Guess I read operator error again (and again) and that caught my eye.

O

iLikeOrange wrote:
Sorry I guess I didn't word that right.  I didn't mean "water intrusion" was to be expected.  I meant that if water does get in, the disc can and will slip.  That you can expect to happen.
>Gee isn't that part of the design?<   Yes it is part of the design, one part.  

Disk slippage is to be expected if water gets on it.  That's a simple fact.  However, water getting onto the plate is not expected. 

Jtrebor wasn't suggesting that water should get onto the disk.   He simply stated that if it did, disk slippage will happen. 

Think we've flogging this discussion far longer than necessary.  Nobody is questioning the superiority of hydro drive.  However, it's not so much better than a friction drive system to cause most people to spend the additional money.  Friction drive systems have been proved reliable, durable and relatively inexpensive to purchase, operate and repair.  If something works that well, why ante up for something insignificantly better?

Glad it's settled now  " : ^ )

O

I would much prefer a hydrostatic drive, but I'm not sure how much more I would be willing to pay to get one.  I had chest pains paying what I paid for my 1330SE, and it seemed like a decent deal with 10% off and 18 months no interest.  It might be fun to try and reverse engineer a hydrostatic drive.  I'm in my mid 40's, and pretty much every riding mower we ever owned had a hydrostatic drive.  I believe this is the first piece of equipment I've ever owned that has a friction disk drive.  Some of the self propelled push mowers we had when I was a kid may have had a friction disk system, but I'm not sure.

Stainless wrote:
I like high end OPE and appreciate the quality and performance that typically goes with it but I too dislike paying the premium price which is why I purchased almost all my OPE as used equipment and saved a bunch of $$$. Most people who purchase high end, high priced OPE as new, usually take very good care of the equipment and maintain it according to the op's manual. If they don't do it themselves, they have it done professionally. Most times they are selling off the equipment because they are upgrading to even higher end or bigger OPE to suit their current needs.

borat wrote:
Since the viscosity (slipperiness) of water varies with temperature, does the disk slippage occur always (if water dets on the disk), or just at a certain temperature range?  Do some blowers experience this problem more than others if the setup is such that the disk runs hotter on the problem blowers, thus melting snow that enters to the disk housing?

The disk slipping problem became prominent about five or six years ago when manufacturers switched engine brands/type that they used on their machines.  Most previous domestic snow blowers used the venerable Tecumseh Snow King L-head engine.   When the rumblings of Tecumseh's demise began, manufacturers switched over to B&S overhead valve engines.  In their haste to do so, they failed to ensure the belt cover fit correctly up against the front surface of the new engine.  Accordingly, there was a fair size crack for water to melt on the hot engine and make it's way down the front of the engine onto the friction drive system.  All of the talk about other points of water entry into the engine chassis seems a bit unrealistic.  At least in the case of the Simplicity/Snapper/JD machines based on the same platform.  All I did was to seal the crack between engine and belt cover and have not experience any slipping since.  On the Simplicity,  any other small holes on the chassis are neither large enough nor in a location to have any effect to allow water into the chassis.

I had a bit of slippage on one or two occasion with my Simplicity but in each case, I was blowing snow so deep that it was falling over the top of the intake and falling onto the engine from the side and melting at a considerable rate.  Fortunately, the slipping only occurred briefly and the machine regained traction in a matter of seconds.  

borat wrote:

     You are absolutely  correct.    My neighbour has a (new 2010) John Deere snowblower and he had that problem early last year, the melting snow on his motor was getting on his drive plate. 

But he is an industrial electrician and had many types of rubber insulation in his truck     He  found a suitable piece and cut it to size and sealed the crack in front of the engine ,. He had no more problems.

New_Yorker wrote:

This is an old thread but worth reviving. I agree with NY'er 100%. Strangely enough whenever someone delves into any depth of technical detail such as this, they are usually attacked and ridiculed on net message boards. It has become a modern phenomenon in its own right. Friction drive is a pathetic drive system, that works in spite of itself. It's a cheap alternative to a transmission with gears, or array of pulleys for gears. A hydrostat is like a drive found in a BULLDOZER. So there you have it. Moving the drive cog on the friction drive disc gives clutching and gear reduction variation all in one. But it is an inherently weak drive system best suited to a kid's toy, rather than power equipment. At one time they made CARS that way in the early 1900's until planetary gear automatic transmissions were perfected. If you are buying a used or new snow blower, ask what type of drive it has, and get a direct belt/gear drive setup if you can afford it. The problem with the internet is, people have largely become dumbed down victims of corp. advertising, after being talked into buying a FRICTION DRIVE unit, they don't and won't admit to themselves it's inferior, because it's what they bought. Admitting it's inferior, would mean admitting a mistake, and admitting getting taken for money, for a crappy product. So they attack the person who knows better, who is trying to calmly discuss and inform. A bad scene, and egos and pride get in the way of sound engineering. It takes a man to admit friction drive is a POS excuse for a transmission, and go look for a hydrostatic or direct gear/pulley/belt drive machine.

they tried friction drive in cars....they had to downshift to drive over a cigarette butt. no comparison to a direct drive with gears/belts or hydrostat http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2013/03/14/smooth-going-with-friction-drive/

Smooth going with friction drive David Traver Adolphus Mar 14th, 2013 The first time I had an inkling that friction drive might not have been an ideal solution was about seven years ago. I had just photographed Bill Sears assembling his 1910 Sears high-wheeler (HCC #36 ) and we were driving it around looking for photography locations. One possible location was across a lawn, so I had Bill drive over…or try to: When he attempted to climb the two- or three-inch ridge from the road onto the grass, the Sears just couldn’t make the grade. The engine was willing and the tall wheels would have rolled over it with no trouble, but in between was a friction drive. When the glazed-over disc was confronted with the need to transfer maximum torque (from a 10hp engine) from a standstill, it couldn’t do it. Eventually, we made it with a running start–there was no question it needed its transmission resurfaced. But there was also no question that the weak link was its friction drive. 1907 Cartercar chassis 1907 Cartercar chassis The principle in a friction drive couldn’t be simpler: At the end of the driveshaft is a large disc; to get power from there to the axle, you apply a second disc at right angles. Presto: you’ve turned longitudinal rotation into lateral. Increasing or decreasing pressure of one disc against another allows slip, like a clutch; and moving the axle disc in or out from the center changed the ratio. Aside from direct drive, it was also just about the simplest system imaginable to manufacture. 1907 Lambert chassis 1907 Lambert chassis For drivers attempting to operate a car for the first time, it was ideal. One lever with a mechanical connection made it instantly operable and very difficult to stall. Inherent slip eliminated jerky starts, a particular problem with the era’s touchy cone clutches, and that also protected it from rough handling. You can’t strip gears that don’t exist. Lastly, it’s a transmission that could theoretically incorporate a flywheel doing double duty. With only a handful of moving parts, it was potentially very inexpensive to manufacture. But on the other hand, there was essentially always slip in the transmission, increasing with load. More than being inefficient, that made heat and shortened the friction disc’s lifespan. They had to be surfaced with high-friction materials, usually a pressed board or fiber disc of some kind. Easily replaceable, yes, but not durable, especially under extreme conditions. And just think about what would happen if mud or oil got splashed onto the discs. 1907 Cartercar chassis 2 1907 Cartercar chassis. Disc and wheel friction drive helped a number of affordable Brass Era cars get a foothold in the market, especially runabouts, and some did well, including Brush, Cartercar, Metz, Lambert and Simplicity. Inventors continued to work on the idea for decades, and occasionally a car would turn up with a variation on the theme. By the Teens, it was actually the Model T’s planetary transmission that was the oddball of choice; and research turned to the development of true automatics, which started to look distinctly possible by the late Twenties. .- See more at: http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2013/03/14/smooth-going-with-friction-drive/#sthash.CXwAgC6t.dpuf

royster wrote:

ok you understand it...but now tell us which machines being sold new today, has friction drive or the better belt/gear, or hydrostat drive ? what the man states is true. he's obviously a smart guy. if someone buys a new machine for $500-$1000 and it has friction drive, they got ripped off whether you, they, or anyone else here realizes it or not, or cares....(the rude yawn remarks) that's what happened in that scenario and I'd wager you bought a...friction drive.

I've only had experience with hydrostatic drive.  It is nice to be able to shift for forward to reverse on the fly.  Also, the ability to have really slow crawl speed without slippage is nice for EOD applications.  However, I do not like the fact that I don't have the freewheeling capability of friction disc where the axle is decoupled from the transmission so that I can push or pull the snowblower.   There's a little lever down by the tracks that decouples the transmission, but it is not designed to be easily accessible and to be operated frequently.

While hydrostatic transmission is a nice luxury, it can be costly to repair or replace if neglected/abused.  With friction disc, this is cheap and easily to repair/replace.

Go with what you like and your pocket book can afford.  There's very good reasons for friction discs to prevail these last 50 years. 

I think some of the new higher end snappers are advertising they have a gear drive no ffriction disk! ! The old Toro power shifts had a peerless transmission in them no slipping with them!!!!!!

I can only share my experience. My snowblowers have a friction wheel and have never slipped or lost traction. Literally can pull me up my sloped driveway. I have two walk behind 21" lawn mowers. One has a friction wheel and the other has a commercial gear box. Both work flawlessly but my preference is for the infitiely variable friction wheel model. Sometimes I just can't find the right speed with the one with the gear box. Obviously a hydro drive would allow for any speed but I foolishly passed up a chance to buy a $1,250 Honda walk behind commercial 21" mower for $300 because my wife told me that I didn't need another mower...so no experience to share on it.

Well, since the thread was resurrected I wonder if a couple of misunderstandings of the friction drive might be up for discussion. 

I too have had no problems with the friction drive on my 1982 Toro 724.  I inherited it from my brother when he moved to AUS.  It's spent its whole working life in West Michigan near Muskegon.  I'd say we get snow in all varieties and have had some real doozies in addition, of course, to many sparse years in between.   But it's the original rubber drive in there.  This clutch has been maintained well and inspected yearly and looks to me like it was easily intended to last the life of the machine.  My blower is in near-new condition and well past its likely intended lifespan. Clutch amazingly shows little signs of wear.   I've greased, oiled, inspected, replaced parts 95 percent of the time with off-shelf items from belt and bearing suppliers (not 2x to 3x more expensive OEM),  repainted and tig welded when needed.  It's still in such good shape that last fall I replaced the still fine but tiring 7hp Tecumseh with an 11hp OHV Techumseh for 150 dollars shipped to the door.

The clutch's  robustness and power to the wheels have always defied intuition for me.  A simple rubber wheel held against a smooth steel disc driving a heavy machine into the snow?  There must be more to this.  So I stared at it one evening when I was in there greasing all the shaft bushings.  Sorry if this is actually common knowledge but I saw no reference to the real mechanics of this described in the thread.

The spring, unlike as described here and generally understood, does not hold the rubber to the disc.  In fact it pulls in the other direction!  Hmm.  If the spring is too tight (not likely is using an OEM) it will only serve to make engaging the drive at the handle grip more difficult, but will have zero effect on the pressure/engagement of the rubber against the disc.  The spring in question only serves to DISengage the drive, not hold the rubber to the disc.  So what is holding the rubber to the disc?  Not just the handlebar grip since that would make it very difficult to hold such strong engagement by the hand alone and would be tiresome.  The answer is a pretty elegant camming action and obvious if you look closely.

My Toro rotates the rubber drive wheel against the disc.  Some other designs bring the steel drive disc against the rubber wheel.  Both work on a similar principle of jambing the faces together with a camming action. 

There must be better engineering terms to describe this.  Sorry I'm not an engineer.  The rubber clad wheel is cammed about its axis.  I'm not saying, of course, that the rubber clad wheel rotates eccentrically.... only secondarily about its axis. When that assembly is rotated toward the steel drive disc the rubber engages the disc at a point just above the centerline shortest distance between the disc face and the rubber clad wheels' eccentric axis. At this point what you are doing at the handlegrip is pulling against the clutch drive spring. The clutch drive spring is keeping the rubber wheel away from the disc, not against it.  Once you've overcome the spring resistance with the handlegrip to bring the rubber to touch the spinning drive disc it grabs the rubber wheel, and using the rubber wheels' resistance (since it's mechanically static and linked to the wheels)  it drives the clutching faces a few degrees beyond the shortest distance between them determined by the rubber wheels' axis. This  jambs the rubber wheel against the steel disc with pressure far greater than could be accomplished with a spring alone.  Once in this position the only way to unjamb the rubber drive from disc is to release the handlebar grip and allow the strong clutch spring to pull the rubber back and out of its jamb against the disc. 

Anyone noticed that when this spring breaks or goes waaay too weak it does not result in a no-drive or weak drive situation?  If the spring breaks the clutch will remain engaged in the gear it was in and you can't stop the beast.   There is no longer any spring to pull the rubber wheel away from the drive disc.  Another indication that this jambing/camming action is at work is that reverse is significantly less powerful than the forward settings.  The jambing design is, in reverse, working opposite of its intended design.  In reverse the only pressure applied to clutching faces is what you provide with the handlegrip since the disc is now rotating up against the rubber instead of downward and no jambing takes place.  The handlegrip linkage itself is levered at a point only a degree or so before it would jamb (and then render the clutch return spring useless in pulling it back) so it provides sufficient ease on the hand when holding it in reverse for a short while.


If the spring has nothing to do with the pressure of the rubber clad wheel against the drive disc I wonder what else might be at play when some notice that the drive is slipping.  It's easy to see how grease might be a culprit if it's not applied carefully.  Once slippage is induced over a period of time glazing would occur.  Nothing to do but sand it smooth and try again with a clean setup.  I don't believe that the steel face can become "too smooth",  The smoother the better as long as it remains dry and oil free.  Smooth = less wear on the rubber.  In a well 'jambed' state a rough surface should provide no better friction.  Rubber formulation and local climate are probably the worst factors. living near a corrosive salty ocean or running the blower on heavily salted surfaces would affect the life of all components, metal or rubber.  A poorly forumulated OEM rubber would crack and break down much faster than a superior one.

What might be interesting (just a little) is the relative efficiency of the friction vs hydrostatic. No doubt the hydrostatic is higher, and (i think) usually incorporates some form of differential to the drive wheels which must be a very nice addition for ease of use.  All totalled I would personally opt for the friction drive again if given the choice between two identical models (just for sake of comparison.... i doubt that choice exists between two otherwise alike blowers).   The friction drive has proven itself to me, and I'm confident enough of my mechanical skills to fix it cheaply if it fails for whatever reason (unlike hydrostatic which would likely be an expensive fix or total replacement),

Sorry about all that if it's confusing, or worse, foolishly overstating the obvious for most here.   An engineer might have explained that in one paragraph.  

My 2 cents. I happen to be in the market for a 2 stage snow blower and doing my online research. Glad I came across this forum. I am making comparisons with Ariens, Cub Cadet and Toro where I noticed the various names they called their drive systems. Ariens calls theirs Disc-O-Matic and the others simply said self-propelled. The engineer that I am got me curious so I googled the terms. I realized then that this is the same old technology used in some lawn tractors. It may be reliable but it IS antiquated. I am quite surprised that manufacturers have not retooled and just made hydrostatic a standard instead of asking a premium price for them. When I bought my JD lawn tractor years ago, my main criteria was to get a hydro drive to replace my gear driven Simplicity. Needless to say I never looked back. The fact the mfrs don't go in to too much detail about the disc drives tells me they are holding back very important information for a consumer to know. I was leaning towards an Ariens at first as I do have a 5hp paddle push type Ariens blower and have been happy with it. They do make a hydro blower but appears to be more than double the price of a disc drive. It looks like I need to do some in depth shopping to see what I can get out there that suits my budget without compromising.