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. 

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.