greatwhite2014

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.

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

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/

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.