The blade set up is unusual with them not being on the same level, maybe it gives the clippings a second chop to make them smaller on the way up and out the chute ?
G'day all
This is one I have been following - and listening to the experts.
ODK and members are so lucky for their advice
I would like to make a small comment on
wce's observation about this
blade cutter assembly, as it is important to the
development of the
rotary design.The
9C bladeholder understood the theory, but seems to have been
caught in both worlds - of both
cutting blades and
lifting blades.
I think I can offer historical reasons for this:-
There is
good reason for this: with catchers being mostly
optionalaccessories in the 1960s. The
9C bladeholder assembly only included
the flat cutting blades! And 'toe cutter' designs never wanted lifting blades.
If one had an
optional catcher on a skirted base, then lifting blades were
added to the 9C. These were the
9-172 and
9-173 assemblies.
Yes, at the time, Victa made separate lifting blades for rear and side discharge
lawnmowers. They would quickly learn this was not a good idea.
Victa was late in
realising implementing that both functions could be
combined in
fluted blades. Many makers 'got-it' years' before.
I understand this though ... Victa made its fame (and money) from
flat-bladed toe-cutters! This was Victa - in transition - to the catcher age.
Remember, however, that Victa's influential 'toe-cutter' base could not
take fluted blades for any purpose. Skirted bases were very happy in
accepting both types - whether a catcher was employed or not!
wce has also made an interesting point - about 'second chops'.
The second, third, fourth, and ... chops define what a mulching mower
IS!
The 9C's catching blades certainly had a mulching function.
Brilliant!
-------------------------------
Jack
