OutdoorKing Repair Forum Forums Finding and Swapping Rare Finds & Donations Victa Blade washers

Here is my blade carrier




It's pretty straight and very solid, nice little patch of original paint from under the washer.

Cool...Yes I thought it would be this carrier,Thanks.

This blade carrier was first fitted to The Automatic at its release. A more modern,stronger and safer plate that would compliment the New 3.6hp engine.

Since the model 3 was released just shortly after, they to had this carrier as Most examples show.

I am guessing that you can fit another two blades to this carrier but how ? Looks like they would be at a different height ?

Yep, there was a second pair of 'thrower' blades fitted above the carrier for the early Victa catcher models, when a catcher was in use. There were different thrower blade types for side and rear catchers.

Edit: Can't recall the part numbers, but the rear catcher thrower blades had a conventional 45� flute; the side catcher ones had a full 180� 'curl' flute. Weird looking things, they were!

This is The original spare blade packet from an early release automatic. The owner bought these spares at the time of the Autos purchase.

Gadge is spot on with regards to how the offset 4 blade system would work..The odd thing though is, what was Victas true intention for this, since the Specials nor Rotomo were fitted with side throw chute or catcher option until the Sheerline 3 years later. Directional throw Would be most likely. Incidently, of the few hundred specials, Ive passed on, not one had 4 blades fitted. Why?

Out of curiosity I had a search through my carriers and turned up two fitted with four blades




And this one with the thrower blades ?





I bought them as spares so don't know what they were fitted to, is there anything to gain by fitting the thrower blades to a Special ?

I have 2 of your first carrier, both were fitted to HG Palmer mowers, but I don't know what else they fitted.

The second is the same as your Roto/Special plate. Unless its fitted to a catcher or side throw model, I don't really see the point. It should at least offer a better cut though. Others may a have different view, and might be able to offer an explanation of why these blades would have been used on a non catcher mower, other than throw direction.

Also, as far as I know, the extra throw blades on your carrier were not even used by Victa until the 60's, with the exception of the slight pressed angle on the flat Special and late Roto blades.

Hello Paulc, MOD Gadge and HT6

Blade holders have a certain fascination.
For me, the issue is their historical development.

First, thanks to HT6 for the rare photos of the Victa packaging.
WE are lucky to now have that record.

Paul C - the first blade holder is a generic replacement one (I think).
The second one is Victa's first catcher blade holder - the 9C.
This replaced the 9B, that should have been fitted originally to the Automatic.

Thrower Blades could be used on non-catcher models for a mulching effect.
The grass could be re-lifted and cut again for a finer cut before being expelled.
MOD Gadge has already pointed out their primary use - catcher models.

p.s. for me, one of Merv's best designs was the swing-back blade, used in combination
with a disc - rather than a bar.

The first Victa's - Billy Cart and Fan Rotomos - used swing-back blades:
but they lacked the extra protection of a clever disc design.

Mervyn changed all that with his later patent.
For a discussion of that patent click HERE.

All very cutting.
------------------------------
JACK.

In regards to the blade carrier patent,I have at least one carrier with the Ramps/deflectors still mostly intact and a few with just the outline.

Can you please answer these questions,

What was the first blade Carrier Victa used on a production mower (Disc style) as the Patent example carrier may be Victas first designed disc blade carrier, but is not the First Carrier fitted to a Victa Rotary.

Does the carrier with the ramps" and without share the same pt no?
And What was the title/pt no of the ramped carrier in the patent?

And also the Pt no for Victas First Disc carrier, fitted to the early Model 1 rotomo, which differs from that of the Patent.

From the date of the patent submission (May 55) of the new Ramped" carrier, how long until it was approved and put into production, and what model was it first used on?

Do you have any documentation on when the 9C plate was released, and on what model

And also confirmation on the 9B plate being used from 1955-1960 and what models did it cover.

Thank you.

Also the plate in the first Image is more than likely generic as youve said, as both mine were fitted to HG Palmer Dep store Models:)

Yes, but those aren't Victa thrower blades - they are stepped & fluted, and the Victa ones were only fluted, IIRC. The thrower bolts are correct I'd say - Victa used the same bolt/washer set for both cutter and thrower blades on these carriers, with the bolt head on the blade side of the carrier.

The Belleville washer is installed incorrectly on that cutter blade set, though!

Probably a bit of forward planning on Victa's part, to reduce the number of different carrier types, and hence reduce warehouse and dealer inventories.

No practical advantage to fitting them, on a non-catcher deck. This is due to the thrower blades being set higher, so they don't do any cutting.

Four blades are better than two, if they are all at the same level, though. My SupaSwift Big Bob handles heavy growth better, and leaves a better finish, with 4.

Yes Gadge, Id have to agree with the forward planning, as Victa was often ahead in designing its future models at or before the release of prior models. The 9C carrier was NOT ever meant to carry 4 blades at once. The 2 level holes for Rotomo,Special etc...and the raised blade points for the catcher models. So one plate fits all. Thankyou for your thoughts.

And yes of course 4 blades are better than 2 at a level height. I also use four blades on my own mower and it makes a huge difference.

I'm aware of the 9C carriers function, Im far more interested in the questions from the prevoius post and also the following. Im looking for accuracy of fitment.

The Model 1 Rotomo used a different blade plate than that of the patent variant. At this point its my opinion that they possibly sourced this plate externally and modelled the Patent Carrier from this.

They are similar in design, with a few additions made to the Patent version.

This is why Im' asking when the patent was approved for production, to ascertain when the Patent version was fitted, and to which model.

From the the release of the Model 1 to the Sheerline I have found 4 plate variations

Model 1 (sample image coming)
Patent carrier with Humps...9A?
Patent carrier with no humps 9B
The Multi point 9C

The 3 Patent style humped carriers I have are on early to mid model 2 Rotomos.
All the rest are 2B carriers.

I remember you (Gadge) saying you used to change all the 9B carriers for the 9C for ease of fitment. What confuses me is...Ive never had a Special with a 9B plate. Does this mean they changed every one? I cant see it.
My point is, in your opinion what year was The 9C carrier released and is there any documentation?

Cheers.

Every dealer-serviced one would have been changed over I'd say, purely for cost [and convenience] reasons. Victa's dealer price for the 9C carrier assembly [with fitted blades] made sure of that. Even at the hourly labour rates we charged back then.

Doesn't mean that no originals exist; just that they will be about as common as rocking horse dung. And most likely to be found in areas remote from servicing dealers.
Can't help you with any evidence for that, I'm afraid; our family OPE business started in 1973. The carrier/blade set swap was the go then, though we still had legacy 9B carrier parts in stock, as we took over an existing business, founded in the 1950's.

Hello Gadge, HT6 and viewers

As I understand it, the Model 1 was the first machine to use a disc holder.
Prior to this, there was the bar and swing-back blades.

I do not know when the 9C was released. Best guess c1959 - just before
the release of Victa's catcher models.

A Note on patents:
As I understand it, the Model One was introduced in about April of 1955.
From my experience, patents generally come after production begins.

The second point is that illustrations accompanying patents are just that.
The illustration does not form part of the patent as such , it just illustrates the
words that do. In production, they will vary, but follow the principles detailed in
the patent.

Victa could clearly have used slight variations before settling on the
replacement blade holders - the 9B and then the replacement 9C.

The 9C was designed to take 4 blades for catcher models.
These were the 9-172 and 9-173 assemblies.



The interesting thing for me would be the recording of the ramped holders.
I am unsure whether the 9B had ramps at all...?

Cheers.
------------------------
JACK.

This is What Im trying to work out Jack...

What was the Pt no for the Ramped Carrier in the patent? I know it was made per the diagram as they are on some of my mowers.
For now,I can only assume 9A?

And yes From What I know the 9B is just plain.

So Im assuming the ramps were dropped fairly early then.

Ok so Im not going to alter my early Model 1s, use the ramps on the late 1s, transitionals and early model 2s, and keep the 9B For the rest.

Sounds close enough for now.

Thanks for your Input Guys.

Hello Mal,

I have nothing but the Green Books for part numbers.
Part number for the ramped holder? Probably lost to history.
The main thing is that we record Victa's first disc.

Shall we call the first disc the 9A?
So, at what point did this 'ramped disc' give way to the 9B? And why?
Here is an extract from a late 1950s maintenance guide. 9B.
[Nice way of removing the disc nut]



Cheers.
-----------------
JACK.

Or Victa may just have regarded the change as a supersession, and used the same part number for both versions.

There was no provision in Victa's part numbering system at that time, for designating such changes during production. That came much later [1970's], with the XXnnnnnX format part numbers, e.g cutting blade 9-150 became CA09150S - the letter suffix can be used to express supersessions, and I believe that's its function. Edit: or one of its functions - the 'S' suffix denotes a skin packed pair of blades.

For comparison, Honda motorcycle part numbers always included both the model the part was first used on, and the supersession.
E.g. in P/No. 22870-MG7-000 the first 5 number group describes the part type [in this case, clutch cable]; the second 3 character group is the bike model designation [XLV750R]; the third 3 character group is used for supersessions, paint colours etc. For items specific to exports to a particular country, Honda uses a further letter suffix [U for Australia], but only on those specific part numbers.

That would work OK with the 9B carrier [remember, the brazed in bushes protrude a long way above the disc], but even then, I'd prefer to use a square shank screwdriver!

The other traditional method, that of hitting the spanner with a hammer, would be less likely to cause the cracks often seen around the bushes, I'd reckon. This cracking would be another reason for most 9B's having been changed out for 9C's, when these were everyday working mowers.

Good pic of the 9C Green Book page Jack; it shows the difference between the thrower blade types very well.