Hi all Picked up this mower the other day, I think it's one of the earlier models but your expertise would be appreciated. Numbers stamped on lower engine block are 26 631 3664. It looked in pretty good nik to me.
Last edited by CyberJack; 01/12/1802:57 PM. Reason: Topic Heading
I agree with Tyler ,1963 Victa 2 stoke Corvette, it's in good shape for a survivor,looks like a few repairs to the base and it would be like new again with a little paint.
Yes, a good survivor. The starter drum doesn't even look too chewed out and it still has the side flap. Shame about the hole.
I think these came out with flat blades and separate lifter blades. I wonder if 4 combined lifter/cutter blades give a better cut. Should fill the catcher more.
The shape of the grass catcher looks like some of the high arch thumb latch series from the late 70s. It looks plenty cavernous too. It's a shame that features like the convertible side discharge fell out of favour. It would be interesting to see the performance with two blade levels at once.
Ahh, if only victa had kept producing the thumblatch catcher series, they would be in better shape today!
Mowerfreak, wasn't the convertible side discharge discontinued because people kept taking their fingers off when installing/removing with the motor running? Progressive increase of warning stickers, then they just cut the feature.
Tyler I had never thought of that but I guess the Victa Ward at the Brisbane Hospital in the fifties and sixties was to treat toes and fingers. I always associated the Toecutters with just cutting toes, but they probably got fingers as well
Thanks for the replies, I agree its the early model after more research was done and as usual the information was on this site. I didnt see the hole until i bought it home as it was under the side plate but it is what it is and should be repairable, might be my first resto or do you think its best just being preserved ? the different shades of green are a nice touch i think. Yes Tyler, did the usual checks and i think quite fortuitously when the old girl was last parked in the shed it probably had a full tank of fuel, the fuel was long gone but oil remained and due to the leaking fuel tap has gone through the system. I gave the plug a quick clean and shot a little fuel in the plug hole and it kicked first up. I removed the carby very gingerly as ive had no experience with these and just took the bowl off to drain the oil from it. The carby is very heavy for its size. I could not believe it but the inside of the carby looked like the day it was assembled in the factory, it was pristine, needle valve worked so popped it back on, gravity fed fuel to fill the bowl via makeshift fuel line and funnel and she started with no fuss at all. The exhaust has a nice note to it probably due to the muffler design. Gave it another run this afternoon to see if it would get the silly smile off my face but no luck there. Does anyone know the correct start procedure as i just winged it from the 2 stroke i use all the time, is the brass button on the side of the carby a primer of some sort ? there is also a couple of screws which are probably best left alone as it starts and runs ? Its a pull/push fuel tap but the centre part wants to come out when you pull it, is there something that is missing that stops that from happening or is the worn o rings the issue ?
Hi wce I think there is a little grub screw retainer in the fuel tap - i see the hole in the photo, but it may just be recessed. The carby is very heavy - and i too was scared when i pulled the first one i had apart.
With regards to starting, from memory its fuel on, throttle at 1/2, choke lever (under fuel tap) up, hold the brass button down until fuel comes out of the hole next to it. then wind handle 3 times, then trip the switch. When it starts leave it like that for 5 seconds, then off choke and throttle lever back to idle to warm up for a minute.
By the way, if you take the carby apart again, don't try to remove the needle without removing the brass vertical where the jet is (done so by 2 crews on the outside).
Thanks, might have to find an original screw as the end needs to be stepped down and a lesser diameter of the screw in order to fit in the push/pull recess. 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 ? I might give a light run over my lawn and compare what comes out with what my conventional 4 blade 2 stroke victa throws into the catcher.
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 optional accessories 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!
I bet there was significant managerial inertia during that phase of Victa's evolution. Perhaps Merv Richardson's dislike of cylinder mowers extended to catchers as well - we will probably never know. But if the difficulties there were before the production of the Imperial are any indication, presumably there were many contributing factors to the slow departure from toe cutters.
I do find it funny that in trying to make an efficient catching mower, they made one with the ability to make really good mulch; mulch ready to be ... carted away and thrown in the bin. haha
Perhaps Merv Richardson's dislike of cylinder mowers extended to catchers as well
Hi Tyler I've thought about this and I can't see that at all. I feel Victa took a logical - but conservative - approach to its catcher mowers.
As Victa succumbed to blind Freddy (skirted bases) it had to also succumb to single point lever height adjusters (rather than rotary knob jobs) by 1960.
Victa finally succumbed to the blade issue too. One type of blade would do very nicely for cutting, throwing and catching.
Step back a couple of hundred years:
[I find it amusing when I see those romantic images of the scythe-men cutting grass with their scythe - because there was another reality - the following bag women that would bag the grasses so ma lord could present his estate.
Victa were that conservative! But they were brilliantly conservative.
I do find it funny that in trying to make an efficient catching mower, they made one with the ability to make really good mulch
Hi Tyler I do want to say something here.
When I said that the design had a mulching function I mean that the design would have delivered some mulching of grass. It could never be a mulcher mower - as we know them - and also have a catcher.
Mulching mowers work by re-cutting grass leaves into increasingly finer cuts. A mulching mower requires three things: a skirted base, no chute (or a plugged chute), and fluted blades or blade bar design.
The use of any partial enclosure in the form of a mower with a skirt would deliver some mulching (as a partial enclosure). Re-cut clipping were lighter, and therefore more easily 'caught' by the catcher.
The Victa VC mowers of 1970 were introduced with unprecedented fanfare. But what was the secret - of high-arch mowers over mid-arch jobs?
The answer - not a lot. My understanding is that the high arches restricted the flow. So, just like a garden hose, restricted flow increases velocity. More mulching, lighter clippings, higher velocity for catching.
The main claims of the high arch spiels was that they were more efficient at cutting wet grasses. Fair enough ... but what about higher flutes on blades on mid-arch designs?
I think you are right Cyberjack, they were probably just being conservative.
Many companies work out that change is crucial to survival too late, but evidently not Victa. People having to buy 4 blades (2 cutter 2 lifter) as opposed to 2 probably wasn't a contributing factor to Victa's blade decision, would put up repair costs a little though.
I do agree that they were brilliantly conservative
"My understanding is that the high arches restricted the flow."
I don't think that is right.I think a high arch mower is less restricted than a low arch mower for a greater flow rate of cut grass.(the grass cuttings are discharged at as high a level as possible to ensure the maximum capacity of the catcher is utilized.
As speed increases, i.e: accelerate, then the RATE at which the air molecules hit the object per second increases, this results in an increase of force. This force is only in linear to SPEED though, so as it goes faster, this drag increases.
For low speeds (slow enough not to cause turbulence), air resistance is proportional to the first power of velocity. If turbulence is generated, drag force is proportional to the square of relative flow velocity with respect to the object. ..
The fluid momentum is equal to the mass times the velocity of the fluid. ... The velocity used in the lift and drag equations is the relative velocity between an object and the flow. Since the aerodynamic force depends on the square of the velocity, doubling the velocity will quadruple the lift and drag.
The force of gravity upon a traveling object is strongest when parallel to the Earth.
The drag on the grass clippings is greater with the low arch mower base.
This golf graph shows how different angles will increase or decrease drag. (trajectory graph)
That's how I see the high and low arch mowers but happy to be corrected if I have something wrong.
Well Max if you love high arch bases so much I have another good base sitting here if you want it. There is also a purple one here that has a Briggs on it, but I haven't looked at that yet to see what the base is like. I fixed up a steel base PT the other day for a mate who mows lawns, he rang last night to say it does a nicer job on the lawns with its 2 blades than the Honda with its 4 blades but the Honda catcher is bigger so he doesn't have to stop as often, but the Honda is much heavier to push. Hard to get the perfect mower
So wish I could grab a couple off you, if not for the tyranny of distance. Surely your mate doesn't mind emptying a lighter load a bit more often in return for a better performing and easier to push mower. Fair trade off in my books. Does the fumes and noise bother him though?
Ahh, if only victa had kept producing the thumblatch catcher series, they would be in better shape today!
