Hi all, and ODK members,
I guess this is an interesting topic: a comparison between SB45's and Rover 45's.
I think they were of comparable quality with some cheapening on the Rover.
It was most interesting that Bonnar Bloke observed the plastic bearing housing.
Traditionally, that housing was metal, but included a self-aligning bearing.
This was done to accommodate slight misalignment between engine and output shaft.
I guess this was quicker than precision alignment on the production line.
Maybe Rover engineers thought the flexibility of plastic with a cheaper bearing
would do as-good a job. I guess ... not.
Bonnar Bloke also raised the issue of powder coating.
I know that Scott Bonnar prided itself on its baked enamel finish; but I also
know Rover made a big deal when it introduced its in-house powder coating plant.
Powder coating is fine until it is ruptured - then surface corrosion spreads and
paint just peals off. I don't think powder coating is a great idea for mowers.
Rossf's observation on the rear-facing primary clutch lever is telling.
I must agree with Bonnar Blokes's comments on that point.
Mowers went through a sort of Ralph Nader period, when safety concerns
led to ridiculous designs. In modern days there has been a sensible compromise.
[here I am specifically referring to engine flywheel brakes circa 1980s]
For the record, Scott Bonnar did use a rear-facing clutch lever on its Model 33.
That could have been easily implemented on the later Model 45.
Thank you Rossf for asking the questions.
Thank you Administrator Deejay for recognising the significance of the topic.
Thank you Bonnar Bloke for the most insightful compare and contrast.
This may prove to be an insightful and on-going topic.
What else did Rover change on the 45 design...?
All very interesting.
-------------------------------------
JACK.
