THIS TOPIC is a RESPONSE to the Scott Bonnar MODEL 43 HISTORY RECORD
HERE. -------------------------------------
Hi Jack,
I just read your article on the Model 43. This model has always been a bit of a question to me. You have discussed some of the perceived flaws of the design: single clutch, odd power plant, non-matching componentry. I can certainly understand that that the use of any one of the above could be potentially dismissed as a mere trial variation - this model seems to be a real bitsa. However to be fair, the geared rear roller and the use of the 202 engine was a throwback to the model 17. This being so, the big question is why did they return to a single clutch and a non-standard layout?
Scott Bonnar certainly were aware of the benefits of scaleability of a design - the Queen City and Standard units of the 1930's/40's were all designed on this principle as were the model 16 and 17 (more so the 17). Whilst I can see the desire to manufacture a lightweight and commercial range, (other manufacturers had discovered the need for a domestic and commercial/heavy weight range many years prior), why did Scott Bonnar choose to regress in terms of design? It would have been easier for them to construct a wide-bodied version of the model 33, power it with a four or two stroke engine and have a two clutch system. Even if it was desirable to use a geared land roll, a modified version of the model 17 gearing could have been achieved relatively easily. This would have provided a heavier (semi professional) mower with the scaleability that makes for a cost effective product line. Whilst ultimately, the model 45 would provide a scaleable, useable and cost effective design, the question is why produce a machine that is so different from all of the others in a product line and not take advantage of its predecessors and those in current production. I would welcome your views on this.
Cheers,
Sir_Chook
