Hello
Sir ChookI have asked these questions myself, particularly when I was preparing the article
for the Model 43. There seemed to be an anomaly between how the company approached
their new domestic range and how they traditionally built lawnmowers.
Scott Bonnar were completely aware of the many benefits of good scalable designs.
In fact, their
Standard model was still being sold in 1950 and 1951. An inter-war design,
it was offered in 14", 16" and 18" in its final years.
![[Linked Image]](https://www.outdoorking-forum.com.au/forum/uploads/usergals/2017/03/full-7392-33324-1950_04_westaustralian_21april_p4.jpg)
The new post-war professional models were scalable, as you say - the Model 16 Queens
in 20" and 24" and finally 30"; the Model 17 Supercuts in 14", 16", 18", 20" and finally 24".
Yet the earliest post-war domestic machines did not follow this design principle.
I said that by 1960, Scott Bonnar were offering three domestic sizes - 14", 16" and 20"
each one a separate design model! Your main question is, ... why did Scott Bonnar choose
to regress in terms of design? ...What were they thinking?
My best guess is that there is no single reason, but a number of factors that came
into play. Certainly, I feel that SB misunderstood the emerging mass market. Perhaps
they thought that the higher sales volumes could justify separate designs. For me,
it was just poor planning.
I saw this when I wrote about their first new domestic mower - the 14" Model 19.
This machine simply could not be scaled to any larger size. The baffling thing is
that SB didn't learn from that mistake. The solution to expanding the range
... more designs!
I totally agree with your point about the Model 33. Out of the three 1960 models -
the 33, 40 and 43 - only the
Model 33 had potential to be scaled up or down in cut
size. It has the closest engineering DNA to what would become the Model 45s. It took
Scott Bonnar about 15 years to realize or remember what the older designers had known
about scalable design since the 1920s.
As you know, the main designer and founder,
Mr Scott Bonnar, retired in
1947.
Sid Bowditch retired in
1958. Perhaps a lack of engineering leadership ensued for a period ...
It should also be noted that Scott Bonnar became a
public company in
1950 and had a
Stock Exchange listing. Clearly significantly extra capital was raised to develop the
company (and new models) in the post-war era. Perhaps too much money ...
My final point is one made with the
benefit of hindsight. Post WWII, a new consumer
market was born. In my research, I have concluded that perhaps 95% of the makers that
were around in the 1950s didn't survive to see the 1960s. Things just moved too quickly.
The Scott Bonnar design Department must have been kept busy - with new reel models
and their entering the rotary lawnmower market in about 1956. They made errors there too.
Scott Bonnar did survive to become one of the top half dozen lawnmower makers of the day.
They certainly didn't get there without error!
-------------------------
Jack
