[PhantomPholly]

One good approach to any problem is to put each piece of the puzzle into perspective.

In the first post, the concern raised about using the hydrostatic drive is that it is inefficient.

Let's assume that it is only 50% efficient (Eee gads!). What percentage of your total power consumption does that represent?

Well, if out of 16hp 90% was going to the blades (likely true, if not more - 1.6 hp is an awful lot just to move you around at 4mph!), then 50% of 10% = 5% total power wastage.

Weigh that against the challenges of developing independent reversible controllers for independent wheel motors (now 3 motors).

For the extra weight and complexity of the extra motors and controllers, I think I'd just put on an extra battery.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

 

[PhantomPholly]

Nice lawn Major!

 

[PhantomPholly]

Hey Guys:

Here are some pics of the lawnmower. We have already removed the engine and if anyone is interested in a 16hp Vangard Briggs and Stratton (still runs) shoot me an email ([email protected]nois.edu). (I don't know why you would be interested considering the forum we are on but....)

Anyway the transmission of the thing is all jacked up. The engine runs and the blades will turn on but the mower doesn't actually move. This inclines us to think we should just rip everything out and go with a motor for each wheel running off the chain final drive rather than try to fix up the transmission. I have also read a couple articles describing the issues these cone drives had so going with a technology proven to go bad doesn't give me a good feeling.

On the battery front, it looks like we will probably go with a thundersky or HiPower 100ah LiFeSO4 battery

Oh my gosh, it's an old cone drive. What a blast from the past! I remember helping my boss put one of these on display 36 years ago when the technology was brand spanking new and I was working as a bicycle repairer at a lawnmower sales & fixit place....