Shughes717
Lawn Addict
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2014
- Threads
- 4
- Messages
- 1,230
Probably for striping. Like the rubber flap on the back of the Icd deck.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
SCAG Patriot
- Thread starter kingb0305
- Start date
More options
Export threadProbably for striping. Like the rubber flap on the back of the Icd deck.
The rear rollers are not anti scalp wheels.
I was just getting it from the literature, which says "Dual 12" rear-mounted anti-scalp rollers provide additional turf protection (one roller on SCZ48/52 models; excludes Patriot, Freedom Z, Liberty Z, and V-Ride mowers)." I'm not too worried about the rear mounted rollers. The point of my post was asking opinions if, by manufacturing a zero turn to compete in the low end commercial market, they took away what makes a SCAG a SCAG. The previous posts seemed to reinforce that the Advantage deck is still very good and this mower may be one of the better built entry level commercial units.
I was just getting it from the literature, which says "Dual 12" rear-mounted anti-scalp rollers provide additional turf protection (one roller on SCZ48/52 models; excludes Patriot, Freedom Z, Liberty Z, and V-Ride mowers)." I'm not too worried about the rear mounted rollers. The point of my post was asking opinions if, by manufacturing a zero turn to compete in the low end commercial market, they took away what makes a SCAG a SCAG. The previous posts seemed to reinforce that the Advantage deck is still very good and this mower may be one of the better built entry level commercial units.
I agree totally. Kinda like when John Deere started selling lower line mowers at Lowe's and Home Depot.SCAG has always stood for top of the line commercial zero turn mowers.Now,I'm not so sure.I love my 03 Tiger Cub,good thing because it will probably be the last mower I have to buy.
bertsmobile1
Lawn Royalty
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2014
- Threads
- 64
- Messages
- 24,702
You are getting into marketing & manufacturing philosophy territory now.
There is 5/8 of SFA profit in making residential mowers because most of the buying public ultimately buys on price.
So you have to sell at an ever lowering profit margin or seriously downgrade the product to make a profit.
OTOH some times selling a cheap mower at cost or a slight loss can make an increase in profit as it reduces the unit cost of the profitable lines due to volume efficiencies.
Or there is a marketing theory that the name is the product and the mower is just a means of delivering it to the market so once you have a good name you can put it on any old mediocre product and that product will sell because of the name on it.
This also works well provided you don't put your name on garbage thus damaging your ultimate product ( your name ) Sarah Lea does this very well .
This is the philosophy behind things like Stihl entering the ride on market with a different brand, Viking , Stihl decide it was not worth the effort & got out.
John Deere testing the market with Scotts & Sabre slightly divorcing them from the JD name before finally deciding that segment of the market was profitable and launching fully into the bottom end residential mowers under their own name.
This has damaged the JD brand a little to the point that the buying public actually compare JD to others like Toro & Scag on a value for money basis.
There is also the customer loyality philosophy that you sell a better product at the bottom end at a loss in order to suck people into your brand and ultimately keep them all their life selling them progressively higher profit lines every time they upgrade.
Toyota use this method extensively hoping your cheapie first Toyota will be so good you will automatically upgrade to a bigger, better & more profitable one latter on. Ford & GM do not seem to understand this.
It is always easier & cheaper to keep an old customer satisified than to get a new one.
Snap on exploit this method 200%.
Their tools are good quality but not worth anywhere near the asking price. However they treat their customers very well and convince their customers Snap on are the greatest tool on earth so they end up happily spending $ 5000 for a cupboard to keep them in and become life long loyal customers. They follow this up by ensuring there is not a tool ever designed that you can not get with the Snap on brand so customers never need to leave the fold.
Now for all you Snap on devotees please note I did say they were good quality so hackles down it was just an example of this type of this marketing that every one is familiar with.
There is 5/8 of SFA profit in making residential mowers because most of the buying public ultimately buys on price.
So you have to sell at an ever lowering profit margin or seriously downgrade the product to make a profit.
OTOH some times selling a cheap mower at cost or a slight loss can make an increase in profit as it reduces the unit cost of the profitable lines due to volume efficiencies.
Or there is a marketing theory that the name is the product and the mower is just a means of delivering it to the market so once you have a good name you can put it on any old mediocre product and that product will sell because of the name on it.
This also works well provided you don't put your name on garbage thus damaging your ultimate product ( your name ) Sarah Lea does this very well .
This is the philosophy behind things like Stihl entering the ride on market with a different brand, Viking , Stihl decide it was not worth the effort & got out.
John Deere testing the market with Scotts & Sabre slightly divorcing them from the JD name before finally deciding that segment of the market was profitable and launching fully into the bottom end residential mowers under their own name.
This has damaged the JD brand a little to the point that the buying public actually compare JD to others like Toro & Scag on a value for money basis.
There is also the customer loyality philosophy that you sell a better product at the bottom end at a loss in order to suck people into your brand and ultimately keep them all their life selling them progressively higher profit lines every time they upgrade.
Toyota use this method extensively hoping your cheapie first Toyota will be so good you will automatically upgrade to a bigger, better & more profitable one latter on. Ford & GM do not seem to understand this.
It is always easier & cheaper to keep an old customer satisified than to get a new one.
Snap on exploit this method 200%.
Their tools are good quality but not worth anywhere near the asking price. However they treat their customers very well and convince their customers Snap on are the greatest tool on earth so they end up happily spending $ 5000 for a cupboard to keep them in and become life long loyal customers. They follow this up by ensuring there is not a tool ever designed that you can not get with the Snap on brand so customers never need to leave the fold.
Now for all you Snap on devotees please note I did say they were good quality so hackles down it was just an example of this type of this marketing that every one is familiar with.
Shughes717
Lawn Addict
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2014
- Threads
- 4
- Messages
- 1,230
You are getting into marketing & manufacturing philosophy territory now.
There is 5/8 of SFA profit in making residential mowers because most of the buying public ultimately buys on price.
So you have to sell at an ever lowering profit margin or seriously downgrade the product to make a profit.
OTOH some times selling a cheap mower at cost or a slight loss can make an increase in profit as it reduces the unit cost of the profitable lines due to volume efficiencies.
Or there is a marketing theory that the name is the product and the mower is just a means of delivering it to the market so once you have a good name you can put it on any old mediocre product and that product will sell because of the name on it.
This also works well provided you don't put your name on garbage thus damaging your ultimate product ( your name ) Sarah Lea does this very well .
This is the philosophy behind things like Stihl entering the ride on market with a different brand, Viking , Stihl decide it was not worth the effort & got out.
John Deere testing the market with Scotts & Sabre slightly divorcing them from the JD name before finally deciding that segment of the market was profitable and launching fully into the bottom end residential mowers under their own name.
This has damaged the JD brand a little to the point that the buying public actually compare JD to others like Toro & Scag on a value for money basis.
There is also the customer loyality philosophy that you sell a better product at the bottom end at a loss in order to suck people into your brand and ultimately keep them all their life selling them progressively higher profit lines every time they upgrade.
Toyota use this method extensively hoping your cheapie first Toyota will be so good you will automatically upgrade to a bigger, better & more profitable one latter on. Ford & GM do not seem to understand this.
It is always easier & cheaper to keep an old customer satisified than to get a new one.
Snap on exploit this method 200%.
Their tools are good quality but not worth anywhere near the asking price. However they treat their customers very well and convince their customers Snap on are the greatest tool on earth so they end up happily spending $ 5000 for a cupboard to keep them in and become life long loyal customers. They follow this up by ensuring there is not a tool ever designed that you can not get with the Snap on brand so customers never need to leave the fold.
Now for all you Snap on devotees please note I did say they were good quality so hackles down it was just an example of this type of this marketing that every one is familiar with.
Man, your posts are long winded, but there is some truth in this one. I don't have the attention span, or the patience to type that much. I barely had enough to read it. :laughing:
bertsmobile1
Lawn Royalty
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2014
- Threads
- 64
- Messages
- 24,702
You must be under 50 :laughing:
I know people that have had to replace their John Deere from Home Depot after 5 years.That could tarnish a reputation and SCAG has worked hard for thiers.Just hate to see that happen over a cheaper model line.Just my 2¢,not trying to upset anyone or be a troll.
Shughes717
Lawn Addict
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2014
- Threads
- 4
- Messages
- 1,230
You must be under 50 :laughing:
As a matter of fact I'm 40. :laughing:
I have a Scag Patriot with the 61 inch cut and the Kawasaki engine. So far so good. Did my 3 acre lawn in 2 hours v.s. the 3 1/2 hours it took on my old 42 inch John Deere tractor. So far I like the Scag Patriot. Seems like a well built unit. Only cut my grass four times so far this season.
Yes, the big box store John Deere tractors are flimsy. My D130 deck was way too thin and weak and had to have my spindles straightened and one replaced. Only 65 hours of use. Sold it when I got my Scag Patriot.I know people that have had to replace their John Deere from Home Depot after 5 years.That could tarnish a reputation and SCAG has worked hard for thiers.Just hate to see that happen over a cheaper model line.Just my 2¢,not trying to upset anyone or be a troll.