For the record, what you actually said - and what started this unfortunate exchange in the first place - was "The cutters take less HP to run than the finish belly mower...".
I admitted my mistake....
//greg//
I still agree with ruffdog on this one. But I see your point as well.
If you are mowing your yard, knocking 1.5" off of the top of your plush lawn, then yes, that takes less HP per foot than using a RC and cutting up a field with 30-40" of thick grass. That I think we can agree on.
I took from the context of ruffdogs post (in which you quoted a peice of) that he is mowing an area once ever few weeks. Not as often as a lawn, but still often. And he mentions that his RC takes less HP (boggs down less) and he can travel faster. But at the sacrifice of not quite as clean of a cut.
And this is exactally what I have been talking about. Fields that only get cut once every 2-3 weeks. It is at the upper end of a RFM's capacity, and requires a really slow speed to keep from stalling, but wouldnt even break a sweat for a RC.
The only reason a RC and a RFM are "rated" different by MFG's is because they expect you to be able to go through some really thick stuff with the RC. But are only expecting you to mow a lawn with a RFM. So this comparison is really a moot point, but go mow 36" of thick grass with a RFM, and then do it with a RC of the same size and see which one uses more HP.
No mistakes to admitt IMO
