Last year my F150 was rearend by Soceer Mom on her cell phone. She hit me hard enough to roll the bumper under the bed of the truck. I had a local shop preform the repair. They cut the bumper off which required removing the last 4 inch of the frame. Then they welded short pieces of 'U" channel to the end of the frame to get the right lenght so a new bumper could be installed. For that small job they charged me almost $500 to cut the bumper off and welded the "U" channel and they had the best quote. :(
Welding extra teeth on could be done pretty easily by the end user with as little as a 110V MIG I'd think. They would not be critical structural welds. Maybe we can get MIE to use their CAD and steel cutting capabilities to cut some next time they fab a ripper and just sell them as optional add-ons.
I'm not sure I agree exactly with JJ though. The ripper isn't a saw. It is more of a tearing device. The extra tooth on the backside I was thinking about would simply be to provide something to rip with on the reverse stroke rather than saw. I cannot envision much benefit from multiple extra saw teeth on the front side. The front side has a 45 degree bevel so is intended to "knife" rather than saw.
We need to get IronHorse to comment and repost photos of his radical ripper as that had some sort of reverse ripping tooth.
We're going to miss your threads when you finally get all those trees cleared out.
Nah, I look forward to someday posting about stereos, drink coolers and air conditioning in cab tractors. That's a ways off though.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmc
Island, Michigan...The ripper was made for the Woods backhoe. If a person had a different backhoe...say Kubota BH90...would the pin connection points be in a different location? And would the pin lengths, (and width), be different...which would mean a wider or narrower portion on the claw where they go through? Or is the claw a one size fits all? Would Michigan need a template for each brand and size? I don't know much about backhoes...(yet).
Different backhoes have variable pin positions and sizes. Size is more important as the position differences can be accommodated to some extent by the BH bucket linkage.
I obtained an engineering drawing from Woods so I could give MichiganIron the precise numbers. Even those drawings have options for placement of the "back" pin. One position allows faster curling and the other is the "power" position which I chose as max force was more important than speed or arc length was my priority.
I'm sure Kubota has similar technical drawing they hopefully would share. The pin sizes can also be measured but I'd suggest you use a measuring device more precise than a tape measure. Position (left or right) of the lock bolts is also critical as MIE needs to accommodate that in the design.
I'd guess that MIE could pretty quickly collect the important specs on popular backhoe models from Woods, JD, Kubota, Kioti etc. The pioneers will need to measure or get technical drawings though.
Very impressive. Tearing out that size of tree all in one piece is a real feat!
I wonder if a ripper like that would work on a three point hitch? Or would that just be a sub-soiler? I could see backing up to a tree and tearing out the roots on either side and then chaining it to the FEL and hauling it away. Certainly that would require more maneuvering of the tractor but for those of us without a backhoe, it might be an option.
Nice work on both yours and Michigan Iron's part.
Interesting idea. The ripper blade is physically about the same as a subsoiler shaft. Not sure it would be easy to get the subsoiler close enough to the tree however. Certain isolated trees with no surrounding obstructions might be accessible. Might be possible to rig some sort of extension like with a 2x2 tow hitch extension but you'd also need some down pressure. Odd but interesting idea.
This is a ripper I had a machine shop build for me to allow my 3.5 tonne excavator to tackle bigger stumps than it could normaly .
The bottom hook was used to get under the lateral roots and rip them . I found with a normal ripper tyne , the greasy roots would force the tyne to crowd out and overcome the relief valve on the machine as the rippers curve slide around the root . The hook prevents this happening . The top inside hook was used to hook the top of the stump close to the dipper arm joint increasing the purchase the machine had over the stump . The top forward hook was used to push the stump away with similar force which helped brake the roots . They did not follow my design closely and had the top hooks a little shrouded by the top plate but it worked pretty well all the same . This is only a little stump that I used for the pics , it could handle much bigger .
IT , your ripper looks great .