Bob_Skurka
Super Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 7,503
I had to swing by one of the dealerships yesterday to drop off a tractor as it is going out of warrenty and the fuel guage stopped working. While I was there I was poking around and looking at all the stuff on the lot.
I noticed that there were 2 different brands of 35 HP tractors on the lot.
- One brand has a smaller capacity, light duty bucket (it is the standard bucket).
- One brand had a larger capacity, heavier duty bucket (it is the standard bucket).
Interesting thing is that the tractor with the smaller, lighter bucket has a higher lift capacity rating on the FEL than the tractor with the larger, heavier bucket.
So then I began to wonder if rated lift capacity has anything to do with bucket size. I have never been able to fill either of the buckets I use with enough material so that I couldn't lift them. I can go into a typical pile and scoop out a heaping overflowing amount and still lift it. Now with pallet forks I know I could overload the capacity, but I've not been able to do that with a bucket. Even heaping full of wet clay or loaded down with granite cobblestones, if the load would fit, the loader would lift it.
So why would some brands put a theoretically high capacity loader on a tractor and then put a small, light duty bucket on it? They obviously know that the small bucket full of material would never come close to the capacity of the hydraulics. And I ask that knowing that the VAST MAJORITY of SMALL tractor owners (35hp and under) who have a bucket for their FEL do NOT have other attachments so they never remove the bucket.
Anyone else here think that the marketing departments may have gotten involved in the ratings?
-or-
The accounting departments wanted to cut costs so they shaved the FEL bucket down in size?
I noticed that there were 2 different brands of 35 HP tractors on the lot.
- One brand has a smaller capacity, light duty bucket (it is the standard bucket).
- One brand had a larger capacity, heavier duty bucket (it is the standard bucket).
Interesting thing is that the tractor with the smaller, lighter bucket has a higher lift capacity rating on the FEL than the tractor with the larger, heavier bucket.
So then I began to wonder if rated lift capacity has anything to do with bucket size. I have never been able to fill either of the buckets I use with enough material so that I couldn't lift them. I can go into a typical pile and scoop out a heaping overflowing amount and still lift it. Now with pallet forks I know I could overload the capacity, but I've not been able to do that with a bucket. Even heaping full of wet clay or loaded down with granite cobblestones, if the load would fit, the loader would lift it.
So why would some brands put a theoretically high capacity loader on a tractor and then put a small, light duty bucket on it? They obviously know that the small bucket full of material would never come close to the capacity of the hydraulics. And I ask that knowing that the VAST MAJORITY of SMALL tractor owners (35hp and under) who have a bucket for their FEL do NOT have other attachments so they never remove the bucket.
Anyone else here think that the marketing departments may have gotten involved in the ratings?
-or-
The accounting departments wanted to cut costs so they shaved the FEL bucket down in size?