burnetma
Gold Member
I had the opportunity to operate both of these machines today. The RC100 was equiped with a Fecon Bullhog and the SR80 was equiped with a Loftness Carbide Cutter. I went into some detail on comparing the two mulching heads in another post. I will attempt to share my observations regarding the features and suitability of these units for mulching operations here.
Specifications for both machines are available on the ASV website, but I will provide a few key specifications here.
ASV RC100
Engine HP = 100
Hydraulic HP = 65
Weight = 10,100 lbs
Op Capacity = 2660 lbs
Track Suspension = Torsion bar
ASV SR80
Engine HP = 80
Hydraulic HP = 48
Weight = 8972
Op Capacity = 2170
Track Suspesion = New independently mounted
Observations:
RC100:
My demo began with the RC100. This unit is a no frills work machine. Little in the way of apparent electronics and no real guages, the lack of which I found to be distracting. Getting in and out of the machine was quite easy despite my size and the added bulk of Carharts. The cab was comfortable. The controls were well layed out and easy to understand. The swing out door and over the head restraint were easy to use.
I drove the RC100 out across an open field, through some dead furrows and into the woods which included some swampy (half frozen) areas and some uneven terrain. The RC100 was smooth across the open fields, but the dead furrows were quite abrupt (similar to the majority of CTL's). It handled the 2000+ pound cutting head fairly well and was felt quite stable on all tested terrain. The hydraulics were able to lift and tilt the head without much delay or lag. While operating the cutter, I was only able to drag the unit down to near stall a few times. The unit was still completely manuverable even in the near stall condition. The power is in a word impressive.
SR80:
The appearance of the SR80 cockpit is like that of a sports car. It has easy to read guages that monitor all critical parameters. That is where my love affair with the SR80 cockpit ended. My biggest complaint was the roll up door. I opened and closed this door about 6 times. Each time I bumped my head and struggled with the unit. I found this to be very distracting. This unit also uses a seatbelt instead of a over the head bar for restraint. Buckling the seatbelt was much more difficult than pulling down the bar. Once inside the machine and properly restrained, the interior was well thought out and comfortable.
I repeated the same operations over the same terrain with the SR80 as the RC100. The SR80 was notably smoother over all terrain especially the dead furrows. Stability was quite good despite being near the operating capacity of the unit. The unit did have a time lifting and tiliting the head with some significant delays occuring when trying to curl the head back from the max down position. The model tested also experienced difficulties in engaging the high flow, but not sure of the root cause of this issue. Finally the reduced hydraulic HP is definitely noticable on the SR80. It was significantly easier to stall the mulching head on the SR80 and recovery times were also much longer. Once I became acustomed to the reduced power, I was able to be very efficient with the mulching head.
One final negative. ASV has not come out with a forestry package for the SR80. Many have told me the extra guards are crucial and I believe them.
My Conclusion:
The SR80 track system and instrumentation is a significant improvement over the RC100. The door and operator restraint systems in the SR80 are real negatives for me, but your opinion may differ. Once inside the SR80, it is very comfortable and would make a great machine for most operations. The machine is capable of performing all of the same tasks as the RC100. However, at only 48 hydraulic HP and without a forestry package, I do not think that the SR80 is a good fit for commercial mulching.
The RC100 is one strong machine and its capabilities far outweigh the lack of instrumentation and older track system. I can see why it is the preferred CTL platform for most mulchers. For my money, I am going with the RC100.
ASV, if you are listening, please consider the new style track system for an updated RC100 and add some guages.
Specifications for both machines are available on the ASV website, but I will provide a few key specifications here.
ASV RC100
Engine HP = 100
Hydraulic HP = 65
Weight = 10,100 lbs
Op Capacity = 2660 lbs
Track Suspension = Torsion bar
ASV SR80
Engine HP = 80
Hydraulic HP = 48
Weight = 8972
Op Capacity = 2170
Track Suspesion = New independently mounted
Observations:
RC100:
My demo began with the RC100. This unit is a no frills work machine. Little in the way of apparent electronics and no real guages, the lack of which I found to be distracting. Getting in and out of the machine was quite easy despite my size and the added bulk of Carharts. The cab was comfortable. The controls were well layed out and easy to understand. The swing out door and over the head restraint were easy to use.
I drove the RC100 out across an open field, through some dead furrows and into the woods which included some swampy (half frozen) areas and some uneven terrain. The RC100 was smooth across the open fields, but the dead furrows were quite abrupt (similar to the majority of CTL's). It handled the 2000+ pound cutting head fairly well and was felt quite stable on all tested terrain. The hydraulics were able to lift and tilt the head without much delay or lag. While operating the cutter, I was only able to drag the unit down to near stall a few times. The unit was still completely manuverable even in the near stall condition. The power is in a word impressive.
SR80:
The appearance of the SR80 cockpit is like that of a sports car. It has easy to read guages that monitor all critical parameters. That is where my love affair with the SR80 cockpit ended. My biggest complaint was the roll up door. I opened and closed this door about 6 times. Each time I bumped my head and struggled with the unit. I found this to be very distracting. This unit also uses a seatbelt instead of a over the head bar for restraint. Buckling the seatbelt was much more difficult than pulling down the bar. Once inside the machine and properly restrained, the interior was well thought out and comfortable.
I repeated the same operations over the same terrain with the SR80 as the RC100. The SR80 was notably smoother over all terrain especially the dead furrows. Stability was quite good despite being near the operating capacity of the unit. The unit did have a time lifting and tiliting the head with some significant delays occuring when trying to curl the head back from the max down position. The model tested also experienced difficulties in engaging the high flow, but not sure of the root cause of this issue. Finally the reduced hydraulic HP is definitely noticable on the SR80. It was significantly easier to stall the mulching head on the SR80 and recovery times were also much longer. Once I became acustomed to the reduced power, I was able to be very efficient with the mulching head.
One final negative. ASV has not come out with a forestry package for the SR80. Many have told me the extra guards are crucial and I believe them.
My Conclusion:
The SR80 track system and instrumentation is a significant improvement over the RC100. The door and operator restraint systems in the SR80 are real negatives for me, but your opinion may differ. Once inside the SR80, it is very comfortable and would make a great machine for most operations. The machine is capable of performing all of the same tasks as the RC100. However, at only 48 hydraulic HP and without a forestry package, I do not think that the SR80 is a good fit for commercial mulching.
The RC100 is one strong machine and its capabilities far outweigh the lack of instrumentation and older track system. I can see why it is the preferred CTL platform for most mulchers. For my money, I am going with the RC100.
ASV, if you are listening, please consider the new style track system for an updated RC100 and add some guages.
