Define CUT?

[Charlie175]

What separates a Sub CUT from a CUT from a Utility?

Size I would assume, but take example a IH 140 tractor, which in todays world would be a CUT?

 

[TedLaRue]

These are separated by grey lines, not black and white.

It sort of reminds me of parking spaces for "compact cars". Who decides what is what?

In my view, tractors in the 30 +/- 5 HP vicinity are compact. Below that are sub compact. Above that are utility.

I'm not sure what tractor you're talking about, but at least one IH 140 tractor is rated at 100HP which is hardly in the "compact" realm.

 

[schmism]

In my view, tractors in the 30 +/- 5 HP vicinity are compact. Below that are sub compact. Above that are utility.

that would be the simplest "lets not consider anything else" way of looking at it.

second thing i would quickly use to determine is weight. a 40hp CUT and a 40hp small AG tractor... the AG tractor is likely to out weigh it by upwards of 25%. weight being important for draw bar use and mass for things like balers.
Old iron of yesteryear in the 40hp range will dwarf (in weight and size) what a Kubota of nearly identical hp of today.

IMHO a SCUT is anything that (with a MMM and no attachment) you would think is a riding lawnmower if you saw it.

 

[yankeerider]

These are separated by grey lines, not black and white....

In my view, tractors in the 30 +/- 5 HP vicinity are compact. Below that are sub compact. Above that are utility

The problem with this definition is that it makes a Ford 9N, etc. a subcompact. I think we need to take tire or frame size into account as well.

 

[MikePA]

What problem are we trying to solve by defining SCUT, CUT and Utility tractors?

 

[Charlie175]

No problem, just trying to answer in my mind the definition of it.

 

[MikePA]

No problem, just trying to answer in my mind the definition of it.

Since there's no standard, each manufacturer defines their tractors differently, depending on whether they are trying to sell the largest SCUT or the smallest, lightest CUT.

IMO, what it comes down to is people should buy the tractor they need to complete the tasks they have. This most often means they should focus on the size, weight, horsepower and features of the tractor and not the classification.

 

[Charlie175]

I think the SCUT has larger replaced the Garden tractors of yesteryear as many manufactures don't offer a GT line anymore.

 

[TedLaRue]

I agree with schmism's point that horsepower is a very crude measuring stick. I think that's especially true down in the riding lawnmower size machines.

Size, tire size, and weight are also important, but those should roughly correspond to horsepower. Maybe we should define the terms based on what the machine can do (to expand on MikePA's ideas). Can it handle a 5' brush hog with ease? Can it square-bale with ease? etc.

The "with ease" parts are the gray lines between the definitions.

When I bought my tractor I looked at what it could do for me and I didn't even know the terms CUT or SCUT.

This reminds me of the terms microcomputer, minicomputer, and mainframe or PDA, laptop, notebook, desktop or jump drive, pin drive, USB drive, thumb drive, memory stick, etc. Sheesh!

 

[schmism]

The problem with this definition is that it makes a Ford 9N, etc. a subcompact. I think we need to take tire or frame size into account as well.

thus my point about the second thing i consider most important is weight.

a 9n is what... double the weight of a rideing lawnmower aka SCUT.... certianlly not in the same class.