Steep Hill Log Skidding

[Rip]

I'm at 8000 ft in Colorado on a very steep hill that needs logs removed on a regular basis for fire mitigation (that 137,000 acre Hayman Fire in '02 was just 8 miles from us, among others). I currently have an ARGO Conquest 20 HP 8X8 AATV that will go almost anywhere on our hills, but runs out of power and traction when you have to brake one side to skid steer it.

A contractor with a JD 4600 bearly was able to get into some of the places I need to go, and the pucker factor was pretty high even then. I have a NH TC-30 with wide-set R-1 tires plus 420 lbs of wheel weights that is still way too tippy for the terrain in question. I am planning on filling the tires plus perhaps adding 3" or 4" axle extentions, but I know it still will not be able to safely go much of where I need to.

I am seriously considering a Hydro Traxx 6X6 AATV that has full hydrostatic drive with either a 32 or 45 HP Kubota Turbo Diesel (hydrotraxxonline.com). It has more ground clearence and is a foot wider than the ARGO plus all wheels are under power at all times. It looks like it would be pretty darn impossible to roll over but I would get a roll cage for it to keep the wife happy. I plan to make something like the QuadSkidder to keep the logs from digging in and catching on the rocks.

Any comments and/or experience with such a set up?

Rip

 

[JJT]

If it's as steep as you say, why not let the pro's handle it on a share basis? They have the equipment to do the job right and stay safe. I've see spots that were so steep that the skidder couldn't pull a hitch of logs up, they free spool the winch, drive the skidder to the top of the hill and then winch the logs up.

I know loggers that do a 1/3 - 1/2 share for them and 2/3 - 1/2 for the property owners, (depending on the amount of work involved).

 

[JerryG]

Check out the Massey Ferguson 3300 series tractors. They are about the same physical size as a 35-40 horse compact tractor. That is the only thing that they share with the compacts though. They weigh about 5000 pounds. You would not run out of power either with 54-93 HP engine horse and 47-82 PTO horse. With wide tires set at the widest setting it would be amazing where you could go.

 

[Rip]

I'll look into the MF 3300 series... I had figured that although larger tractors usually have a wider stance, they also sit taller so that there was not much side-hill advantage.

As for contracting the work out, the few folks I has talked to before were not really interested and acknowledged that things would end up fairly well torn up if they used real heavy equipment. The guy with the JD was pretty easy on the land, just could not get into a lot of the area.


Thanks for the input though.... I'm looking at all options.

Rip

 

[JerryG]

The MF 3300's are as low to the ground or lower than a compact. I was amazed when I first looked at them. Such a small package with everything the larger tractors have.

 

[Henro]

<font color="blue"> Here's a link to the Massy 3300 series </font>

Looks like on style has about the same ground clearance as my B2910 Kubota, weighs about 2.5 times as much, and has rear wheels that spread 10" wider than mine [64" vs 54].

 

[Rip]

Thanks for the link... I had found a somewhat different one with more pics but less data after Jerry mentioned this series. Seems like more machine than I am really looking for at this time.

By the way, I'm not running out of power with my NH TC-30, just side-hill stability. I am still thinking about wheel/axle extensions to increase my rear track width by 6 to 8 inches on general principal, but I still doubt I could go every where I want.

The ARGO Conquest has good stability and will go just about anywhere I need, but it lacks power at my altitude and sometimes gives me ground clearance issues with the many rocks on this site. ARGO has just come out with a new model, the Avenger, with 5 more ponies and a "new" steering transmision, but it may not be enough additional power for me and I am always leary of brand new unproven mechanical (and electronic/software for that matter) devices. Too many "beta" versions being foisted on the unsuspecting public.

Soooo.... that's why I am considering the Hydro Traxx which offers much more power along with a basic hydrostatic drive train plus more ground clearance and even wider track width to replace the ARGO. I also use the six passenger ARGO (or similar configuration Hydro Traxx) to drive friends, family and grandkids around our ranch on tires or snow tracks.

I am still open to other options however, and was curious if anyone else on this forum had faced a similar situation.

Thanks for the input....

Rip

 

[JerryG]

As far as power goes, If I lived at that elevation I would want an engine with a turbocharger. You can compensate for the altitude with the turbo. I love mine and I'm not at 8000 ft. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Henro]

Rip,

Have you considered dual rear wheels as an option?

One member here...Slamfire I think...I remember the pic under the name but I am now loosing confidence in my memory...did so.

I believe he reported a tremendous increase in stability on hills after he put duals on the back of his tractor.

 

[Rip]

In terms of stability, I think I would gain as much with axle extensions as with duals since I don't need additional floatation. I may also do partial fluid fill in addition to the 420 lbs of cast wheel weights I already have. The front axle would still be narrow in any case. This may not be too bad if I remove the FEL and hang suitcase weights on the front bumper.

I agree about the turbo. I loose about 28% up here with any naturally aspirated engine. Both engines I would consider in the Hydro Traxx are Kubota Turbo Diesels.

Rip