Anyone ever had their ROPS top part cut down?

[RG1]

Here's a couple pics to support my opinion.

First is my M9540. Second is a SCUT. Note how much taller the ROPS is on the SCUT.

I keep mine folded all the time when my canopy isn't mounted on it, so i guess that tells where i am on this subject, but........ the little green one has a taller ROPS because it is a shorter machine. If it were longer to create an shallower angle , the height would be very close to the orange one. Psst.... I'd like to drive that orange one around for a while :thumbsup:

 

[ovrszd]

My first tractor didn't even have ROPS. Have you never seen how people totally modify trucks, jeeps cars?

You mean like this???

 

[DarkBlack]

Here's a couple pics to support my opinion.

First is my M9540. Second is a SCUT. Note how much taller the ROPS is on the SCUT.

I'm not all that impressed with the ROPs on my tractor. It does fold low enough for the garage. If it didn't I wouldn't bat an eye at the thought of modifying it.

 

[RickB]

Here's a couple pics to support my opinion.

First is my M9540. Second is a SCUT. Note how much taller the ROPS is on the SCUT.

Now go measure the distance from the top of the ROPS to the top front of the engine block on each tractor.
Then draw a line from the top front of the Deere's engine block to a point above the seat cushion roughly equal to the height of the Kubota ROPS above its seat. The shorter Deere chassis dictates a higher ROPS to maintain the 'triangle of life" (my term) providing sufficient space to survive a 180 degree rollover. We dealing with engineering parameters here, not a single linear design specification.
As always, whether I convince anyone of anything here on TBN has no effect on the night's sleep I will get tonight.

 

[DarkBlack]

You mean like this???

That roll cage can't be safe... It wasn't welded by some guy at tractor company over seas:laughing:

 

[ovrszd]

I keep mine folded all the time when my canopy isn't mounted on it, so i guess that tells where i am on this subject, but........ the little green one has a taller ROPS because it is a shorter machine. If it were longer to create an shallower angle , the height would be very close to the orange one. Psst.... I'd like to drive that orange one around for a while :thumbsup:

Hey, I'm with ya. I couldn't find a better pic of the SCUT. And my SCUT, JD2210, has the ROPS removed because I got tired of tree limbs smacking me in the head trying to mow under them.....You gotta get in line behind the "quacker" man to get a run at the orange one.

 

[DarkBlack]

whether I convince anyone of anything here on TBN has no effect on the night's sleep I will get tonight.

Well, that's good.

 

[ovrszd]

That roll cage can't be safe... It wasn't welded by some guy at tractor company over seas:laughing:

That outfit is what happens when you give your Son a pile of pipe and a good bender. You get a view inside their brains. Scary....

 

[murphy1244]

You need quackers with that Murph???

Leave my Ducks out of it!

 

[ovrszd]

Now go measure the distance from the top of the ROPS to the top front of the engine block on each tractor. Then draw a line from the top front of the Deere's engine block to a point above the seat cushion roughly equal to the height of the Kubota ROPS above its seat. The shorter Deere chassis dictates a higher ROPS to maintain the 'triangle of life" (my term) providing sufficient space to survive a 180 degree rollover. We dealing with engineering parameters here, not a single linear design specification. As always, whether I convince anyone of anything here on TBN has no effect on the night's sleep I will get tonight.

For me at least,,, this is not an argument at all. It's a learning discussion.With that said, if you think you can find a safe spot to hide in the "triangle of life" on the Kubota in a rollover, you are a lot smaller man than I. I was liberally going from the hood. If I gotta shrink that triangle down to the engine block, there's no survivor, the steering wheel would actually hit the ground.