EA Wicked Grapple Carnage!

[newbury]

Brett - have you considered selling the one you repair and getting another beefier one from EA now that they are making them?

Good Catch, I don't know how much that contributed to this failure though. Could cause binding.

You have to un-pin and take the cylinder off in order to grease those fittings.
I had never done that. Used it a half a dozen times in the last year since I got it.

Has anyone mentioned this to EA? Reads like an opportunity for a slight redesign.

 

[Wild Bill the 2nd]

have you considered selling the one you repair and getting another beefier one from EA now that they are making them?

I asked Travis about if the utility models are sturdier. He said that the QA area is beefed up but the cylinder mounts are the same as the redesigned ones that we're getting. The main difference is capacity.

Has anyone mentioned this to EA? Reads like an opportunity for a slight redesign.

They may have already, It's pretty obvious that it could be improved. The thing is that the fitting is protected from being broken off in there.
Travis said that there is no longer a ring welded in the middle, that it is somehow one piece or at least more integrated somehow. We can let you know if the zerk placement is different when the new mounts arrive.

 

[ovrszd]

If a company wants to stay in business they will readily take care of design flaws. That's what we are talking about here, design flaws. EA is stepping up and correcting their deficiencies. That's commendable.

With that said, I always cringe when the customer is the R&D.

What if the attachment failed at a critical point in time which resulted in damage to other property, the tractor, etc.?? What if one side of the Grapple failed with a heavy load and totally twisted the FEL arms, would that be covered?? These examples are why I hate customer R&D. Hopefully the weaknesses will be rethought and corrected before this happens. Which again, is motivation for EA to quickly make the corrections.

Glad it's working out for everyone.

 

[rustyshakelford]

Brett - have you considered selling the one you repair and getting another beefier one from EA now that they are making them?


Has anyone mentioned this to EA? Reads like an opportunity for a slight redesign.

I like this one. I don't foresee any issues once it's welded up. I was looking at getting a 100 hp Deere and that's when I was considering getting the bigger one.

I asked Travis about if the utility models are sturdier. He said that the QA area is beefed up but the cylinder mounts are the same as the redesigned ones that we're getting. The main difference is capacity.


They may have already, It's pretty obvious that it could be improved. The thing is that the fitting is protected from being broken off in there.
Travis said that there is no longer a ring welded in the middle, that it is somehow one piece or at least more integrated somehow. We can let you know if the zerk placement is different when the new mounts arrive.

I was always able to grease my zerks. Maybe yours had the angle a little off? My parts will be here Friday.

If a company wants to stay in business they will readily take care of design flaws. That's what we are talking about here, design flaws. EA is stepping up and correcting their deficiencies. That's commendable.

With that said, I always cringe when the customer is the R&D.

What if the attachment failed at a critical point in time which resulted in damage to other property, the tractor, etc.?? What if one side of the Grapple failed with a heavy load and totally twisted the FEL arms, would that be covered?? These examples are why I hate customer R&D. Hopefully the weaknesses will be rethought and corrected before this happens. Which again, is motivation for EA to quickly make the corrections.

Glad it's working out for everyone.

I don't think this was customer r&d. This is the first failure of the mounts I've heard of and bills is the second. Both tractors are heavier than they are designed for. However, EA is continually improving their products as any great company. I don't think anything has been designed perfect right off the bat (except for my wife and son of course). I just think the term design flaw is overpowered for this situation.

Brett

 

[jaydee325]

If a company wants to stay in business they will readily take care of design flaws. That's what we are talking about here, design flaws. EA is stepping up and correcting their deficiencies. That's commendable.

With that said, I always cringe when the customer is the R&D.

What if the attachment failed at a critical point in time which resulted in damage to other property, the tractor, etc.?? What if one side of the Grapple failed with a heavy load and totally twisted the FEL arms, would that be covered?? These examples are why I hate customer R&D. Hopefully the weaknesses will be rethought and corrected before this happens. Which again, is motivation for EA to quickly make the corrections.

Glad it's working out for everyone.

I am trying to envision how this is a design flaw. All users that reported failures stated that the equipment was operated in excess of manufacturer stated limits. What am I missing here?

 

[ovrszd]

You guys can call it whatever suits you. EA k ows what it is and are correcting it. Hmmmmm,,, if it wasn't a design flaw why would it need revised?? :confused3:

 

[TheMadOne]

You guys can call it whatever suits you. EA k ows what it is and are correcting it. Hmmmmm,,, if it wasn't a design flaw why would it need revised?? :confused3:

Because EA is company that's smart enough to realize the word-of-mouth from giving away a few parts is worth way more than the actual cost of the parts? The failures happened when the grapples were pushed far far beyond their rated capacity. That's not a design flaw. Everything breaks if you push it hard enough. The fact that it takes what it does to get there is a testament to the durability of the grapples.

If you buy a 5000 lb trailer and routinely put 8000 lbs on it, who is a fault when a spindle breaks? This is the same type of situation.

That said, a favorite motto of mine is, "Hand a farmer a weak piece of equipment and they will hand you back a broken one."

Ted at EA seems to understand that very well. If you watch the youtube video introing their new land shark line he is very clear that the sacrifices made to match the price of other implement companies do reduce the ability of the user to get "rammy" with it. Which is fair and puts the equipment in line with basic offerings from other manufacturers. Still, when the time comes and I look to add to my implement collection, EA will be my first choice. Probably not the land shark line, though. I tend to beat on things to much for that.

 

[Luke'sScreenName]

Good on Travis for not commenting here. I did not think he could resist! :laughing:

 

[Wild Bill the 2nd]

You guys can call it whatever suits you. EA k ows what it is and are correcting it. Hmmmmm,,, if it wasn't a design flaw why would it need revised?? :confused3:

I think calling this a "design flaw" is awfully harsh. As stated we are using much heavier tractors than originally intended. Any good company will make improvements to a product as time goes on. They will re-engineer things to be A) stronger / more resilient and B) less expensive. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Improvements can be made in product design, materials, production technology, and production process. Most companies will let the older products continue through their lifecycle even if diminished and not be so forward thinking as to keep the customers happy, only being concerned with the immediate cost to the company. Again EA goes above and beyond.

Lastly, I think EA does a lot of R&D on products before they ship them out to customers. Just watch some of Ted's videos

 

[ovrszd]

Why did they redesign the piece?

Did they only redesign the piece they sent to you?

No need for EA to get in this discussion. Both sides are complimenting them. You guys are the only ones that haven't figured that out yet.