Rear remote w/ or w/o draft control

[Torvy]

Kubota experts, in my search for clarity, I have run across something I find strange in the pricing of a 4701, not sure yet if it applies to other models...

I want an apples to apples comparison, so I am equipping all of my potential tractors as closely as possible. Hence, 2 rear remotes. This is not about whether I will need them, just about this pricing/selection anomaly.

There are two options on the 4701 build my Kubota for rear remotes. One is compatible with draft control, the other is not. My pea brain figured that the one compatible with draft control would be pricier. As it turns out, it is about $100 cheaper to get the compatible version. I don't plan to plow, so I don't think I want/need draft control. The website doesn't require draft control purchase to get the compatible version. For information purposes, the draft control option is another $483.

What am I missing? Why would I want to pay the $100 more for less potential function? Why would they even offer two options then? What is it about the compatible version that I want to avoid? My cynical mind seems to think there is a missing piece of information here. help!

 

[LD1]

I have no idea but can only speculate.

I am guessing you cannot "actually" use a draft control compatible remote if the tractor isnt optioned for draft control. And vice versa.

I dont think you will gain or loose anything in terms of the remotes. They will function the same.

Rather the difference is something with the hydraulics, plumbing, hose routing, or valve. The installation of the and components must be different. IE: Not the same kit/parts to install a remote on a draft control equipped tractor vs non-draft control. And apparently the difference in components/install is $100.

IF you dont need draft control....why spend $483 for something you dont need only to save $100 on the remotes.

 

[RickB]

Here's a guess. A remote valve slice with float has a physically larger centering spring/detent housing than a self centering valve slice less float. The physical constraints of the valve with float may not be compatible with the draft control linkage. Valves with float are more costly than valves without float and $100 would be a ballpark difference. I'd want at least one valve with float on my tractor.

 

[SDT]

Here's a guess. A remote valve slice with float has a physically larger centering spring/detent housing than a self centering valve slice less float. The physical constraints of the valve with float may not be compatible with the draft control linkage. Valves with float are more costly than valves without float and $100 would be a ballpark difference. I'd want at least one valve with float on my tractor.

I expect you are right.

The Kubota draft control offered for the L series tractors is a bit of a Rube Goldberg, composed entirely of external linkages.

I expect that various valves, valve controls, etc., interfere with the draft control linkages, control, etc., requiring alternative arrangements.

FWIW, I have dual remotes (no float) and draft control (wouldn't buy it again) on my L6060 ROPS.

SDT

 

[tradosaurus]

Kubota experts, in my search for clarity, I have run across something I find strange in the pricing of a 4701, not sure yet if it applies to other models...

I want an apples to apples comparison, so I am equipping all of my potential tractors as closely as possible. Hence, 2 rear remotes. This is not about whether I will need them, just about this pricing/selection anomaly.

There are two options on the 4701 build my Kubota for rear remotes. One is compatible with draft control, the other is not. My pea brain figured that the one compatible with draft control would be pricier. As it turns out, it is about $100 cheaper to get the compatible version. I don't plan to plow, so I don't think I want/need draft control. The website doesn't require draft control purchase to get the compatible version. For information purposes, the draft control option is another $483.

What am I missing? Why would I want to pay the $100 more for less potential function? Why would they even offer two options then? What is it about the compatible version that I want to avoid? My cynical mind seems to think there is a missing piece of information here. help!

If you are pricing out the L4701 I would price out the MX5400. I would be surprised if the MX5400 is more than $2K higher than the L4701.

 

[Torvy]

If you are pricing out the L4701 I would price out the MX5400. I would be surprised if the MX5400 is more than $2K higher than the L4701.

In the Kubota line, my net goes from a 3301 to a M5660suhd..the MX falls in that span.. As I approach a final decision, the standard L does not have enough loader capacity for my needs. Even the smaller Grand L falls short.

 

[oosik]

My Kubota M6040 has draft control. Tried using it - once - with my moldboard plow. Too many rocks. I've never found another use for draft control.

 

[oosik]

Torvy - you are spending so much time - making the correct choice. That's good. Just don't be fooled by the FEL lift capacities in the "spec section" of the tractors you are considering.

You know exactly how high you'll be lifting and how heavy you'll be lifting.

Look at the lift graphs in the FEL OP Manuals. The lift graphs are prepared by mechanical engineers working for the tractor company. The "spec section" is prepared by ad folks attempting to sell tractors.

The "spec section" data gives you a TINY slice of the capacities of the FEL.

The lift graphs cover the capacities from ground zero to max lift height.

 

[tradosaurus]

Torvy - you are spending so much time - making the correct choice. That's good. Just don't be fooled by the FEL lift capacities in the "spec section" of the tractors you are considering.

You know exactly how high you'll be lifting and how heavy you'll be lifting.

Look at the lift graphs in the FEL OP Manuals. The lift graphs are prepared by mechanical engineers working for the tractor company. The "spec section" is prepared by ad folks attempting to sell tractors.

The "spec section" data gives you a TINY slice of the capacities of the FEL.

The lift graphs cover the capacities from ground zero to max lift height.

 

[workinonit]

I don't understand how anyone doing any dirt work, specifically dirt leveling could possibly do it without having draft control on the tractor. When I'm doing dirt work it is always done with draft control. It's not just for plowing. I've never owned a tractor without it.

 

[k0ua]

That was actually a good video explaining loader specs and geometry's.

 

[LD1]

Not a bad video but should have been 7 min long. First 3 min was a waste.

I can easily overlook a "sales pitch" approach to a video....because at the end of the day that's what they are. And usually messicks videos are good....

However I cannot overlook the first 3 min of him talking about the SSQA.

Does it reduce capacity because it pushes the bucket forward....sure.

But the SSQA doesn't change where the "pin" is. Therefore, lift capacity at the pin....or a reference from the pin (like 500mm)....is the SAME whether it's a pin on or ssqa bucket. And this video would have you believe "other manufactures" are lying about specs by not including that extra distance....but that's just bad info. But he is just a salesman and not an engineer, so I get it.

As much as people hate the "@ lift pin" measurement....sadly it is an accurate point for comparison of similar machines.

The 500mm forward measurement (close to bucket center) is just as irrelevant as the pin measurement for someone using a boom pole, or bale spear, or pallet forks handling a 48" pallet.

Sure the lift specs will lift a heaped bucket of just about whatever you want in it...as he points out. And to lift more is trading for speed or height. But fortunately, the bucket isn't the only attachment that can go up there. Palletized material can easily weigh double what that tractor is rated for.

 

[RickB]

That's always been the point I try to make, usually with varying results. 'At the pin' is a great spec for comparing loaders but a terrible reference point for what a particular loader will or will not do.

 

[Torvy]

Thanks, guys. I have watched a lot of his videos. As with any of them, you have to wear your salesman filtered glasses to get it. There is some good info tucked in there, too.

I always figure that your typical use of a product should be somewhere between 75 and 90% of stated 'capacity'. Most engineers (or lawyers) have already factored in a cushion because most of us will try to push it. Unlike human musculature, metal doesn't get stronger with more use. Pushing the envelope just hastens potential failure. I understand the basic physics of a lift envelope. I also understand that max capacity at 104" is not the same as max capacity at 94".

Ultimately, I would rather have capacity I will not need, than need capacity I do not have.

 

[rScotty]

Getting SSQA and 3rd function opened up a whole new world of FEL attachments. I have yet to explore it like I plan to someday, but there are a lot of rental attachments available out there. Just being able to swap between low and tall dirt buckets was an eye opener - on a low bucket you can almost see the cutting edge!. Or when using rock buckets the SSQS enabled me to see that 2" vs 3" spacing made more difference than I ever thought that it would.

BTW, all our tractors have had automatic draft control....but I've never felt like it was all that useful for us. I prefer controlling draft manually with the lever. Most do; I think that's why it is always the most handy lever on on the tractor & right under your right hand. I know that auto draft seems to be part of most larger tractors & is for plowing mostly. Luckily auto draft is always adjustable for sensitivity, so I we always keep it in the least sensitive position where it actually does nothing.

Would I buy automatic draft control again? Well, yes.... I would. Two reasons: One is that all it has to do is save your neck once to be worth 10x what it cost. Ours has done that once. Secondly, automatic draft control is an archaic part of a total ntegrated draft and 3pt control system that was designed years ago to be as good as it could be - back when tractors were rugged farm tools.... not quite the same as being part of today's 3pt system designed when saving money is the more important key to sales.

If that last bit sounds a bit like "old fartism" then perhaps it is.

rScotty