Box blade

[Catchad81]

Wow hard for me to believe folks spend 4K for a bb behind such a small tractor. W heave had one longer than I can remember and it's been behind anything from a 50hp to a 200hp tractor. Just got to use some common on what you are doing. Newest was a tuffline brand and for what a bb is intended to do, it will get passed on to another generation.

 

[xring100]

I wouldn't expect the OP to spend $4K Brian was justifying the cost of a $2k model which makes a lot of sense in his case. I wanted a Hydraulic and the Landpride was only rated to 65hp and cost more than the Gannon by a few hundred dollars while weighing a few hundred lbs less. I'm on all Clay and boulders from everything from 6" to 6ft diameter. I'm also not afraid to let my buddy with his Massey 5455 which is ballasted up to just over 15,000 lbs use mine. Even with the weight of the Gannon i've had to alternate height of shanks to penetrate the road surface.

 

[rScotty]

Quote Originally Posted by ovrszd;

"I think I'm thrifty and spend money on tractor stuff wisely.......
My Wife thinks I have too much tractor stuff........"

And then Davrow added:
"Hear hear! Very much my situation."

Of course nobody knows us like our wives do. Even after 40+ years of marriage, Ihaven't the slightest idea what my wife really thinks of my tractor hobby...my guess is that she thinks it was a basically good idea that has now gone a bit too far and and takes up far more space than she ever thought it would.

And I'm also guessing - or hoping - that she admits having the right implement at hand is honestly useful at the oddest times. Especially now that we are older it pleases her to have the tractor lift things that she would rather I not do with muscles alone.
Damage to yourself makes the most expensive tractor look downright cheap.

Pricewise, I think she figures that of all the nutty things that guys will do as hobbies, a tractor hobby is pretty much dollar-reasonable....maybe modified by some well-concealed shock at how many $$ a rusty piece of metal can cost and then mentally comparing a rusty - but usable - RO Box Blade to sailboats, racehorses, and monster trucks... But then like most girls she always knew that guys were crazy.

And there's no denying that tractors at least tend to be less expensive than a whole raft of other things I've gotten us into.

Plus there's the sheer fun factor. Sometimes tractors really are fun.
rScotty

 

[Buggs67]

My :2cents: ; It needs to be wider than your rear wheels. And rear blade as well as front blade. And sized for your tractor.

I have a TSC 5' behind my 24.5hp CK2510H. I've used it to level a rocky yard and pushing back snow banks (worked well) as well as dragging snow away from the garages where I can't plow. I think it could dig in and stop my tractor but then I'd just take a smaller bite.

With your 33hp tractor I'd probably go for the 72". I would've bought used but there were none available.

And to me price is always a factor so the TSC with a 10% off coupon was a deal-maker.

 

[Baby Grand]

My :2cents: ; It needs to be wider than your rear wheels. <snip> .

^ What Buggs said! Just an inch or two wider than your sidewall width (outside sidewall to outside sidewall) gives you a good compromise between utility, weight and useable power/traction. Since most of our machines don't have "downforce" on the 3pt hydraulics, your ability to dig in is limited by the weight of the implement per foot of blade width.

My personal preference:
> More weight is better. For a given width, more weight adds ballast, helping traction. It also helps the blade cut into the soil.
> Less width (to the point that your tires will sit in the bottom of the cut and not scrub the side of the cut) is better. Your FEL bucket may also set a practical minimum width, if it's wider than your rear tires.
> More traction will probably do more for your capability than more power - chains, loaded tires, etc.
-Jim

 

[DarrellSimpson]

Hi Zerk , If you take a peek at Compact Tractor Box Scraper by Everything Attachments
It looks like it might be a decent budget friendly well built blade , But I'm always nervous about purchasing something I can't see in real life .
And If you have lots of horsepower and 4 wheel drive you would want to be extra cautious . For me I think the blade this company is making would be darn near indestructible since I
don't have tons of power and I don't run my tractor all the way to the governor since I can't afford to fix it . I have heavy , thick hard clay and the rippers would really make a difference in my soil .
As a kid the farm had very rocky soil with rocks between golf ball size to basket ball size, the rocks would sometimes bend a ripper sideways so we had to be careful not to throttle up too high when there was 500 lbs of ballast on the blade .

 

[rScotty]

^ What Buggs said! Just an inch or two wider than your sidewall width (outside sidewall to outside sidewall) gives you a good compromise between utility, weight and useable power/traction. Since most of our machines don't have "downforce" on the 3pt hydraulics, your ability to dig in is limited by the weight of the implement per foot of blade width.

My personal preference:
> More weight is better. For a given width, more weight adds ballast, helping traction. It also helps the blade cut into the soil.
> Less width (to the point that your tires will sit in the bottom of the cut and not scrub the side of the cut) is better. Your FEL bucket may also set a practical minimum width, if it's wider than your rear tires.
> More traction will probably do more for your capability than more power - chains, loaded tires, etc.
-Jim

Just exactly as Jim says. I couldn't agree more: More weight, no more width than necessary, and more traction are the keys to sizing.

I'll add that a blade that works in reverse is necessary too - and luckily is a common feature. Being able to engage the rippers without the PITA of getting off and adjusting each and every one of the finger-biting bitches is strictly icing on the cake. Though some say the icing is the best part.

And just to prove Jim's points, just go out to any farm and look around at the box blades that are in use..... and note how many of them have some sort of additional weight piled up on top of the box. You'll see everything ranging from baskets of rocks to old engine blocks. Whatever the 3 point can handle, because the extra weight really is that helpful.
luck,
rScotty

 

[Zerk]

I have fleet farms near me. I could get king cutter without paying shipping.

 

[HillStreet]

I run a 60" behind a B2650...I would go with a 6 ft behind an "L"

Just bought a 5 foot box blade for my B2650HST. Tried it out and it pulls just fine in low range with the rippers at max depth. It has a hard time breaking up the sod though. Seems to just skim over the grass and not penetrate it. I will lengthen the top link to see if it will dig better. At any rate, I will keep pulling it until it eventually rips it up.

 

[ovrszd]

That's unusual. Usally rippers bury themselves. The rippers are set below the BB blade?