Traction Box Blades

[/pine]

...You finally added some value to this thread.

Now it's your turn...we're waiting with bated breath...

 

[s219]

Without jumping into the fray or taking sides, I think the real issue comes down to power/weight of the tractor and what you're actually doing with the box. I have had high horsepower in a light tractor (B2920) with a Howse 48" box (that actually measured 50" I think) and low horsepower in a heavier tractor with a Howse 60" box (L3200). Both boxes were sized to rear tire width.

Having spent a fair amount of time on a 1026R, which falls into the high HP / light weight class, I'd be shocked if the tractor didn't run out of traction long before you get the full advantage of a 60" box. Sure, you can operate a 60" box for more width, but I don't think you can ever come close to its real capability.

Is that better or worse than running a 48" box that can do more agressive work? I guess it depends on the person and the application. For light road resurfacing, you might never approach the limit of *either* box, and the 60" gives more width. When you do approach the traction limit of either box with rippers up and cutting edge feathered, I suspect it's as much a function of the volume (weight) of dirt in the box as anything else. Really, the only time the bigger box is an issue on a light tractor is when you are agressive with rippers and/or cutting edge.

The only "opinion" thing I will say is that I think my 60" box is well matched to the L3200, and no way would I have wanted a 60" on my B2920, both because of size and traction.

 

[cartod]

Now it's your turn...we're waiting with bated breath...

I hooked my neighbors 7' box blade up to my 33 hp deere last year. It was a great ballast and much nicer than my county line, but when it came time to move the red clay I found myself constantly working the 3point up and down to gain traction.

Even with a scoop of dirt in the front loader the machine was not heavy enough.

 

[nybirdman]

I have a 6ft.BB on my L4240 HSTC with loaded R1's and it will pull a full load with no problems;total weight with loader is about 7,000 lbs.One of the best tools I have purchased for my tractor.

 

[ovrszd]

Without jumping into the fray or taking sides, I think the real issue comes down to power/weight of the tractor and what you're actually doing with the box. I have had high horsepower in a light tractor (B2920) with a Howse 48" box (that actually measured 50" I think) and low horsepower in a heavier tractor with a Howse 60" box (L3200). Both boxes were sized to rear tire width.

Having spent a fair amount of time on a 1026R, which falls into the high HP / light weight class, I'd be shocked if the tractor didn't run out of traction long before you get the full advantage of a 60" box. Sure, you can operate a 60" box for more width, but I don't think you can ever come close to its real capability.

Is that better or worse than running a 48" box that can do more agressive work? I guess it depends on the person and the application. For light road resurfacing, you might never approach the limit of *either* box, and the 60" gives more width. When you do approach the traction limit of either box with rippers up and cutting edge feathered, I suspect it's as much a function of the volume (weight) of dirt in the box as anything else. Really, the only time the bigger box is an issue on a light tractor is when you are agressive with rippers and/or cutting edge.

The only "opinion" thing I will say is that I think my 60" box is well matched to the L3200, and no way would I have wanted a 60" on my B2920, both because of size and traction.

Very well state S219. So in the end, if the BB attached to the tractor brings the said tractor to it's fullest capabilities to pull it, what is the difference if it's a 48" or 60" BB that creates that situation??

I think that's what's being discussed. When the tractor reaches it's capacity, not much more is going to happen. Actually with that thought, the 60" might have an advantage because of it's additional weight...

 

[ovrszd]

I hooked my neighbors 7' box blade up to my 33 hp deere last year. It was a great ballast and much nicer than my county line, but when it came time to move the red clay I found myself constantly working the 3point up and down to gain traction.

Even with a scoop of dirt in the front loader the machine was not heavy enough.

But when you arrived at the point that you were ready to dump the load, did you have less dirt than you would have had with a smaller BB?? I think not. Again, you actually might have had more dirt if you efficiently controlled your 3pt.

With that said, if I have a dirt cutting/moving attachment on my tractor that I can drop on the ground and drag it without ever having to apply 3pt lift pressure to gain traction, I consider it too small. A marked percentage of the time I will not be using the tractor to it's capacity.

I believe that's the difference in this discussion. I want my tractor to be working at maximum capacity when doing these tasks. Others might be content to let their tractor "play" at the task and make more trips.

 

[cartod]

But when you arrived at the point that you were ready to dump the load, did you have less dirt than you would have had with a smaller BB?? I think not. Again, you actually might have had more dirt if you efficiently controlled your 3pt.

With that said, if I have a dirt cutting/moving attachment on my tractor that I can drop on the ground and drag it without ever having to apply 3pt lift pressure to gain traction, I consider it too small. A marked percentage of the time I will not be using the tractor to it's capacity.

I believe that's the difference in this discussion. I want my tractor to be working at maximum capacity when doing these tasks. Others might be content to let their tractor "play" at the task and make more trips.

That is all valid and I agree about working tractor at the maximum. But the constant wheel slip and up and down with the 3 point felt like I was wasting time with too big of an implement. Maybe I just need more seat time but the 7' box blade was too big. I'd like to try a 6', but not at the expense of buying one and then still having a too small of tractor.

 

[jenkinsph]

That is all valid and I agree about working tractor at the maximum. But the constant wheel slip and up and down with the 3 point felt like I was wasting time with too big of an implement. Maybe I just need more seat time but the 7' box blade was too big. I'd like to try a 6', but not at the expense of buying one and then still having a too small of tractor.

In another post you mention the hills on your property, these will greatly affect which box blade will work best for you too. Think smaller, on hills your 3320 and 820 can handle a heavy duty 5' or medium duty 6' box blade. A 7' heavy duty box blade is out of the range of either tractor.

 

[ovrszd]

Without digging back thru posts, can't remember who mentioned it, but handling a BB efficiently is a learned art. I've got a friend that simply can't do it. All he ends up with is speed bumps. I sometimes struggle with my 2210 because of it's 1/4" valving. Position control on the 3pt helps a lot. I have no problems in that regard with the 9540 and position control.

 

[CinderSchnauzer]

Picked up a new / never used Frontier (66") BB2065, yesterday, at a private sale for equivalent US$540. for the 3320. I have about 12,000 sq ft of parking / driveway covered with "driveway gravel" don't know the technical name, it's sort of a mixture of sand / gavel that dries out to a fairly hard surface. Need to read and watch some "how to" stuff and work on the learning curve, but so far so good. Played with it a bit today. I have a heavy 84" bucket I'm thinking might work well for final leveling instead of having to change the top link from dig to level length.