Canopy - Clamp or Drill mount to ROPS??

[Farmwithjunk]

I would bet the holes are actually metric sizes.

- Rick

I'll take tha bet.

This is a 1979 model tractor. Built in Dubuque Iowa. ROPS is standard issue on Dubuque and some Waterloo built Deeres of that era. No metric bolts.

Would it make ANY difference if the drilled holes were Metric?

 

[IslandTractor]

I'll take tha bet.

Would it make ANY difference if the drilled holes were Metric?

Of course, then it would be subject to European Union rules rather than OSHA.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

Of course, then it would be subject to European Union rules rather than OSHA.

I'd venture a guess that it would be WHERE the plant was located that drilled the holes, rather than what size drill bit was used.

In any event, metric or not, a hole drilled in metal is a hole drilled in metal. The ROPS on my Deere was commonly used on several models of tractors in the XX40 series (as well as models BEFORE and AFTER that series) with holes drilled and tapped in various locations to mount accessories (i.e. flashers, field lights, reflectors, canopies, ect) The same ROPS was even sold "over the counter" through Deere as a retrofit for tractors sold without a ROPS originally. They were a "generic retrofit" for models built as early as 1960, on through early 1990's. There was no obvious consideration as to the size of tractor. (weight) They were sold to fit small AND big models. Obviously, they were designed and built "over-kill" to accomodate all models. I'd find it incredibly unlikely that Deere would NOT take into consideration the likelyhood of certain required "modifications" to fit certain models or certain options on individual tractors. Even with a company having the resourses of John Deere, I find it highly unlikely they would have gone through separate "certification" for each and every variation of ROPS (per drilled and tapped holes) that was produced. More likely was certification allowing for a certain number of permissable modifications done with-in accepted standards. (possibly A.S.A.E. standards?)

I've had the great pleasure (sarcasm intended) of being involved in a few lawsuits dealing with roof structures built using ENGINEERED truss construction, where a truss failed. Some were cases where unauthorized "field modifications" caused the failure. Another was an obvious miscalculation on the part of the architech, engineers who signed off on the drawing of the truss (employed by both the architech AND the truss maufacturer), and the truss manufacturer themselves. In ALL those cases, there was some degree of doubt going in as to who was at fault. But even when the chain of events was untangled and made clear by who, and at what point the failure was caused, there was ALWAYS a burden of proof over why the "mistake" involved caused the failure, or if some other unknown factors may have been involved. (i.e. uncommonly heavy snow loads, later additions to the building, ect) Long story short, even if a modified ROPS would be involved in an accident that resulted in a civil suit, there would be no automatic assumtion that the modification CAUSED the chain of events that resulted in that suit.

I guess we need Judge Judy or Judge Joe Brown to render their verdict on the great ROPS debate!

 

[Soundguy]

In any event, metric or not, a hole drilled in metal is a hole drilled in metal. The ROPS on my Deere was commonly used on several models of tractors in the XX40 series (as well as models BEFORE and AFTER that series) with holes drilled and tapped in various locations to mount accessories (i.e. flashers, field lights, reflectors, canopies, ect) The same ROPS was even sold "over the counter" through Deere as a retrofit for tractors sold without a ROPS originally. They were a "generic retrofit" for models built as early as 1960, on through early 1990's.

It's not uncommon to see tractors with common mounting holes that have a generic rops retrofit. Look at ford N's and hundred and much of the early thousand series that used the axle flanges for the rops mount.. and same mount for all those tractors.. 1939 - 1964.. Of course.. the tractor weight between a 1939 9N and a 1964 4000 wasn't too much of a difference.. they were still in the 2500-3500# range.. thus a generic rops that was designed for a 4000# tractor would be all inclusive, especially considering the axle bolt pattern was unchanged.

Even with a company having the resourses of John Deere, I find it highly unlikely they would have gone through separate "certification" for each and every variation of ROPS (per drilled and tapped holes) that was produced. More likely was certification allowing for a certain number of permissable modifications done with-in accepted standards. (possibly A.S.A.E. standards?)

I'd support that theory... Perhaps a strength study was done on what specific diameter holes in the tubing did to str, and then adopted a set of guidlines about how close the holes can be to an edge, or each other, then decided on a total number of 'holes' acceptable to retain the rating. Sounds feasable, and then gives the builder some latitude about mounting things as long as he keeps total# of holes , and sizing and spacing within the pre-determined, and certifiable spec.

Long story short, even if a modified ROPS would be involved in an accident that resulted in a civil suit, there would be no automatic assumtion that the modification CAUSED the chain of events that resulted in that suit.

Assumption that the rops mod -caused- the chain of events? I'm not sure I follow.

If I go load up on beer, and then drive my modified rops tractor off the side of a cliff.. I don't think my familly is going to claim that the rops mod made me go get drunk first... And the drinking would deffinately be the cause of the chain of events.

Whether a rops mod actually caused.. or merely contributed to a situation is an issue for a jurry.. While a rops mod may not have caused an event.. it deffinately could contribute. There again we get into the liability problem. You have a 10 million $ lawsuit. The jurry finds that the rops issue was only a contributing factor.. and thus only assigns a 5% #.. that's still 500000$

Unfortunately..I've seen it happen like that... ( not concerning rops.. but other construction industry lawsuits where % blame was asessed and assigned by judge or jurry )


Soundguy

 

[Farmwithjunk]

Assumption that the rops mod -caused- the chain of events? I'm not sure I follow.

If I go load up on beer, and then drive my modified rops tractor off the side of a cliff.. I don't think my familly is going to claim that the rops mod made me go get drunk first... And the drinking would deffinately be the cause of the chain of events.

Whether a rops mod actually caused.. or merely contributed to a situation is an issue for a jurry.. While a rops mod may not have caused an event.. it deffinately could contribute. There again we get into the liability problem. You have a 10 million $ lawsuit. The jurry finds that the rops issue was only a contributing factor.. and thus only assigns a 5% #.. that's still 500000$

Unfortunately..I've seen it happen like that... ( not concerning rops.. but other construction industry lawsuits where % blame was asessed and assigned by judge or jurry )


Soundguy

In the last few years, my position with my employer has involved me with a few lawsuits where we were listed as a "contributing partner". In ALL those cases, we were merely "on site" when someone else caused a problem. In spite of our best efforts to eliminate/reduce our chances of being sued, from time to time, we fall in to that ol' "guilt by association" trap door. And there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING a business can do to prevent that, short of going out of business. Best answer? Insure HEAVILY. Have a good attorney on retainer. NEVER admit to responsibility. Be ready to settle even when you KNOW you're "not guilty". Don't let that "1 in a million" case stop you from doing what you need to on the other 999,999 times.

Then go on with life and do things the way you do them best.

My contention on the ROPS issue is to use common sense in any possible modification. Don't do anything drastic. In fact, don't do ANYTHING unless there's no REASONABLE alternative, but don't feel like impending doom prevents you from living outside a sterile bubble.

As is the case with about EVERYTHING, the best course of action is to THINK before pulling the trigger.

 

[Soundguy]

In the last few years, my position with my employer has involved me with a few lawsuits where we were listed as a "contributing partner". In ALL those cases, we were merely "on site" when someone else caused a problem. In spite of our best efforts to eliminate/reduce our chances of being sued, from time to time, we fall in to that ol' "guilt by association" trap door. And there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING a business can do to prevent that, short of going out of business. Best answer? Insure HEAVILY. Have a good attorney on retainer. NEVER admit to responsibility. Be ready to settle even when you KNOW you're "not guilty". Don't let that "1 in a million" case stop you from doing what you need to on the other 999,999 times..

I agree... In the case I cited previously.. we and all other sourounding business were named in the lawsuit, because we owned land on the corner where the accident took place. And settling was cheaper than fighting it.. even though we were clearly not involved.

My contention on the ROPS issue is to use common sense in any possible modification. Don't do anything drastic. In fact, don't do ANYTHING unless there's no REASONABLE alternative, but don't feel like impending doom prevents you from living outside a sterile bubble..

I agree... and drilling up and welding all over a rops to mount a canopy, when many reasonable clamp style canopy mounting systems are available seem to fall into that category. same with lamp bars. I saw a guy that took a small piece of box tubing, drilled it, mounted his lamps to it, then clamped that to the top of his rops... worked great, was 100% removeable.. didn't weld or drill the rops. If that extra 1.5" is too tall, then mount the box tubing to the the back profile side of his rops.. making the lamp bases even to where they would have been mounted on the rops.

As is the case with about EVERYTHING, the best course of action is to THINK before pulling the trigger.

No argument there... I't all a responsibility and consequence issue.

Being an employer only makes it a harder equation, as we can't let employees use equipment that is not osha 'friendly' Like an old tractor with no rops.. etc.. Got to 'fix' it first.

Soundguy

 

[Farmwithjunk]

I agree... and drilling up and welding all over a rops to mount a canopy, when many reasonable clamp style canopy mounting systems are available seem to fall into that category.

Soundguy

I'm sort of "in the other camp" on mounting a canopy. Some of the lightweight "sun shades" might do well clamped on, but a GOOD, heavy duty canopy might be better off bolted in place. All depends on how the ROPS and canopy are configured, and how they lend themselves to secure mounting, I suppose. Although most canopies don't offer a great deal in the line of overhead protection, there is still SOME protection to be had. I have had one "widow-maker" tree limb fall on a tractor canopy while mowing. The metal re-enforced fiberglass canopy took a shot. It did show SOME damage. My head DIDN'T. That was a 6" diameter, approx. 15' long tree limb. On that day, I was thrilled beyond all expectations with the way the canopy held its ground. That was on the ol' 5000 Ford I used to own. The canopy was "adapted" to the Ford ROPS. (Deere canopy) I had a total of 6 bolts, 3/8" grade 8, drilled and tapped into the up-rights of the ROPS.

I'm currently finishing my "restoration" on my Massey 150. I found an O.E.M. ROPS for it. There was no canopy, nor was there mounting holes drilled for the O.E.M. canopy supports. A few days later, I found a nice O.E.M. canopy, replete with the support hardware. I'm drilling and tapping 4 holes in the ROPS as they would be found in an O.E.M. installation. (1/2" bolts)

I don't advocate "drilling up and welding all over", but see absolutely no harm in putting a few holes in the same locations as a factory installation would have seen.

I wonder how Massey Ferguson would react to a warranty claim on a 35-1/2 year old tractor?

 

[ehchvac]

these are the types of mods that should make the "rops cops" go running and screaming into the night, but...
this is also a mod that you can stand on the roof of and do jumping jacks.
more of a fops than a rops.
I have more pics, so, you can pic it apart for further safety violations if you want.
to see more let me know.

 

[Soundguy]

I'm sort of "in the other camp" on mounting a canopy. Some of the lightweight "sun shades" might do well clamped on, but a GOOD, heavy duty canopy might be better off bolted in place. All depends on how the ROPS and canopy are configured, and how they lend themselves to secure mounting, )

Again.. good clamp on mounts are available for application specific purposes.

I can/do/have stood ont he top of my aluminum diamondplate canopy to trim trees with a chainsaw. I can tell you that the aluminum top will fail long before the 3/8 and 1/2" clamp plates and 1/2 bolt hardware that are securing the formed steel 'sandwhich' clamps to my rops support. I'd lay money that if you attached a porta-power to one of the canopy brackets and attached it so the attachment pont would not fail first, and then anchored the porta power to an imovable object, that.. if the rops could lift the tracor weight, then the canopy bracket would lift the rops, lifting the tractor. I've posted pics of this setup, and on the large thousand series NH like I have.. the rops canopy brackets are just awsomely massive.. my thumbnail pic does not show it well.. but I can go take a close up for inspection if so requested.

As you said.. all rops mount canopy brackets are not designed equal... No argument there.. it's a case by case basis... the one NH chose for my particulatr rops application however, looks like it would easilly meet your requirements for 'bolted on' canopy stabilization.

Soundguy

 

[Farmwithjunk]

Again.. good clamp on mounts are available for application specific purposes.

I can/do/have stood ont he top of my aluminum diamondplate canopy to trim trees with a chainsaw. I can tell you that the aluminum top will fail long before the 3/8 and 1/2" clamp plates and 1/2 bolt hardware that are securing the formed steel 'sandwhich' clamps to my rops support. I'd lay money that if you attached a porta-power to one of the canopy brackets and attached it so the attachment pont would not fail first, and then anchored the porta power to an imovable object, that.. if the rops could lift the tracor weight, then the canopy bracket would lift the rops, lifting the tractor. I've posted pics of this setup, and on the large thousand series NH like I have.. the rops canopy brackets are just awsomely massive.. my thumbnail pic does not show it well.. but I can go take a close up for inspection if so requested.

As you said.. all rops mount canopy brackets are not designed equal... No argument there.. it's a case by case basis... the one NH chose for my particulatr rops application however, looks like it would easilly meet your requirements for 'bolted on' canopy stabilization.

Soundguy

So let me get this straight.....

Throughout this thread, YOUR contention has been MODIFICATIONS to a ROPS will void any warranties, and place you in great peril if and when a lawsuit emerges from a ROPS failure.

MY contention has been from the get-go that installing a canopy USING THE SAME FASTENERS AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS O.E.M. is not incorrect even IF that mounting requires the addition of the drilled and tapped holes that would be present had a canopy been factory installed, but were not present in the case of NO CANOPY from the factory.

Now's where it gets dicey.

Why would (in your instance, and expressed as the right way) an AFTERMARKET CANOPY, MOUNTED IN A DIFFERENT MANNER THAN ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT, (i.e. clamps) be any better at standing up to that same jury? All it would do is bring one more defendant in to the lawsuit, but not in any way be any bit different than a NON-original equipment installation of an O.E.M. part done as was common practice in factory installs.

I fail to see where any LESS doubt would exist in the eyes of a jurist, concerning the possibility of the canopy CONTRIBUTING to the failure of the ROPS, be it "field installed with O.E.M. parts, OR "field installed" using aftermarket parts designed by someone OTHER THAN the ROPS manufacturer.

In any event, I'd prefer to go in front of a jury with parts and install that was exactly as it would have come from the assembly line, as opposed to something that is a compromise of "factory" engineering. Look back through the thread and you will read where I commented on ANY REASONABLE METHOD being acceptable. I still believe that.

However, I believe mounting a canopy EXACTLY as original equipment would be BETTER if and when it became a sticking point in a court of law, which seems to be the "no mans land" which seperates "sides" in this issue.