Compact Tractors are Designed All Wrong

[Industrial Toys]

I just came across this thread. Had to look, if I had started it. Couldn't agree more. When I have time, I have to read the whole thing.

It all comes down to money I guess. Purpose built machines do a much better job then the swiss army knife kinds of machines. But they are more expensive and you have to buy a few!

Farm tractor loaders have always struck me as awkward and only evolved (it seems) from something that was never supposed to be on there. Visability stinks too!

Why can't one make a skid steer style REAR attachment system? It's true. The traditional 3PH system belongs in the scrap bucket.

 

[Domush]

Each machine has its pros and cons. For us, the Power Trac PT425 had too many pros to ignore.

How does your Pt handle box blades and scraper blades? I would think the pushing action would beat the puss out of the linkages. How about pond scoops or carrying round bales of hay which get into the 1/2 ton+ range? How high does the loader lift compared to a tractor? Does it handle a boom pole?

I think there are quite a few limitations to that PT which even the cheapest of traditional tractors can do. I do agree, for a specific purpose that is a useful machine, especially for mowing and bush hogging, but it seems to lack the overall usefulness of a traditional tractor. It almost looks like slightly modified skid steer, which have their uses but certainly aren't tractor-useful by any means.

I do think a 'tractorized' version of your PT would be the best of both worlds. A guy I know has a ride-on trencher which is not far from your PT, but higher up, with off-road wheels and a back hoe. If that was made to hold swappable attachments (both front and rear), I think that would truly be a winning combination.

 

[MossRoad]

How does your Pt handle box blades and scraper blades? I would think the pushing action would beat the puss out of the linkages. How about pond scoops or carrying round bales of hay which get into the 1/2 ton+ range? How high does the loader lift compared to a tractor? Does it handle a boom pole?

I think there are quite a few limitations to that PT which even the cheapest of traditional tractors can do. I do agree, for a specific purpose that is a useful machine, especially for mowing and bush hogging, but it seems to lack the overall usefulness of a traditional tractor. It almost looks like slightly modified skid steer, which have their uses but certainly aren't tractor-useful by any means.

I do think a 'tractorized' version of your PT would be the best of both worlds. A guy I know has a ride-on trencher which is not far from your PT, but higher up, with off-road wheels and a back hoe. If that was made to hold swappable attachments (both front and rear), I think that would truly be a winning combination.

Let's compare some tasks.

Plow a dirt field... tractor wins.
Plow snow... Power Trac wins.
Mow a field... tractor wins.
Mow a lawn... Power Trac wins.
Dig post holes... not even close. Power Trac wins.
FEL work... Power Trac wins.
Pallet fork work... Power Trac wins.
Brush hog a grassy field... tractor wins.
Brush hog a field with multiflora rose bushes as big as your pickup truck... Power Trac wins. (Remember, you can pick up the brush hog as high as the FEL can lift).
Brush hog fence rows, around trees, etc... Power Trac wins.
Pull stumps... tractor wins hands down.

That's just some tasks. As I mentioned, both machines have their place. Farmers may benefit more from a traditional tractor, but then again, most farmers have more than one tractor. One of each would be ideal.

Home and estate owners have different tasks than farmers. For instance, most home and estate owners rarely haul material off of their property. They bring it to their property. Things like mulch, landscape material, etc... The PT excels at FEL work, pallet fork work, mowing, snow clearing, etc...

They are also more stable on hills than a traditional tractor and they come with a steel canopy welded to the ROPS which saves your noggin in the woods. The frames are solid steel welded plate and there is no plastic. They are also made in America in Tazewell, VA.

Power Track makes several sizes of machines. Mine weighs about 1500 pounds and can lift about 800 pounds. The larger units, of course, weigh more and can lift more. If I had round bales to move, I'd have bought a larger Power Trac. I'm fairly certain that a Power Trac with a bale spike on the FEL arms could outwork a similarly sized conventional tractor with a bale spike on the FEL arms or 3pt hitch. In fact, if you go to the Power Trac forum here on TBN, you will find several members that have extensive experience with both traditional tractors and Power Tracs. They'll tell you exactly what tasks the PT shines at, and where a conventional tractor has the upper hand.

I don't have a box blade for my PT. I do scrape ball diamonds with my straight bladed bucket. I just put downpressure on the bucket until the front tires come off the ground and drive backwards. I then stop and scoop up my pile without having to turn around. That saves time. That also puts most of the weight of the tractor on the blade. You can't do that on a 3pt hitch rear blade. They don't have power down, only up. You have to rely on the weight of the implement, whereas the PT design you can push down on it bringing the entire weight of the tractor down on the implement.

I have a power angle snowplow on the FEL arms, too. Not only can I scrape down to the pavement, I can push snow and stack it 6' high. Can't do that with a rear blade on a similarly sized tractor.

They make a boom pole for the PT, too. I think they have about 40 different attachements.

I am in no way saying a tradtional tractor is lesser or better than a Power Trac. I just think you may not have the same tasks that I have to do. If you ever get a chance to operate one, jump on it and have a blast.

Check out their website at www.power-trac.com. :thumbsup:

 

[Domush]

Awesome reply! Thank you!

 

[MossRoad]

Bumping this thread for some summer reading... if you haven't read it, start from the beginning. Some great original TBN members with some good discussion. Enjoy your summer! :thumbsup:

 

[murphy1244]

Bumping this thread for some summer reading... if you haven't read it, start from the beginning. Some great original TBN members with some good discussion. Enjoy your summer! :thumbsup:

Thanks Moss. This thread is a real blast.

 

[MossRoad]

Yeah, I dig it up once in a while on cold winter nights... :laughing:

 

[CalG]

hmm

Pasquali - Two-wheel tractors, Tractors.

I guess there are some consumers that drive the market the wrong way.

Like buying at Harbor Freight etc.

 

[gladehound]

I don't think I've ever seen this thread before! Very interesting.

I've looked at PTs on several occasions over the years. I've always been intrigued by the concept and can see how it would be a better choice over a CUT for many people. I've just never been able to determine if it would be better for me.

While reading the opening points, New Holland bidirectional was screaming in my head - this is by far my favorite design and like many, I wish there was a smaller version of this machine. Even if there was I probably couldn't afford it! Ha!

If I were to go for a PT, it would be the PT-1460. I have no need for a backhoe and the PT-1460 looks to be the most similar in capability to a "large frame" 40-60hp CUTs that are on the market. I really like that it is only 60" wide, the visibility to the loader seems great, the float function for snow seems super useful. I'm a huge fan of articulating frames instead of a steering axle. I almost seriously considered one... But ended up crossing it off my list for several reasons - many of which are unknowns.

Why I didn't pursue a PT-1460...

- I'm a see, touch, use type person. The barrier to experiencing one of these machines was too significant for me to make the effort.
- Lift height. 8 foot is a little low when trying to put stuff up in my loft. My current tractor has 9 foot lift height and that is a little low but I can make it work
- Top speed - I road my tractor quite a bit and wish my 17 mph top speed was faster. I can't imagine roading with a 10mph top speed.
- Seat height. I store my boat in a hard to maneuver to lean to off the back of the barn. I move it back there with the tractor which is tall enough to see over the boat. Not sure I'd have the type of visibility with the PT-1460
- pushing / pulling out trees, stumps - Not sure about gearing and if the PT-1460 generates enough wheel torque for this. Seems like just one 0-10mph gear.
- And finally, no SSQA. I don't like the idea of a one off connection for attachments.

If Powertrac published more detailed (and satisfactory) specifications on the loader and drivetrain and offered SSQA I might have been interested enough to investigate more. The 10 mph top speed might still be a deal breaker as might be price for the initial unit and limited pricy attachments. And hay rides just wouldn't be the same.

 

[MossRoad]

I wasn't going to buy one without touching one, either. It just so happened that as I was researching them, I was taking a walk to a soda fountain for lunch (yes, a real soda fountain), and there, at a local venue, was a landscaper with a Power Trac! They let me look it over real good and showed me what it could do. I was hooked.

It fits our needs perfectly. The big IH2500b tractor loader sat for many years until I sold it to an IH salvage yard. The little PT ran circles around it for the tasks we were doing.

I will say, though, that it was fun to drive that old IH up to a 10-12" tree, put my bucket 10' up on it, and just push the forward pedal and drive that tree right out of the ground! Can't do that with my little PT! :laughing:

 

[adventure bob]

Good reading, however this post is 15yrs old and PT haven't convinced the tractor buying public that they're the answer. In fact I've never seen or known anyone with one. There are 6 Kubs and JD in our neighborhood though. Don't see the big tractor makers embracing this style of tractor either. So in lieu of PT taking over the world through good design there are some issues that I think tractor makers are slowing moving towards: quick attach implements are on nearly everything now. Easy to mount front snow blowers aren't far behind. What's the next big tractor improvement? realizing that we need more pressure and volume on tractor hydraulics. My tractor, Kub 6060, tops out at about 9 1/2 GPM where a small bobcat starts at 17.5 GPM. The other thing I agree with is that we need a better connection for the 3 pt. Where its at makes sense, what it does makes sense. The PIA of hooking up heavy stuff, makes no sense whatsoever. A std like quick attach built in to all tractors would make implements easier and universal for cat of hitch.

 

[MultiMow]

Having some experience under my belt, I am even more convinced now than I was when I began looking at tractors a year ago that the design of compact tractors, for us weekend diggers as opposed to real farmers, is all wrong. It is a design that has devolved, in an anti-Darwinian fashion, from a series of historical compromises and from blind mimicry of grandpa's agricultural tractor.

Here is a list of the design flaws and the obvious remedies:

1. The 3ph is an abomination. It is an historical industry compromise that, like all compromises, is a mediocrity at best. It is the interface that has launched a thousand hernias (and a googolplex cursewords). It needs to be replaced by the kind of simple, 30-second attachment interface that skidsteers have.

2. Mowers should be on the front of a tractor. This is so for both finish mowers and brush mowers. It is also so for snow blades and snowblowers. Having any of these in the middle or back of the tractor is inefficient, clumsy, and puts you in the hospital for with neck problems in addition to your hernia. The solution is having fully independent attachment interfaces on both ends of the tractor. Thus, for example, you could have the mower on the front and the FEL on the back as your "regular" set-up. This would also have the virtue of eliminating the need for clunky, useless counterweights for the rear of the tractor such as weight boxes, concrete-filled cans or trendy boxblades.

3. This naturally means you should be able to swivel the driver's seat around and drive in either direction. Thereby, your FEL or hoe would then be in front of you for proper operation, with the mower (or other useful implement) then becoming the "rear" counterweight.

4. The power connection to the attachment interfaces should be hydraulic, not mechanical. Just one-second quick-connect couplers. No more dangerous, twirling pto shafts to to catch your lovebead neckaces and choke you to death. No more clumsy, heavy implement shafts. No more lining up splines, or fiddling with collars and buttons.

5. All wheels should be the same size. Small front wheels are (for us weekend diggers) a largely useless artifact of agricultural crop row navigation. Might as well put sundials on tractors. Having equal wheel sizes would have many benefits. There would be a larger tractor footrprint and hence greater overall floatation. There would be less scuffing of lawns and imprinting in soils, and less sinking into wet soils and mud, because it is the small front tires that are the primary culprits in these matters. You could change tire sizes without worrying about differing 4wd circumference ratios between the front and rear wheels. You could fill all four tires for more traction and stability, and be driving an overall more weight-balanced vehicle. You would have better traction in 4wd, which should be significant in mud and snow applications.

6. Because mowing is a primary activity of compact users, these tractors should all articulate. This means they pivot in the middle to promote ease of turning and driving.

7. They should be significantly cheaper than they are. Why should a small compact tractor cost more than a compact car? Tractors are 1930 technology, for goodness sakes, and have relatively few parts. Something is wrong. They are way overpriced.

Having been on sabbatical from this forum for several months, I am pleased to observe that there is now an American-made product that cures most of these problems and meets most of these objectives: the Power-Trac, courageously purchased by Willingtonpizza. Having reviewed the Power-Trac on their website, it is obvious that there is no sane reason anymore to purchase the historically-flawed compact tractor.

You all may disgree with this, of course.

I can't agree more!

I've set about fabricating a piece of equipment for myself. I would disclose more, but I'm hoping to patent/license/sell it after the prototype has been built.

The main disclosable features are-

-reversible operator's station
-superior hillside stability/traction
-adjustable track width

Hopefully, I can post pictures by this time next year!

 

[roadhunter]

Good reading, however this post is 15yrs old and PT haven't convinced the tractor buying public that they're the answer. In fact I've never seen or known anyone with one. There are 6 Kubs and JD in our neighborhood though. Don't see the big tractor makers embracing this style of tractor either. So in lieu of PT taking over the world through good design there are some issues that I think tractor makers are slowing moving towards: quick attach implements are on nearly everything now. Easy to mount front snow blowers aren't far behind. What's the next big tractor improvement? realizing that we need more pressure and volume on tractor hydraulics. My tractor, Kub 6060, tops out at about 9 1/2 GPM where a small bobcat starts at 17.5 GPM. The other thing I agree with is that we need a better connection for the 3 pt. Where its at makes sense, what it does makes sense. The PIA of hooking up heavy stuff, makes no sense whatsoever. A std like quick attach built in to all tractors would make implements easier and universal for cat of hitch.

This ^^.

Small tractors need better hydraulics so they can run skid steer attachments. I have run my log splitter off my 45 hp bobcat/kioti tractor and even running it hard it was pretty slow(I think about 8-9 GPM). Last week I hooked up my splitter to my 70 HP JCB which has 20+GPM flow and over 3,000 PSI pressure and at idle it was much faster than the bobcat/kioti running at full power.

3 point hitches are ancient technology and although there are QA for the 3 points they still are not as user friendly as modern connections like the SSQA.

Another thing I 'd like to see is a governor as these modern small tractors bog down when they are running something like a chipper and my 60+ year old farmall adjust itself to stay at the same speed when the load changes.

 

[MultiMow]

This ^^.

Small tractors need better hydraulics so they can run skid steer attachments. I have run my log splitter off my 45 hp bobcat/kioti tractor and even running it hard it was pretty slow(I think about 8-9 GPM). Last week I hooked up my splitter to my 70 HP JCB which has 20+GPM flow and over 3,000 PSI pressure and at idle it was much faster than the bobcat/kioti running at full power.

3 point hitches are ancient technology and although there are QA for the 3 points they still are not as user friendly as modern connections like the SSQA.

Another thing I 'd like to see is a governor as these modern small tractors bog down when they are running something like a chipper and my 60+ year old farmall adjust itself to stay at the same speed when the load changes.

Agreed.

Both my old IH454 and IH504 had RPM throttle control.

These new tractors will meter fuel @ WOT, which has the RPM set at just above PTO spec... but I'm with you, as throttle should be a governed RPM setting, not fuel rate.

I think all of this goes back to the original post...

Compact tractors are just that... a shrunken down example of design architecture, that was originally optimized for row cropping efficiency and 1920's technology/economic viability.

 

[CADplans]

In my opinion,,, the manufacturers of conventional CUTS build them the way they do because that is what the customer expects.

Besides PT, the other unconventional tractor is the Steiner/Ventrac.

The PT, Steiner/Ventrac have one major flaw,,, HIGH COST!
Their volume is so low, they can not get the price down to compete with the overpriced, yet cheaper CUTS.

I live almost next door to the PT company,,, about an hour or so.
The machine has been on display multiple times at the local shopping mall,, over the years.

I doubt PT would be in business today if it were not for the main business that PT is an offshoot of,
underground coal mining machinery.

If you look at the underground mining machine, then look at the PT,,,
you see they clearly copyed their existing machine to create the PT.

This was an easy way for them to get into the PT business,, no long development, simply scale the big machine down.

I have seriously considered a Ventrac as a machine for me,,, it would suit my needs.
Maybe,,, some day??

The stumbling block is that I own a SCUT and a BIG garden tractor.
Those two machines mow perfectly, and do the job with very little need of any service.

Also,,, hydraulics are VERY inefficient,,, it is just in my blood,, but...
I hate wasting 20% of my horsepower to heat, when that horsepower could be doing work.
I have stuck to gear drive, and mechanical PTO power to the mowers because of that.

Hydraulics are convenient,,, but, they are VERY wasteful of horsepower.
I reserve my use of hydraulics for what they do best, backhoe and loader work.
A steady load, like wheel drive, and turning a mower,, I prefer gear drive.

 

[Industrial Toys]

The absolute worst thing about tractor evolution is the front end loader. Especially ag loaders. A horrible bulky thing and you can't even see the business end And the weight resting on dinky front wheels and the steering axle. Why did they not at least put the loader on the back? Probably to leave the 3ph free. Yet another horrible thing, that 3ph.

I would never in my life buy another Ag style loader. In fairness though. I am guessing it came about merely as a (wonderful) alternative to shoveling animal poop by hand.

 

[roadhunter]

I see plenty of farmers and ranchers moving toward skid steers and compact telehandlers for hay handling because of the reasons mentioned above.

 

[Taylortractornut]

I'm seeing a few smaller tractors that have Euro styled rear quick hitches on them. I think the best reason to have a rear mower is in dusty conditions you don't eat dust as bad. And you can see hidden things before the mower does. I built a front mount mower for my old yanmar aye so much dust I traded it off for more parts.

 

[aczlan]

Good reading, however this post is 15yrs old and PT haven't convinced the tractor buying public that they're the answer. In fact I've never seen or known anyone with one. There are 6 Kubs and JD in our neighborhood though. Don't see the big tractor makers embracing this style of tractor either. So in lieu of PT taking over the world through good design there are some issues that I think tractor makers are slowing moving towards: quick attach implements are on nearly everything now. Easy to mount front snow blowers aren't far behind. What's the next big tractor improvement? realizing that we need more pressure and volume on tractor hydraulics. My tractor, Kub 6060, tops out at about 9 1/2 GPM where a small bobcat starts at 17.5 GPM. The other thing I agree with is that we need a better connection for the 3 pt. Where its at makes sense, what it does makes sense. The PIA of hooking up heavy stuff, makes no sense whatsoever. A std like quick attach built in to all tractors would make implements easier and universal for cat of hitch.

Kubota makes something like a PT, the R series: http://www.kubota.com/product/RSeries.aspx but its aimed more at being a loader than an implement carrier (they have a 11-18GPM aux circuit).

Aaron Z

 

[Industrial Toys]

Funny, how many people pinch every penny when buying a tractor. Heck, even going for the "OFF" (unproven) brands. But then suggesting that they SHOULD have some of the most expensive features and specifications.

It's all out there. Just not in your bargain basement homeowner utility tractor.