Fabricated ROPS
- Thread starter Ozarker
- Start date
- Views: 4676
Soundguy
Old Timer
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2002
- Messages
- 51,575
- Location
- Central florida
- Tractor
- RK 55HC,ym1700, NH7610S, Ford 8N, 2N, NAA, 660, 850 x2, 541, 950, 941D, 951, 2000, 3000, 4000, 4600, 5000, 740, IH 'C' 'H', CUB, John Deere 'B', allis 'G', case VAC
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Make the ROPS uprights vertical and parallel... its also useful for easier mounting of that nice canopy ... vintage Deere has ROPS that are swept back )</font>
Looks and ease of mounting a canopy ar NOT two things I would consider when designing or finding a rops that needs to protect me. Keep in mind rops are not only for side flips.. but backflips as well. Part of the design and load bearing engineering may specifically need those specific angles, etc. For instance , the retrofit certified rops kits for the 1939-1952 ford N-series tractors use the fender mounting area on the axle trumpet. It ihas a top and bottom flat, and ears for 4 long and large grade 8 bolts... it is a swept back design as well.
Leave superficial things like looks and color on the bottom of the suggestion list when looking at rops...
just my .02...
Soundguy
Looks and ease of mounting a canopy ar NOT two things I would consider when designing or finding a rops that needs to protect me. Keep in mind rops are not only for side flips.. but backflips as well. Part of the design and load bearing engineering may specifically need those specific angles, etc. For instance , the retrofit certified rops kits for the 1939-1952 ford N-series tractors use the fender mounting area on the axle trumpet. It ihas a top and bottom flat, and ears for 4 long and large grade 8 bolts... it is a swept back design as well.
Leave superficial things like looks and color on the bottom of the suggestion list when looking at rops...
just my .02...
Soundguy
That was one on my main considerations when I first started trying to think through the design of a ROPS if I have to go from scratch. I think it is easy to design for a rollover but not so easy to design for a back flip. If all I had to worry about was a roll over I could just mount it to the top of the axle housing with U-bolts. But those U-bolts would be useless if it goes over backwards..........unless I turn it into a cage/cab with 4 uprights instead of two. And that isn't such a bad idea.
OkieG
Veteran Member
Soundguy,
I think you got me wrong on this one. I apologize for any confusion.
<font color="red"> Leave superficial things like looks and color on the bottom of the suggestion list when looking at rops...
just my .02...
</font>
My previous post was not intended to suggest that looks and color should even be on Ozarker's list. I said," <font color="blue"> Henro has you thinking about the safety aspect (and appropriately so) </font>". Of course, safety is first priority....appropriately so. But, I also tried to convey that parallel (//) uprights (IMO) are <font color="blue">useful for easier mounting of that nice canopy...</font>
<font color="red"> Looks and ease of mounting a canopy ar NOT two things I would consider when designing or finding a rops that needs to protect me. </font>
I know where you're coming from. When it comes to equipment like ROPS, safety first...period. I agree, but there are possibly some design features that offer options, ie not just one right way...as evidenced in the pictures below.
Here is a shot of the newer model ROPS (above) and my older ROPS (below).
It's easy to see how much the vertical arms on my ROPS angle toward each other as they approach the canopy. I may be wrong, but I don't believe that is a life saving feature, rather a design option Deere chose, just as they now choose a // design. I had to cut, bend and weld the canopy mounting brackets so they would bolt to my slanted ROPS, yet be vertical where they attach to the canopy. It was a chore. I'm just trying to simplify Ozarker's canopy project when it finally comes up...not compromise his safety.
The newer ROPS is quite //. Folding ROPS also have // uprights. All (including mine) are OEM. Hopefully, each will work well when the chips are down (up?). I think most ROPS are swept back a bit, as you note in your post. I should amend the statement, "<font color="blue">Make the ROPS uprights vertical and parallel.</font>" in my previous post and say, "Make the ROPS uprights parallel.", and scratch the "vertical" part (my mistake). But, //ness and not sweep-back is the design feature that is significant re: canopy install.
<font color="blue"> Kinda stylish looking, I guess, but more difficult to mount a canopy to. </font> That is a reference to my non-// ROPS, not to what I suggest Ozarker consider. My old ROPS is kinda stylish though, with the tapering angle...don't you think? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif Just tough to mount a canopy on. I suspect that either // or non-// will perform in a crunch. If we can accept that's true, and if I had a choice, like Ozarker does, I would choose //. Not because it's safer, or prettier, or easier to build (though it probably is), but for the reason already mentioned.
OkieG
I think you got me wrong on this one. I apologize for any confusion.
<font color="red"> Leave superficial things like looks and color on the bottom of the suggestion list when looking at rops...
just my .02...
</font>
My previous post was not intended to suggest that looks and color should even be on Ozarker's list. I said," <font color="blue"> Henro has you thinking about the safety aspect (and appropriately so) </font>". Of course, safety is first priority....appropriately so. But, I also tried to convey that parallel (//) uprights (IMO) are <font color="blue">useful for easier mounting of that nice canopy...</font>
<font color="red"> Looks and ease of mounting a canopy ar NOT two things I would consider when designing or finding a rops that needs to protect me. </font>
I know where you're coming from. When it comes to equipment like ROPS, safety first...period. I agree, but there are possibly some design features that offer options, ie not just one right way...as evidenced in the pictures below.
Here is a shot of the newer model ROPS (above) and my older ROPS (below).
It's easy to see how much the vertical arms on my ROPS angle toward each other as they approach the canopy. I may be wrong, but I don't believe that is a life saving feature, rather a design option Deere chose, just as they now choose a // design. I had to cut, bend and weld the canopy mounting brackets so they would bolt to my slanted ROPS, yet be vertical where they attach to the canopy. It was a chore. I'm just trying to simplify Ozarker's canopy project when it finally comes up...not compromise his safety.
The newer ROPS is quite //. Folding ROPS also have // uprights. All (including mine) are OEM. Hopefully, each will work well when the chips are down (up?). I think most ROPS are swept back a bit, as you note in your post. I should amend the statement, "<font color="blue">Make the ROPS uprights vertical and parallel.</font>" in my previous post and say, "Make the ROPS uprights parallel.", and scratch the "vertical" part (my mistake). But, //ness and not sweep-back is the design feature that is significant re: canopy install.
<font color="blue"> Kinda stylish looking, I guess, but more difficult to mount a canopy to. </font> That is a reference to my non-// ROPS, not to what I suggest Ozarker consider. My old ROPS is kinda stylish though, with the tapering angle...don't you think? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif Just tough to mount a canopy on. I suspect that either // or non-// will perform in a crunch. If we can accept that's true, and if I had a choice, like Ozarker does, I would choose //. Not because it's safer, or prettier, or easier to build (though it probably is), but for the reason already mentioned.
OkieG
Attachments
fishstixtwo
Member
I have a factory ROPS on my 180D I will try to post pictures in a couple of days.
fishstixtwo
Member
These 2 bolts go through a plate that is bolted to the back of the diff housing
