gsganzer:
I agree totally with your take on the lawsuit problem.
Regarding the blanket loader use not approved issue, I'd like to feel I am protected if Deere knowingly hired drunks to do the welding. (an outrageous example), but accept the
fact that if I am not careful (slopes, load height, fast travel,
ballast) I may put the tractor on it's side.
I still think it's weird though that these tractors sit on
a hundred dealer lots with loaders installed by the dealer
at less than the 59" "allowed tread width" with no comment
about the lack of approval. Such a warning would undoubtedly
impact sales but with Deere's risk adverse philosophy it is
surprising they don't post the warning anyway. If it is
their policy to not approve these tractors, why not at least
offer a wider rear axle option, or if the narrow axle is
strong enough some extreme dish wheels, or wheel spacers (again,
if axle is strong enough)?
del
I agree totally with your take on the lawsuit problem.
Regarding the blanket loader use not approved issue, I'd like to feel I am protected if Deere knowingly hired drunks to do the welding. (an outrageous example), but accept the
fact that if I am not careful (slopes, load height, fast travel,
ballast) I may put the tractor on it's side.
I still think it's weird though that these tractors sit on
a hundred dealer lots with loaders installed by the dealer
at less than the 59" "allowed tread width" with no comment
about the lack of approval. Such a warning would undoubtedly
impact sales but with Deere's risk adverse philosophy it is
surprising they don't post the warning anyway. If it is
their policy to not approve these tractors, why not at least
offer a wider rear axle option, or if the narrow axle is
strong enough some extreme dish wheels, or wheel spacers (again,
if axle is strong enough)?
del