FEL :: Rated Lift Capacity vs BUCKET Capacity

[MessickFarmEqu]

</font><font color="blueclass=small">( Neil, your comments really stuck with me and bothered me because if this is a trend, then it is ANTI-consumer and it shows that the manufacturers are hiding real numbers. )</font>

My bias is going to show here, but I think its because they do infact have something to hide. As a whole CNH tends to have the highest specs for a given frame class tractor, Kubota tends to have the highest specs per dollar for a Tier 1 brand machine. The only way some of the other companies can make it appear as if they are in the running is to give rattings that can be deceptive without careful analysis.

Here is another issue to fuel your fire. There are many different standards that are used to rate engine HP. Ever notice that Lawn tractors always have a "*As Rated By the Manufacturer". This is because Kohler uses a bench test ratting wtih no muffler, air cleaner, etc. You can bet that 19Hp tractor does no where near 19Hp in real world conditions. I don't think this is happening with compacts yet, but it sure could.

 

[jmc]

Hope these marketers don't start a race to the bottom and pull what some of the shop vac and air compressor marketers did.

But, according to Dilbert, marketing people never ***** the customer. They merely hold the customer down while the salespeople ***** them.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

<font color="red">
Hope these marketers don't start a race to the bottom and pull what some of the shop vac and air compressor marketers did. </font>


HAA!! You make me laugh. OF COURSE THEY WILL RACE TO THE BOTTOM!!! The almighty dollar speaks too loudly. Why do you think we see so many consumer goods being made by child labor in non-democratic nations? Wal Mart makes up a full 1% of the Chinese economy. People care less about quality and more about saving a buck. The marketers know that. So they can provide numbers that will convince all but totally **** people (like me) that they have great machines with great specs that will get the job done, but in fact they are selling something less than they lead people to believe. And people who are not totally **** (like me) are rare and few and the marketers know that. So the lonely voice of the **** rententive (me) who figures out the truth, really is brushed aside as the masses believe the marketing hype and glossy brochures and figure that they got a great deal. Now I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the machine they bought, I am saying that there is something wrong with the company that made the machine because that company obviously adopted a marketing/sales tactic that is somewhat like the words that come out of a politician's mouth!

 

[jmc]

Stand by for "Peak to Peak" horsepower ratings!

 

[Bob_Skurka]

<font color="red"> Stand by for "Peak to Peak" horsepower ratings! </font>

John, did you mean "rating" or "RANTING"???
I don't have a dyno, so I doubt I will be testing HP or torque curves anytime soon.

However, I did go back an edit in some additional breakout figures into the post on page 2 of this thread to show some additional comparisons.

 

[rockyridgefarm]

Ok, I don't have the answer yet, but maybe a clue.

Before Deere's latest slew of specs is this statement:

<font color="green"> Specifications Per ASAE 301.3 </font>

My guess is that specification dictates where the numbers are taken, and may actually be the start of a trend for MORE integrity rather than less. Now I need to find out what that spec is...

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

Those standards are age old, problem is there are multiple standards and few companies list whichs ones they follow.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

<font color="red">
Those standards are age old, problem is there are multiple standards and few companies list whichs ones they follow. </font>


Neil, in all fairness to John Deere, I have sent Mike PM's asking for his help to try to track down the data. I also spent a good chunk of my lunch hour trying to find data from JD. I can't find where the data measuring points are. The stuff I find, I believe is probably based on pivot points and ball eyes. But if I can get correct information or confirmation of where the data measuring points are, of if someone can forward me the information with the source, then I will gladly edit my earlier post.

 

[rockyridgefarm]

The ASAE Spec is:

Front-End Agricultural Loader Ratings
ASAE ASAE S301.3 December 2001

Yopu have to be a member to download it:

ASAE

 

[Bob_Skurka]

OK, just to clarify a bit, I went back and edited the John Deere information on Page 2 of this thread. Mike provided me with several bits of John Deere information. John Deere measures at the pivot point. Now in fairness to JD, they apparently do have owners manuals on the internet and and I looked at the loader's owners manual, the owners manual has lifting graphs that show pivot point data and also shows bucket center data.

 

[LarryD]

<font color="red"> Those standards are age old, problem is there are multiple standards and few companies list whichs ones they follow. </font>

Or we could have a "Microsoft" type tractor manufacturer that everyone else builds their machines to (down?) and all the rest would could just say "Brand X compatible". /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

On second thought, I'll keep my NH 'cause I really need to finish the projects I've started. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Now in fairness to JD, they apparently do have owners manuals on the internet and and I looked at the loader's owners manual, the owners manual has lifting graphs that show pivot point data and also shows bucket center data.
)</font>

What ticks me off is that this is 100% intentional deception of the customer. I end up having to explain pivot pin vs bucket center to every consumer who I know is considering a Deere. It makes me look like I have to explain away why my machine may have a lower number, when infact I am showing them how to calculate how much capacity they really need as those pivot numbers are useless. Like I said, I would expect in that not too distant future that this is going to have to become the trend.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

<font color="red">
What ticks me off is that this is 100% intentional deception of the customer. </font>


I think that is my feeling also, and in a round about way how/why I started this thread.

Going back to my list in the post on page 2, I think it is still fair to say that from the CONSUMER's point of view, only Case/New Holland and Kubota are really being "honest" with data. Deere offers the data, but buries it in the owners manual where most people won't look. Again, all the companies are providing SOME data, but the problem is they are providing data that is less than useful, and they are probably doing it because someone else started doing it first and now we are in a downhill slide of legal consumer deception and statistical trickery.

 

[rockyridgefarm]

So when Kubota rates their tractor against a competitor's smaller or dscontinued model, making theirs always come out the winner, are thay not 100% intentionally misleading the customer? Actually it is caveat emptor, and it should stay that way. No buyer should blindly accept the facts of any marketing entity.

But we can try and sort some of it out, because we are tbn, and we have Science on our side!!

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Mike, I think Neil is capable of defending that point, but in all fairness, I think ALL of the tractor companies that offer a "competitive comparision" page err on the side of making their tractor look good. I found one brand that compared its tractors to DISCONTINUED models that had been out of production for 2 to 3 years. I think that Kubota could do a better comparision job. But when I looked up JD 3320 the NH model they "compared" it to was the antiquated TC30 instead of the modern TC33DA; I will give JD credit for allowing consumers to pick and choose which tractors they compare, even if the comparision list is not complete. Some of the other brands out there are doing mis-match comparisons or simply excluding competitive models. Again, I think all the manufacturers are guilty of that one!

 

[gippolit]

Hum I just thought it was kubota.

 

[rockyridgefarm]

That is my point, it isn't just Deere or kubota...

I am helping a friend find a tractor, and interestingly often times I can only find a particular spec at a competitor's site for the particular machine we are cinsidering. Of course I trust that implicitly!!! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Another good friend, ol' _RaT_ probably gives the best advice. Look at max lift heights, rollback and dump angles. If they work, the loader will probably have the force to do it's work. Of course, his experience is with a particular brand of loader where that has held true.

I can't think of any owners who have been greatly dissatisfied with their loader's performance. I am quite happy with my Deere 430. Yet guys who have owned it feel the 300CX that replaced it is far superior. I don't think any of us feel we have been fleeced into buying green painted scrap, (not that anyone is suggesting anything that extreme)

And none of this has half the effect on my real world use that LoadMatch gives me. I don't think that I would give up that little circuit for any real or imagined increase in some spec.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

gippolit wrote: <font color="red">
Hum I just thought it was kubota. </font>

No, obviously not. The comparision pages on the manufacturer's websites are pretty much worthless. But at least Kubota (and New Holland) provide numbers that consumers can use. The pivot point numbers used by the majority of the manufacturers seem to be inflated by roughly 30% to 40% over actual capacities. At least Kubota (and New Holland) give a number that you can work with to estimate if the tractor will match your needs. Sad to say, but most don't.


Mike wrote: <font color="green">
And none of this has half the effect on my real world use that LoadMatch gives me. I don't think that I would give up that little circuit for any real or imagined increase in some spec.
</font>
Mike, I think that some of the key features offered by some of the companies are really strong reasons to buy that brand. LoadMatch is one darn good reason to buy Deere. SuperSteer is a good reason to buy New Holland.

But that said, the thread is really about the deceptive nature of the capacities. We morphed from small buckets on tractor with high rated capacities making the tractor feel stronger than it really is, to the deceptive numbers that use useless pivot point capacities. And unfortunately, it appears that too many companies are using pivot point numbers.

 

[rockyridgefarm]

OK, back to that...

But these are quick attach bucket systems.

Different 'bucket' geometries, bale spears, silage forks, rootgrapples. None are the same standerd. Measuring at the bucket lip as at a whole lot of varying places. Is there really any safe apples to apples comparison? As soon as we get them all at the bucket lip on a 'standerd' bucket, someone wil claim the others isn't really the right color or shape and really not better.

But it's hard to misfactor measuring at the pins, is that really overstating anything if we all compare those numbers the same?

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

as for what implement is whats on the QA coupler, you'll notice that bucket center is often interchanged with "500mm forward". I am going to get my load cell out one of these times, I bet at the pins and 12" off the ground I can get a BX to show almost 1000lbs.

Your right that if everyone went to using a pin ratting that it would be "fair", but this is not about fair. Its about certian companies trying to skew customer perception by publishing deceptive figures that have no real world use.