FEL :: Rated Lift Capacity vs BUCKET Capacity

[Bob_Skurka]

Mike
Point taken, but the other "standard" seems to be (or at least was) the 500mm in front of the pivot pins measuring standard. That one is pretty close to honest. It is very similar to 24" behind the ball eyes on the 3pt. I don't know about you, but I have yet to find a bucket load that actually is centered directly over the pivot points, and I have yet to find a 3pt load that is centered on the ball eyes. But at roughly 19" in front of the pivot point and at 24" behind the ball eyes then the loads are in the realm of REAL WORLD user experiences!

<font color="red">
But it's hard to misfactor measuring at the pins, is that really overstating anything if we all compare those numbers the same? </font>
Yes Mike I think it is really overstating EVERYTHING if the marketing types continue this because MOST consumers don't realize how much capacity is actually lost. Take a loader that has a 1200 pound capacity at the pivot point, that loader really only has a real capacity of about 800# to 850# inside the bucket. Now if you are a typical consumer and you know you need to move a bunch of stuff that weighs 1000# and buy a tractor with a loader that is "rated" at 1200#, then in fact you bought a loader that is not going to be able to lift your 1000# load, and that is the whole reason you bought that loader.

Now again, a very similar thing applies to the 3pt hitch. Tractor X measured at the ball ends says they can lift 2000#. Tractor Y, measured at 24" behind the ball ends says they can lift 1200#. Based on numbers I've dug up, both are actually capable of lifting exactly the same thing!!! But you bought a 1500# implement and now you wonder why your 2000# "rated" tractor won't lift it!

It boils down to lies (at least that is the simple term).

The marketing people are simply INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING consumers into thinking they purchased more capacity than they actually received. And it was not this way just a couple years ago. The manufactures used to post very similar data, comparisions were much easier to make, people could actually use the numbers. Not any more.



Neil wrote to Mike <font color="blue">
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. </font>

EXACTLY!!!

 

[Osconda]

Bob,

Quoted from your last post:

"Now again, a very similar thing applies to the 3pt hitch. Tractor X measured at the ball ends says they can lift 2000#. Tractor Y, measured at 24" behind the ball ends says they can lift 1200#. Based on numbers I've dug up, both are actually capable of lifting exactly the same thing!!! But you bought a 1500# implement and now you wonder why your 2000# "rated" tractor won't lift it! "

Putting capacities on a brochure that are misleading, is just one way of misleading the consumer, especially those new to operating tractors. I don't know how the numbers are actually derived for these specifications, but it's alarming to see that some of these numbers may be overstated by some manufacturers.

For example, after a quick search on the Nebraska Tractor Test Laboratory website I found these comments in some of the reports:

On the NH TC55:
"This tractor did not meet manufacturer's claims of 3465 lb (1571 kg) 3 point hitch lift at 24" nor 11.6 GPM (43.9 lpm)
hydraulic flow."

On the CASE JX75:
"This tractor did not meet the manufacturer's claim of 3 point lift capacity of 5950 lbs (2700 kg)."

On the McCormick CX85:
"This tractor did not meet the manufacturer's claims of 3 point lift capacity of 4497 lbs, optionally - 6425 lbs."

On the Massey 4370:
"This tractor did not meet the manufacturers 3 point lift capacity claim of 11023 lb (5000 kg) at lower link ends nor 7240 lbs (3284 kg) at 24".

So is the NTTL not testing these capacities in the same way the manufacturers are, or what else could account for the discrepancies?

 

[rockyridgefarm]

<font color="orange"> Its about certian companies trying to skew customer perception by publishing deceptive figures that have no real world use. </font>

YMMV (Your mileage may vary)

The new Jeep Liberty CRD gets 29MPG. That is it's EPA rating. Your mileage may vary. See your dealer for details. Actually, your mileage WILL vary. and your dealer is required, by law, to have an EPA Fact Sheet describing exactly why it will, or in other words, that their test isn't a real world rating. But everyone is measured by the same yardstick. So if another vehicle, say a Dodge Durango gets 16MPG, you at least have some indicator of the ratios to each other.

Deere cites the ASAE spec. Almost every other brand, except Kubota and New Holland seem to follow the same stick. Now I admit that the yardstick may not be as accurate a real world test. (and i bet that is because it is uaually applied to much larger equipment where the difference is not as effective...)

But to say they are willfully deceiving customers is a little scary.

For one, Kubota and New Holland don't support this 'free' site. (Now I am not suggesting we need to act as if we are taking a 'bribe' from JD&Co.)

And Messick, as dealer sets his family's business in a risky position, for libel.

Because if Deere does meet the ASAE spec, you can say what you want, but they aren't misleading. They also have the other numbers available. And there are other reasonable explainations other than 'The big green wolf is out to get poor buyers' . They may easily have switched lately to comply with the new spec published in December of 2001. The whole point of that might be to ELIMINATE discrepencies.

I just flipped back and Osconda already posted my next point:

For all we know, manufactures could be basing their numbers on 'real moon use' - how much could this loader lift on the moon? I am being silly, but really we still are trusting that they aren't overstating the amounts, let alone using different measuring points. They can also post engineering estimated numbers instead of actual production samples. I still haven't seen that ASAE specification, but it most probably dictates a lot more than the point where the measurement is taken.

Buit I still come back to my first position. Caveat Emptor. Buyer Beware. Whether it is the EPA, Consumer's Reports, The manufacturers publications, or the ASAE. You need to be an informed buyer, and understand the limitations and or bias of your information.

And we are in a new frontier with the internet. We should have a spec section here listing these numbers as closely as is reasonable allowing members to compare two or three products side by side with some accuracy. (I know something like that is in the works)

And thanks guys, for making this a fun discussion tackling a thorny issue. You are good sparring buddies! Please do not take any personal offense to anything I am suggesting...

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Mike wrote: <font color="green"> Deere cites the ASAE spec. Almost every other brand, except Kubota and New Holland seem to follow the same stick. Now I admit that the yardstick may not be as accurate a real world test. (and i bet that is because it is uaually applied to much larger equipment where the difference is not as effective...) </font>


I certainly never meant for this thread to turn into a mild attack on John Deere, which it seems to have done (that feeling is unwarrented and there is plenty of blame to be spread over many of the companies). Perhaps because of my post on the bottom of page 2 of this thread. I don't think JD is any more to blame than any other company. I do think that a few years ago the companies gave capacity at 24" behind the ball ends for the 3pt and also gave capacity at 500mm in front of the pivot point (commonly refered to as the bucket center).

As it appears to me now the following companies list FEL capacity at the bucket center in on-line MARKETING material:
- Century
- Kubota
- Massey Ferguson
- Case-New Holland

As it appears to me now the following companies list 3pt capacity at 24" behind the ball eyes in on-line MARKETING material:
- Kioti
- Kubota
- Case-New Holland

As it appears to me now the following companies list BREAKOUT force in MARKETING material at 500mm ahead of the pivot point and/or the bucket lip:
- Branson
- Century
- Kubota
- Massey-Ferguson
- Case-New Holland


The only 2 companies who meet my "honest marketing test" and make ALL 3 lists are
- Kubota
- Case-New Holland


<font color="red">The companies who do not make all 3 lists are: </font>
- Branson
- Century
- Deere
- Kioti
- Mahindra
- Massey-Ferguson


osconda wrote: <font color="blue">
Putting capacities on a brochure that are misleading, is just one way of misleading the consumer, especially those new to operating tractors. I don't know how the numbers are actually derived for these specifications, but it's alarming to see that some of these numbers may be overstated by some manufacturers. </font>

Excellent point, but I suspect that the manufacturers who submit to the Nebraska tests are not intentionally overstating numbers. Any company that allows for public 3rd party testing & reporting and overstates its numbers will be caught. I would suspect that perhaps a faulty part may have caused the problem? But that is just a guess.


Here is a list of the companies (limited to those we have so far discussed in this thread) who do participate in the Nebraska tests:
- John Deere
- Case-New Holland
- Massey-Ferguson


To my understanding, the following companies do NOT participate in Nebraska testing (do they have something to hide?) One of the moderators here on TBN at one time suggested one or 2 of the popular "minor" brands of hiding testing results that showed lower HP than ratings, etc. I saw no proof of that, but if you want to over-state your numbers, it could be done by simply not participating in the tests.
- Branson
- Century
- Kioti
- Kubota (on record opposing the tests as unnessary)
- Mahindra

*I am unsure if Massey participates*
EDIT - I was able to find recent data showing that Massy does participate in the Nebraska testing, I edited the list above to include them.

 

[rockyridgefarm]

But Bob, your real world test and ASAE's specs aren't the same, I guess you need to talk to ASAE...

 

[Bob_Skurka]

<font color="red"> real world test and ASAE's specs aren't the same </font>


Mike, I'm still not sure about that. It has been stated that there are multiple ASAE specs; that said, a manufacture might choose to publish only part of the ASAE data, and still comply with the ASAE testing, specs, etc. In fact as JD has the FULL data in the on line owners manuals, they obviously do the testing, they publish the numbers, they just don't publish it in their MARKETING material.


I actually have confidence in the JD numbers, I may question WHY the marketing department choses to use the set of numbers they choose. But JD has ALL the data, with graphs, on the website (even if they are a bit buried) and they back their data with Nebraska tests too.

Now what concerns me more are the minor brands who seem to use no standard whatsoever and can't seem to agree on what set of numbers to use and also don't do Nebraska testing.

 

[rockyridgefarm]

so what's your favorite pizza?

 

[JerryG]

Bob,
Unless it has changed. Any company that sells Ag tractors (50HP or greater) in Nebraska has to submit tractors for testing.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Mike, I don't eat pizza!

Jerry, I believe it is any tractor over 40hp sold in Nebraska. And that means a lot of tractor brands do not sell tractors of that size, or larger, in the state. There was a big stink recently trying to get the law overturned; it may be settled or the fight might still be raging on. I don't really follow Nebraska's state laws, I just saw a few stories about the fight over the law recently.


Edit, by the way, I was able to find recent Nebraska test data on Massey-Ferguson, so I edited a prior post to include them in the list of brands we have been discussing in this thread. Apparently the 3 brands who participate in the Nebraska Tests are:
- Case-New Holland
- John Deere
- Massey-Ferguson

And the brands who do not submit to the independant Nebraska tests (from what I can tell) include:
- Branson
- Century
- Kioti
- Kubota
- Mahindra

 

[JerryG]

There has been quite a bit of talk lately about doing away with the testing all together. I hope that they don't. 40 is right, I misspoke.