FEL :: Rated Lift Capacity vs BUCKET Capacity

[MessickFarmEqu]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Bob,
Unless it has changed. Any company that sells Ag tractors (50HP or greater) in Nebraska has to submit tractors for testing. )</font>

At this point I don't think anyone is questioning the honesty of the specs that are given. I've load tested a few tractors and so far they have each edged out their factory spec.

What is clear is that there is some level of consumer deception that happens here. We should not be so blind as to think that this is the only industry that this happens. I am a nut when it comes to home theater systems and the same kind of stuff happens there. The sad truth is that if you want to make a solid, fair comparison you have to be well educated. The average consumer is never going to pickup on these facts without a detailed explination about testing procedures.

 

[LarryD]

<font color="blue"> We should not be so blind as to think that this is the only industry that this happens. </font>

We are a consumer societyand the sad fact is there are a lot of people out there that see a market and want to provide a product (reads make a profit) and have to SELL that product.

Some established products sell themselves while others need to give you some bit of information that says it's a better product. Sometimes that information may be irrelevant to actual usage but I'll bet a lot of consumers hear the sound bite and think that's the one they need. I don't watch a lot of TV but when I do, I'm bombarded by sound bites that make pause and wonder just what they are saying. My latest favorite is "best in class in initial quality". Is it going to be worst in class in later quality? Certainly doesn't sell me but but I'm not the only one out there buying.

I do not respond to "which one should I buy" posts on this forum because I don't have enough VALID information to say one machine is better than another, I believe there numerous good machines available backed by companies that value their customers and reputation. There are also companies that sell a 2nd tier product to consumers that can't or don't want to pay 1st tier prices. These people are valid consumers with valid needs, but they still need to feel they made an informed decision when they sign the papers.

This does not justify touting meaningless information but some marketing group did a survey and found out what bits of information were most important to consumers and used that to make their product appear equal or better to another.

I'm a very cautious buyer (drives the CFO nuts) and no single piece of information ever sold me a product. I spent months looking at tractors, talked to friends that had them and asked them what they would look at if they were buying now (much like some of the advice given here) and did a spread sheet on what specs I could find on the models I liked. So far I'm very pleased with my decision and I'd be willing to bet 80% of tractor owners would say the same thing.

So keep throwing those sound bites at me, I won't remember your product but I'll pause and wonder; just what were they saying.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

<font color="red"> I'm bombarded by sound bites that make pause and wonder just what they are saying. My latest favorite is "best in class in initial quality". Is it going to be worst in class in later quality? Certainly doesn't sell me but but I'm not the only one out there buying . . .
So keep throwing those sound bites at me, I won't remember your product but I'll pause and wonder; just what were they saying. </font>


Larry,

I would say you on one of the very rare buyers out there who reads BEYOND the surface.

I read a lot of the forums because I like tractors. It is pretty interesting to see some of the reasons people buy. In MANY cases the purchases are justified by the capacity of Brand X versus Brand Y. When the numbers are not comparable, then it makes it easier to buy Brand X because people are simply not comparing apples to apples. Unfortunately people buy Brand X and actually believe they got the capacity they paid for. But in fact, they probably got about 30% to 35% less FEL lift capacity, they probably got 35% less breakout force and they probably got 30% less 3pt lift capacity than they think they got!



TO EVERYONE:
I would also like to partially correct my statement regarding the John Deere MARKETING information. Apparently SOME of their models seem to have lift figures at 24" behind the ball eyes, while other models seems to list the capacity at the ball eyes. It also looks like some of the loader specs may be listed at 500mm in front of the pivot points. But from what I can tell, the NEW models are at pivot point/ball eyes . . . while the older models may be at what I believe are the more accurate 500mm forward and 24" behind measurements. I will say that I think the JD materials are confusing and I am not totally sure what I am reading!

 

[timb]

Bob,

Except for maybe on a garden tractor, I don't think I've ever seen a JD CUT or UT spec for the 3-point that only listed the lift at the eyes - usually it's both, or at worst only the 24" point. The current brochure I have for the Twenty series and all the Ten series brochures I have clearly list both or only the 24" spec. But it's definitely true that every basic JD loader brochure/spec sheet I've ever seen lists the capacities at the pivot pin, for better or worse. I've had to really dig deep for the 500mm numbers.

However - the point I'd really like to add to this discussion - in addition to making sure you're comparing brand x apples to brand y apples - I'd recommend trying to find more than one source for your data. I've spent a lot of time pouring over JD material and have found a lot of typos. However, I've seen them listed in other manufacturers data as well. Ironically, in JD's case the typos often understates the spec, almost as if the copy writer started with the small tractors and cut-and-pasted their way up through the bigger units - and didn't update all the numbers! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Bottom line, I think most of the manufacturers offerings tend to be pretty darn competitive for real-world numbers in like-sized tractors. If you find a spec from one mfg. that is WAY off from what the class tends to offer (better or worse) be suspicious and seek out more information. You might just be looking at an orange instead of an apple - or an apple with a typo.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Tim, I think that quite a bit has been made of the JD specs and really I don't think they are suspect. Any brand that submits to the Nebraska testing is going to have a high level of honesty simply because they are subject to being proved wrong.

What I think is far more troubling are some of the other brands and their specs. Or maybe the lack of specs they provide. In one fashion or another, the Big 3 brands, and to a slightly less extent Massey, seem to have a lot of information on different measuring points. In many cases they rate their buckets capacity at different heights above the ground, at pivot pin, and at bucket center. So basically in their marketing material they are offering full disclosure.

Some minor brands simply list "capacity at pivot point."

One minor brand, no matter how hard I looked, only offered ball eye & pivot point capacities. I checked several models of that brand to see if maybe if varied, but I could only find the 3pt at the ball eyes and the FEL at the pivot.

At this point of this thread, I'm sure people have figured out that "real capacity" is roughly 35% below the "pivot point" capacity. But how many of those same people know that capacity at 12" off the ground is different than at full bucket height?

It really all boils down to the integrity & honesty of the company. And it can be seen in the numbers, which, if the marketing people have their way, seem to be legal lies. Sure they may use accurate numbers, but they choose to use numbers that are meaningless in the real world. The numbers overstate "real" capacity and they overstate it by 30% to 40%!

MikeMc really hit the nail on the head with his "buyer beware" statement. But why should we make it so easy on all these manufacturers to trick buyers?

And a lot of buyers are being tricked and you can read about it right here on TBN. Just go into some of the forums where you can read about how someone bought Brand X, or Brand Q and how much more capcity it has over big name brand Z. In reality it may, or it may not, depending on the model comparison. Now I suppose we could argue that it "serves him right" because he didn't look deep enough or he didn't compare the correct numbers . . . but I'd rather see the manufacturers all go back to HONEST measuring points that have MEANINGFUL numbers.


FOR EXAMPLE, I just pulled up tractor specs for 3 small frame compacts. One from a Big 3 company, 2 from popular minor brand companies. This EXAMPLE just to show how the numbers APPEAR on the surface!

Big 3 Stats in their MARKETING stuff:
FEL capacity = 750#
Breakout = 1220#
3pt capacity = 1265#

Minor Brand #1 stats in their MARKETING stuff:
FEL capacity = 1074#
Breakout = 1511#
3pt capacity = 1109#

Minor Brand #2 stats in their MARKETING stuff:
FEL capacity = 915#
Breakout = 1828#
3pt capacity = 1400#



NOW IF WE EQUALIZE ALL THESE NUMBERS to the SAME MEASURING POINTS, the numbers look something like this:

Big 3 brand capacities =
FEL capacity = 1090# @ the pivot point .<font color="green"> 340# MORE than their "marketing" claims </font>
Breakout = 1720# @ the pivot point .<font color="green"> 500# MORE than their "marketing" claims </font>
3pt capacity = 1265 @ 24" behind the ball eyes

Minor Brand #1 capacities =
FEL capacity = 1074# @ the pivot point
Breakout = 1511# @ the pivot point
3pt capacity = 1109# @ 24" behind the ball eyes

Minor brand #2 capacities =
FEL capacity = 915# @ the pivot point
Breakout = 1828 @ the pivot point
3pt capacity = 980# at 24" behind the ball eyes. <font color="brown"> 420# LESS than their "marketing" claims </font>

The above "Marketing" numbers are based on the marketing materials I was able to find on the various websites (the 980# capacity was listed on a competitive site, it is not a calculated number).




Now if we want to make the FEL numbers HONEST and we can calculte them DOWN. Doing so will make the numbers look like these (these are calculated so all the capacities drop the same % with the same distances)

FEL capacities @ 500mm forward of the pivot point (calculated if not claimed)

Big 3 FEL capacities =
FEL capacity = 750# as claimed in their marketing material
Breakout force = 1220# as claimed in their marketing material

Minor Brand #1 capacities =
FEL capacity = 739# <font color="brown"> 335# less than their marketing material </font>
Breakout force = 1072# <font color="brown"> 439# less than their marketing material </font>

Minor Brand #2 capacities =
FEL capacity = 630# <font color="brown"> 285# less than their marketing material </font>
Breakout force = 1296# <font color="brown"> 532# less than their marketing material </font>



--- My point with all of this is that this is DECEPTIVE and ANTI-CONSUMER. ---

While I pulled an example of 1 "Big 3" brand and showed it against 2 similar tractors from "Minor" brands in this particular example, that is only to illustrate my point. I think there has been ample evidence to suggest that at least 1 "Big 3" brand uses confusing data in at least SOME of its marketing stuff. And this example also shows that the "Minor" brands do not agree on how to measure 3pt capacity because Minor Brand #1 measured at 24" behind, while Minor Brand #2 measured at the ball eyes. So it just further illustrates the confusion.

 

[rockyridgefarm]

Well, add another player to the 'deceptive anti-consumer' trade practices!

Look up the Kubota B2630 and B3030 on their website, and guess what? <font color="orange"> They list their FEL lift at the bucket pivot as per ASAE specs! </font>

Folks These are relatively new specs, and I believe new models will conform to them. Sounds like the argument might really be with the Agricultural Engineers...

 

[albmn10]

When i was looking at the kubota B3030 , i came across a websight that compared the new B3030 to what they said were comparable John Deere and New Holland tractors and ironically in the head to head competitions the Deere and New Holland fell far short of the kubota. Now they failed to mention what models from Deere and New Holland they were comparing and would only let you see poor and partial views of the competiton. They didnt look like the competetions newer models. So Kubota are no saints when it comes to their marketing tactics. In regards to rating lift capacities at the pivot pins, I will tell you from my own experience that my loader which is a woods 1012 is rated at 1375 lbs lift at the pivot point. And if you take the claims that the true lift capacity must be up to 30 percent less at the front of the buckets ill say simply is not always the case . Example, if putting the weight out farther from the loader will make the loader lift significantly less then the pivot point rating capacity, such as lifting concrete slabs with my toothbar, then why will my kioti ck30 easily lift a 7ft by 18" by 12" reinforced concrete slab. It has to be around 10-11 cubic ft and reinforced concrete weighs 150lbs per sq ft. putting the slab weight between 1500lbs to 1600lbs .My dealer said this loader would lift more then it was rated at and he was correct. Now in fairness i didnt see how high i could lift the slab, i simply lifted the slabs to transport heights to clean up my property. The point im trying to make is its dangerous ground to try to imply some brands fall far short of their rated capacities simply by what you can see from a company websight.This is simply not always the case. As previously said, some information may simply be lower for warranty or some other reasons. The best way to approach a machines capacaties is to ask individual owners of specific brand tractors their real life uses and performances, Then one can judge for themselves if the machine they are interested will perform the tasks that is important to the individuals needs.

 

[MikePA]

<font color="blue">its dangerous ground to try to imply some brands fall far short of their rated capacities simply by what you can see from a company websight.</font>
How can it be 'dangerous' to use facts from a manufacturers' web site? The entire reason for using figures from manufacturers web sites is because they are objective facts, e.g., loader X is rated at Y pounds at the pivot point. It's not someone's opinion. This same criteria can be applied across all brands. It's also a fact that the amount a FEL can lift at the bucket center point is less than at the pivot point. That's physics, not opinion. The 'rule of thumb' is 30% less at the bucket center point versus the pivot point. Some FELs are less than 30%, some more.

If I tell someone my FEL can lift 3 oak logs that are 5 feet long and 8 inches in diameter, how does that help them? Even if I tell them that the oak logs are fresh cut or have been laying aroung for years the other person still has no way of determining if they can lift their oak logs.

If I state that my tractor can pull a 2 bottom plow to the depth of x inches, how does that help someone with different soil conditions?

Buyers need both objective facts about tractors as well as subjective opinions. Both can, and should, be used when buying a tractor.

All Bob, and others, have ever stated is that the objective facts should be measured the same across all brands. Invariably, when this topic (objective facts, measured the same, across all brands) comes up, someone whose favorite brand comes out on the short end of the comparison, leaps to the defense of their brand by discrediting the manufacturers web site figures, says they aren't real world, etc. or worse yet, discredit Bob. If we can not trust the manufacturers web site for facts and figures about their own product, what should we trust? If facts (which are neither good or bad, just right or wrong) are discredited, then all we're left with is who can scream the loudest, i.e., marketing.

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">(
Look up the Kubota B2630 and B3030 on their website, and guess what? <font color="orange"> They list their FEL lift at the bucket pivot as per ASAE specs! </font>

They give pivot-pin as well as actual bucket center and 500mm forward. The argument is for those who only provide pivot pin specs.

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( My dealer said this loader would lift more then it was rated at and he was correct. )</font>

I own a load testing cell and I've tested a handful of tractors from different companies. So far, everyone of them has exceeded their ratted capacity, however its been by just a tiny margin. If these companies are sly enough to be using pivot-pin ratings, do you really think they are going to intentionaly under rate their loader capacity?

 

[Bob_Skurka]

albmn10 wrote: <font color="red"> "i came across a websight that compared the new B3030 to what they said were comparable John Deere and New Holland tractors and ironically in the head to head competitions the Deere and New Holland fell far short of the kubota. . . So Kubota are no saints when it comes to their marketing tactics. "</font>

Those photos were taken at a Kubota dealers meeting where their marketing plans were rolled out. They used a NH tractor that was had been discontinued and an older Deere. I had photos from that event emailed to me by a dealer. However, none of that proved anything other than a new modern machine was able to perform better than a couple of older models. And the fact that those photos, and the data from those so-called tests were never published by Kubota is defacto evidence that it was a simple marketing gimmick that was fun for their own dealers to watch at a dealer event. But you are condeming Kubota for the actions of a dealer who posted some fun phots from a private event.

MikePA wrote: <font color="blue"> "If we can not trust the manufacturers web site for facts and figures about their own product, what should we trust? If facts (which are neither good or bad, just right or wrong) are discredited, then all we're left with is who can scream the loudest, i.e., marketing. " </font> Mike that is my point exactly. As consumers, we have the manufacturers websites and their brochures. Many people look at those brochures and take them as gospel. A small minority dig into the numbers and pick at them until we can make valid comparions between brands.

albmn10 wrote: <font color="red"> "The best way to approach a machines capacaties is to ask individual owners of specific brand tractors their real life uses and performances, Then one can judge for themselves if the machine they are interested will perform the tasks that is important to the individuals needs. "</font>

I would tend to totally disagree with you on this point, but I will respect your opinion. First, how can I trust anyone to be objective about their machine? Second, I write what I can do, but then attempt to explain my conditions as my conditions may be different than your conditions, and as we all should understand, conditions can make a huge difference in performance. I think MikePA makes an excellent point with this statement: <font color="blue">" If I tell someone my FEL can lift 3 oak logs that are 5 feet long and 8 inches in diameter, how does that help them? Even if I tell them that the oak logs are fresh cut or have been laying aroung for years the other person still has no way of determining if they can lift their oak logs . . . If I state that my tractor can pull a 2 bottom plow to the depth of x inches, how does that help someone with different soil conditions? "</font>

Heck just looking at the fact that you have an aftermarket Woods loader on your tractor makes it very difficult for another user of your same tractor to compare his/her tractor to your machine. Your loader may carry the weight farther forward, or farther back and that will affect the balance of the machine, and as we all know, if the balance is different then it means there is differnet pressure on the front wheels versus the back and that alone is the major issue that affects traction. Now understand this is no criticism of the loader or the tractor, it is just a simple, but honest observation. Your tractor may perform better or worse, lift more, or less, but the only honest way to tell is to compare it in equal conditions to a stock tractor/loader of the same brand.



Neil wrote: <font color="green"> " I own a load testing cell and I've tested a handful of tractors from different companies. So far, everyone of them has exceeded their ratted capacity, however its been by just a tiny margin "</font> And if they did not meet/slightly exceed the rated spec's then they would be subject to lawsuits, so Neil's tests validate the accuracy of the ratings, and we can now be comfortable in using the ratings to compare tractors.



Rockeyridge farm wrote: <font color="purple">
Well, add another player to the 'deceptive anti-consumer' trade practices! . . . Look up the Kubota B2630 and B3030 on their website, and guess what? They list their FEL lift at the bucket pivot as per ASAE specs! </font>

Mike, not sure where you looked, but I just cut and pasted this directly form the Kubota website where they list BOTH specs not just the pivot point ratings:

Lift capacity (pivot pin) 1091 lbs (495 kg)
Lift capacity (19.7 in. forward) 783 lbs (355 kg)
Lift Capacity (bucket bottom mid point) 882 lbs (400 kg)

Breakout Force (19.7 in. forward) 1691 lbs (767 kg)
Breakout Force (pivot pin) 2314 lbs (1050 kg)