(FOPS)FALLING OBJECT PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES

[Jerry/MT]

I've had my FOPS installed now for quite some time since my last post. My expense was about $500. The cost to manufacturers would obviously be less with production savings. It can be removed with the FEL after removing one bolt.

View attachment 226284
View attachment 226285
View attachment 226286

My point is that this inexpensive protection would be effective against the final common pathway of accidents from objects falling from virtually any FEL attachment and includs improperly attached quick detatch implements falling from the lift arms.

I cannot conceive of an argument against this simple option and its installation upon the purchase of FELs. I bleive its installation should receive the same attention as regards the present requirments regarding ROPS/seatbelts on tractors. Is there actually an argument against this out there? If so, does it apply to ROPS too?

I haven't been following this thread closely but I don't believe you can legally call your canopy design a FOPS unless it is certified as such. That means at has to meet federal safety regs for the class of vehicles it's installed on. That generally means that you have to demostrate that it will take so many ft-lbs of energy from a falling object installed on the tractor without failing. Welding big chunks of steel to an existing certified ROPS doesn't make it a FOPS and it could invalidate the ROPS certification. Most people don't have the expertise and the money to design and certify these types of devices. That's why it's left to the manuafacturers of these vehicles. Google FOPS Regulations if you want to see what they are.
The other issue is using the equipment in a way that it was not designed to be used. Most FEL's I am fmiliar with come with warnings to not use the bucket to lift objects that can roll back on the operator( logs and large round bales etc.). Round bales should be hndled with spears or grapples and logs with forks or grapples. Why should a manufacturer issue those instructions and then provide a device to protect the operator if they violate the operating instructions? I'm talking Ag equipment now. Construction equipment has an entirely different operating scenario and different design philosophy. Whether that design philosophy should be adopted in the design of Ag equipment is another argument.


Then there's Murphy's Law. There will always be somebody that will find a way to hurt themselves with the very same safety technology that is supposed to protect them. I call this "Darwinism in Action".

 

[aczlan]

I haven't been following this thread closely but I don't believe you can legally call your canopy design a FOPS unless it is certified as such. That means at has to meet federal safety regs for the class of vehicles it's installed on. That generally means that you have to demostrate that it will take so many ft-lbs of energy from a falling object installed on the tractor without failing.
Google FOPS Regulations if you want to see what they are.

Ditto.
I would also be interested in seeing more pictures of the front, the connections and how it all mounts. It looks to me like something heavy coming down and hitting just one post on the front could twist/crumple the whole thing and put you in a worse situation than before.

See: http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/customization/172660-cage-kioti-lb1914-3.html for a well thought out design

Aaron Z

 

[Henro]

Hi all,

About 8 years ago I made "hood and head protectors" for my tractor. I have been very pleased with them. Saved my butt once when a bundle of shingles came off the loader and slid down the loader arms to be caught by the hood protector and stopped by the front upright supports.

Of course it is not government approved. But I can guarantee you it is better having it than not! Over the years some things have fallen on it that would have hurt had they hit my noggin!

Here's a link to the old thread that details the fabrication and has some more pictures of the finished product. It slopes downward and is tapered inward to clear trees on slopes...also works well as a kind of work platform...and with a cloth on the top functions great as a canopy too.

http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/build-yourself/35398-hood-guard-head-guard.html

 

[MarkV]

Henro good to see you on the forum. It has been awhile.

MarkV

 

[TwinCessnaPilot]

I have an L-35, with the 4 post FOPS/ROPS.

I don't mind the safety but it has two distinct disadvantages.

One is that it makes the tractor tall (94.5" in this case), and since it cannot be folded in any way, means that you have to be careful with door clearances. I don't have a barn to put it in, yet, and my garage door is a few inches too low, so I have to do all my servicing outside.

The second is that it is heavy, as it needs to be to meet certification requirements, and since it is high, it makes the L-35, which has a non-adjustable track, more tippy laterally than a tractor with a Rops at the back. I have heard that newer Kubotas have lighter FOPS to alleviate this problem.

 

[MarkV]

I have an L-35, with the 4 post FOPS/ROPS.

I don't mind the safety but it has two distinct disadvantages.

One is that it makes the tractor tall (94.5" in this case), and since it cannot be folded in any way, means that you have to be careful with door clearances. I don't have a barn to put it in, yet, and my garage door is a few inches too low, so I have to do all my servicing outside.

The second is that it is heavy, as it needs to be to meet certification requirements, and since it is high, it makes the L-35, which has a non-adjustable track, more tippy laterally than a tractor with a Rops at the back. I have heard that newer Kubotas have lighter FOPS to alleviate this problem.

Have you added liquid ballast to the rear tires, often referred to as "loading the rear tires? Makes a world of difference in stability and traction.

MarkV

 

[TwinCessnaPilot]

I have thought about it, but the Kubota manual prohibits ballast in the tires when the backhoe is installed, which is about 50% of the time.

 

[MarkV]

Twin I have an L39 and a B21, both are cousins of your L35. Is Kubota's manual not the silliest thing you have ever read? It says no ballast with the backhoe installed and then tells you to ballast whenever you remove the backhoe. Now who is going to do that? We have talked about this on the forum in the past and at least I believe what you are reading was written in the legal department to limit some unforeseen liability. The tires on my B21 have had ballast for the last 10 years and the L39 for the last 4 years. Do as you please but I would ballast the tires and not look back. You will have much better traction and stability.

MarkV

 

[Denwa]

Twin I have an L39 and a B21, both are cousins of your L35. Is Kubota's manual not the silliest thing you have ever read? It says no ballast with the backhoe installed and then tells you to ballast whenever you remove the backhoe. Now who is going to do that? We have talked about this on the forum in the past and at least I believe what you are reading was written in the legal department to limit some unforeseen liability. The tires on my B21 have had ballast for the last 10 years and the L39 for the last 4 years. Do as you please but I would ballast the tires and not look back. You will have much better traction and stability.

MarkV

Mark,
Yea...., another B21 owner. First one I've seen since joining this list.
I'd like to pick the B21 part of your brain a bit.

When I got my tractor (at a garage sale) one tire had a tube and
ballast, and the other had no tube a slow air leak, AND was leaking ballast solution that was corroding the rim. I took the wheels to the local Les Schwalb and had the corrosive ballast removed from both tires in the process of getting the flat fixed.

They charge you both ways on the ballast thing. Pump out and disposal fee or a fee for putting it back in. ;' > I'm now thinking I should have left what I had in. I'm also thinking of scavenging used
antifreeze and filling the tires with that myself.

Main thing I use my B21 for is fire wood gathering and handling and general yard work. But I HAVE been doing some digging with the hoe that has not come off the tractor since I fixed the PTO. After many hours on the hoe sticks, I'm just starting to get the hang of it.

Anyhow, my questions are in regards to having the ballast and using the back hoe. Does the extra weight improve the digging capabilities of the machine? Can't see how it would not, as the hoe can easily pick
up the butt end of the tractor or drag or push the tractor around rather than digging in, WITH the stabilizers deployed. I do worry about bending the stabilizers when this push/drag thing happens. Comments on the stabilizer strength too?

Also interested to know if having the extra weight makes any difference in the ability of the stabilizers to deploy? Again, I imagine
not, but I gotta' ask.

Another question that comes to mind is about the digging power of the B21's hoe. I have the BH750 (specially designed for grave digging says the brochure ;' > ) When I'm working on a stump the hoe frequently runs out of pull long before the stump runs out of hang on, and I have to work my way in from way out sometimes. Hazelnut stumps are a particular bugger. Normal? It is a fairly small hoe after all, and a low HP motor, so with the limited power things seems reasonable, but wonder about comparison with your machine.

And on topic, I don't have a FOPS, but will likely rig something to that effect off my ROPS. Anything would be better than a direct shot on the noggin from a falling branch.

Regards, and hope you other guys don't mind the OT B21 stuff in this thread.

Dennis

 

[MarkV]

Mark,
Yea...., another B21 owner. First one I've seen since joining this list.
I'd like to pick the B21 part of your brain a bit.

When I got my tractor (at a garage sale) one tire had a tube and
ballast, and the other had no tube a slow air leak, AND was leaking ballast solution that was corroding the rim. I took the wheels to the local Les Schwalb and had the corrosive ballast removed from both tires in the process of getting the flat fixed.

They charge you both ways on the ballast thing. Pump out and disposal fee or a fee for putting it back in. ;' > I'm now thinking I should have left what I had in. I'm also thinking of scavenging used
antifreeze and filling the tires with that myself.

Main thing I use my B21 for is fire wood gathering and handling and general yard work. But I HAVE been doing some digging with the hoe that has not come off the tractor since I fixed the PTO. After many hours on the hoe sticks, I'm just starting to get the hang of it.

Anyhow, my questions are in regards to having the ballast and using the back hoe. Does the extra weight improve the digging capabilities of the machine? Can't see how it would not, as the hoe can easily pick
up the butt end of the tractor or drag or push the tractor around rather than digging in, WITH the stabilizers deployed. I do worry about bending the stabilizers when this push/drag thing happens. Comments on the stabilizer strength too?

Also interested to know if having the extra weight makes any difference in the ability of the stabilizers to deploy? Again, I imagine
not, but I gotta' ask.

Another question that comes to mind is about the digging power of the B21's hoe. I have the BH750 (specially designed for grave digging says the brochure ;' > ) When I'm working on a stump the hoe frequently runs out of pull long before the stump runs out of hang on, and I have to work my way in from way out sometimes. Hazelnut stumps are a particular bugger. Normal? It is a fairly small hoe after all, and a low HP motor, so with the limited power things seems reasonable, but wonder about comparison with your machine.

And on topic, I don't have a FOPS, but will likely rig something to that effect off my ROPS. Anything would be better than a direct shot on the noggin from a falling branch.

Regards, and hope you other guys don't mind the OT B21 stuff in this thread.

Dennis

Dennis the rear tires on my B21 have had ballast for over 10 years now. I used anti-freeze and water without tubes. It is a very doable thing for an owner to do. There is a special valve that you can buy for about $10 that has a hose fitting and a way to bleed off air as it is displaced by liquid. Napa, Tractor Supply and some tractor dealers sell them. I used a drill operated pump ($15) to pump in anti-freeze and the garden hose to add water. With the valve stem located at noon, when the liquid reaches the valve you have filled to the proper level. My one caution would be to use environmentally friendly anti-freeze. Regular anti-freeze does terrible things to animals if you ever get a leak.

My experience has been that ballast helps with all aspects of stability and traction. You can still move the tractor around with the backhoe. I jump ditches without problems. I suspect you will find that the tractor moves around much less as you gain more experience on the backhoe. Have never had any issues with the stabilizer bending or lifting the tractor so I feel they are plenty strong. As far as stumps go I think what you see is just the nature of the the beast. I have dug stumps with full size commercial backhoes that have caused problems. A small backhoe sure beats a shovel though.

MarkV