Goodbye Kubota, hello EarthForce

[MChalkley]

Re: More EF-5 info, pictures

John - What!!! You haven't read all my posts!?! You should feel very alone. You've got to be the only TBN member that hasn't... /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif/w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Yes, I have answered that question before, but I'm not surprised you missed it. Actually, I think I answered it in the first posts on this topic, in a response to Rat, but basically, what happened was this: About a year ago or so, I saw an EarthForce machine at a dealer in Greensboro, NC. I wasn't too interested at the time, because they didn't have a mechanical PTO. Later, after I became convinced I didn't need a mechanical PTO if I could have hydraulic PTOs, especially at both ends, I decided that the EarthForce deserved a second look. Then, when I got further into it, I became more and more convinced they were the only machines in their class, the most versatile piece of equpment I'd seen, and extremely well suited to my needs. Does that answer your question?

MarkC

 

[MChalkley]

Re: More EF-5 info, pictures

Rat - <font color=blue>would enjoy stopping by to try it sometime</font color=blue> Stop by anytime, but since you'll be coming over 4,000 miles, it might be best to give me a little notice, to make sure I'll be here! I wouldn't want you coming all that way and then missing me.

I noticed a strange difference in the way the EF-5 loader works yesterday, as compared to the loader on my L4310. The L4310, when pushing into a pile, had a definite tendency "rear up" with the front wheels unloading to the point that they got no traction whatsoever, if you left the lift control in float position. As I recall, this didn't surprise me, because every other tractor I've ever used did the same thing. However, the EF-5 doesn't seem to have this tendency. I haven't dug a lot of digging with it yet, obviously, but I tried it several times, and it doesn't seem to unload the front tires at all. I'm wondering if it's a difference in the way the loader connects to the tractor, or if it could possibly have something to do with the self-leveling bucket. It could perhaps just be weight, but the EF-5 should have just as low a percentage of weight on the front axle when the bucket isn't providing a load (and it wouldn't be when it's resting on the ground) as the L4310 did, though the EF-5 does weigh more overall, of course. Any ideas, anybody?

MarkC

 

[Bird]

Re: More EF-5 info, pictures

<font color=blue>Any ideas, anybody?</font color=blue>

Probably no good ones, but anyway . . .. Just offhand I can only think of 3 things that might affect that. (1) if the pivot point at the back end of the boom where it attaches to the tractor were lower (closer to ground level), (2) if the boom were longer, putting the bucket farther out in front of the pivot point, and (3) if the front end of the tractor were heavier, thereby holding it down better. And I'm not sure how much difference there is in any of these three.

Oops, was kind of overlooking a fourth possibility; that being the diameter of the tires. I believe the diameter of the rear tires is considerably smaller than the Kubota's. I'd be inclined to suspect that it's a combination of 2 or more of these 4 factors.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Bird on 12/25/01 06:41 PM (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[bgott]

Re: More EF-5 info, pictures

I don't think it's the self leveling bucket. I have the mechanical self leveling loader on my TN 65 and it rears up when you're trying to push while it's in float.

 

[MChalkley]

Re: More EF-5 info, pictures

Bird - Some good ideas, there, I think. Addressing each, in turn:

1) The pivot point is, if anything higher off the ground than it was on the L4310.

2) I haven't checked the actual specs, but I'm prettu sure the boom is about a foot longer.

3) Again, I don't know this for a fact, but I'm pretty sure the front of the EF-5 is quite a bit heavier than the L4310. Since the it weighs almost 10,000 pounds with no loader bucket, and considering the massive loader and frame, it almost has to have more weight on the front end.

4) I hadn't thought about tire diameter at all, but it's an interesting possibility. I wonder how the geometry involved here would affect what I've observed...

I'm still wondering if the self-leveling feature somehow affects this, too, but I don't see how it could.

I suspect, as you said, it's a combination of a longer boom and a heavier front end. At any rate, it's not a bad deal...

MarkC

 

[MChalkley]

Re: More EF-5 info, pictures

bgott - Well, that's another vote against the self-levelling bucket theory. I didn't see how it could work that way, anyhow. I think I'll discard that theory and concentrate on the others. Thanks for the info!

MarkC

 

[Bird]

Re: More EF-5 info, pictures

Yep, whatever the reasons are, it would be nice to not have the bucket stop and the front wheels raise on the tractor when pushing into a pile of material./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

 

[MikePA]

Re: More EF-5 info, pictures

Thinking out loud...

When pushing in float mode into a pile of whatever, the FEL comes to a stop but the wheels keep trying to push the tractor forward. In essence, the tractor is trying to drive 'through' the FEL frame and up and over the FEL. Since it's trying to drive 'through' the FEL frame, the natural place (only place?) for it to pivot is at the top/bottom of the rear FEL support. Sound logical?

 

[MossRoad]

Re: More EF-5 info, pictures

Interesting. The loader on my 2500b and the new PT425 both ride up when the bucket is in float also. It is probably something to do with the location the lift arms are connected to the unit and the center of force, etc... I'll bet if you push it hard enough, it will ride up in float. It has to, unless there is some mechanism similar to draft control, that senses the arms are changing angle, and applying up force to the loader arms. But this would defeat the purpose of float, wouldn't it?

<font color=green> MossRoad </font color=green>

 

[Harv]

Re: More EF-5 info, pictures

Okay, I've got less experience than a lot of you on this thread, but from my own meager advendures I've found that "float" is a good way to position the loader as I start to push into a pile, but once engaged in the material I usually pop it out of float. For one thing, I know I'm going to be ending the push by curling the bucket and raising it slightly. The side effect is that I don't get the "rearing up" phenomemon (which I do if I stay in float). I can generally push into a pile this way until the engine starts to stall or the wheels start to spin. /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif

Now, I've never worked on any surface harder than dirt, and I find that "float" is only good for initial positioning, unless I'm back-dragging. Otherwise, depending on bucket angle, it either climbs over or "hogs in" to whatever I'm trying to work on. Is this the way it works for you folks, or am I just too low on the learning curve? /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif