2515R Dude
Gold Member
No one can fix an idiot, You are the most vivid example.Nice, now just back into that same stump to see if it holds.![]()
Keep on your stupidity, i'll pay all my attention to your mouth farts!!!
Last edited:
No one can fix an idiot, You are the most vivid example.Nice, now just back into that same stump to see if it holds.![]()
I agree, and can can confirm that... with the fact I did it with the Ford 550 last summer, Hard enough I broke two case hardened 5/8s" diameter pins in the boom swing chain and tore the chain links in half themselves. Rang my bell and the TLB's. I would have had to be in a coma not to notice the impact of backing the hoe into that tree, was still conscious enough to use some very colorful language at the time. A 2515 is much smaller but I absolutely think it would be noticed.Dont you think i'd notice if i backed up in to something? My head would fly off from the force of the impact which can crack the boom? Don't you think if it was backing in to something, first the cylinder with the hose would be damaged? Dont you think if it was backed up in to something the damage would be on the lower portion of the boom, not the upper?
So, please leave your![]()
![]()
![]()
to yourself. As i told you ones: you think wrong!
You seem to think that you`re the smartest guy in the room, so why aren`t you on the phone to all these manufacturer`s and telling them they`ve got it all wrong then.I have trouble understanding the concept of any tractor that can break itself. When designed by the OEM as a pairing, the loader and other components should be built to withstand the forces to which that tractor, little or otherwise, can exert upon it.
If the tractor can lift it, the loader should handle it. Conversely, if the loader cannot, the tractor manufacturer should set the bypass pressures accordingly. This is pretty basic stuff.
How many times have people on this forum repeated the old mantra that a small tractor can do all the work of a larger one, only slower? You may be contradicting your own prior posts, with this most recent claim, that the machine is bound to break if subjected to real work.
Ok, three days later and thanks to HF $100 welder, el cheapo Chinese made and amazon bought plasma cutter, 1/4" metal, my crappy fabrication skills, my crappy welding abilities and welds which look more like birds $hit, the tractor is back to normal. Now if we have a nuclear attack, everything will be distorted, but this boom will stay intact.
View attachment 3417804View attachment 3417805View attachment 3417806
I’m guessing one trade off is the more heavyweight the design the less available lifting capacity.I agree to a point, and I am very critical of bad engineering design, too.
"...the goal of the design engineer should be a loader that can never be broken by the operator..."
Dynamic forces due to excessive speed, e.g. driving the loader too fast into immovable objects, are hard to design for. How much of a safety factor would be economical? Rhetorical question.
lol... True!I’m guessing one trade off is the more heavyweight the design the less available lifting capacity.
lol... I don't know what Branson is doing wrong. But I do know that when someone posts broken loader arms and broken cylinder rods, claiming it's from normal use and that there are no signs of build quality issues around those parts, you need to look at the engineering.You seem to think that you`re the smartest guy in the room, so why aren`t you on the phone to all these manufacturer`s and telling them they`ve got it all wrong then.