Interesting attachment

[agjones]

I find the PT brush cutter to be very good.

A couple thing's I'd worry about with the lane shark.

Side weight if you're using it offset on, say, a ditch.

With the PT design, to mow down into a ditch, you approach the ditch at a perpendicular angle. You're 90 degrees to the ditch. Now you could drive too close to the ditch, the ditch bank could collapse, etc., and you may go nose-first into the ditch, but you probably won't roll over.

You could do the same with the lane shark, so that aspect is a wash.

However, you'd be tempted to drive parallel to the ditch with the lane shark offset to one side, and that's where I'd be leery. You get a tire over the edge of a ditch while parallel to it and over you go.

Just my thoughts on that.

I definitely see the weight of the 425 as a problem matched to lane shark.

 

[ponytug]

I definitely see the weight of the 425 as a problem matched to lane shark.

I agree. The LS-2 specifies a minimum 2,000lbs, which is quite a bit more than the 1400lbs for the 425.

For @Tchamp's intended use, I would lean toward brush hogging the paths a bit wider and let the branches flop back in to get the alleyway that you want, but I recognize that that is having a hammer and thinking the problem is a nail...

I could see the advantages for trimming trail edges as hedges. Charlie Iliff used to do something similar with a sickle bar cutter he put on his PT (1845?) to cut trail sides for horseback riding. A sickle bar mower is much lighter, but granted it can't do thick branches.

I think that the Lane-Shark is an interesting design, mechanically, with a rotation point and a second hinge. I had been contemplating offsetting my trencher, and this looks like a stiffer way to generate the offset.

All the best,

Peter

 

[ning]

Ag I almost agreed with you until you brought up blackberries. Blackberries are tubers and love nothing more than getting dug up or chopped up. In our area you see people thinking the Tita tiller will set blackberries back and then have the patch get many times worse. Only real solution is better living through chemistry and a dose of crossbow in the fall or spring.

Perhaps himalayan blackberries (invasive in northern California and probably elsewhere) are different, but I can almost entirely eliminate them by scraping a bramble aside (burn or let be to decompose), which will often pull up some of the root nodules, and then to a modicum of pulling more roots and they're basically eliminated (I get a stray shoot here and there, trivial to manage). No poisons involved.

Given the fact that the neighbors have many brambles (which we happily harvest for jam & wine), it's pretty much impossible to permanently eliminate them (thanks, birds!) but yanking the stray new growth isn't tough.

 

[Tchamp]

I agree. The LS-2 specifies a minimum 2,000lbs, which is quite a bit more than the 1400lbs for the 425.

For @Tchamp's intended use, I would lean toward brush hogging the paths a bit wider and let the branches flop back in to get the alleyway that you want, but I recognize that that is having a hammer and thinking the problem is a nail...

I could see the advantages for trimming trail edges as hedges. Charlie Iliff used to do something similar with a sickle bar cutter he put on his PT (1845?) to cut trail sides for horseback riding. A sickle bar mower is much lighter, but granted it can't do thick branches.

I think that the Lane-Shark is an interesting design, mechanically, with a rotation point and a second hinge. I had been contemplating offsetting my trencher, and this looks like a stiffer way to generate the offset.

All the best,

Peter

I have a 2425 with the backhoe attachment and i weigh just over 2100 lbs.

 

[Tchamp]

I have a 2425 with the backhoe attachment and i weigh just over 2100 lbs.

They don’t recommend me utilizing the attachment.

I just wanted the brush hog because it will run on 5 gpm up to 8.5 gpm, and cut up to 3 inch diameter.

 

[ponytug]

Sorry to hear it. Based on other's comments on the PT brush hog, I think that you could do a lot. I know the 1445 brush hog version is a monster feared by all standing in its' path.

I still think it is an interesting attachment; thanks for sharing it.

All the best, Peter

 

[Goose1776]

They don’t recommend me utilizing the attachment.

I just wanted the brush hog because it will run on 5 gpm up to 8.5 gpm, and cut up to 3 inch diameter.

Did they say why they didn’t recommend it?
There are other companies that build basically the same thing, one could look at if so inclined

 

[MossRoad]

I'm gonna guess because of the weight, the possible torque put on the FEL arms if it's extended to the side, and maybe the hydraulic flow and cooling(but that seems within specs).

 

[Tchamp]

Did they say why they didn’t recommend it?
There are other companies that build basically the same thing, one could look at if so inclined

They said becuase of the narro w wheelbase and the articulation of the unit not from the steering but for the traversing would make it unstable. I just wanted the deck for brush hogging becuase it could the 3 inch in diameter

 

[MossRoad]

They said becuase of the narro w wheelbase and the articulation of the unit not from the steering but for the traversing would make it unstable. I just wanted the deck for brush hogging becuase it could the 3 inch in diameter

Well, it says it will do 3" diameter, but does it say of what? I know the 48" brush hog from PT that I have will do severe damage to brush and shrubs and small trees. 2" oak takes a little finesse to get it over then chopped up. I wouldn't attempt 3" diameter anything with it unless it was dead and rotting on the forest floor.