</font><font color="blue" class="small">( /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif Are you going to make me stand corrupted; er, corrected? /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif Still, did you notice any additional flex lately? You're right, any adds onto the FEL are considered "no-no's". The chief tech at my local JD place seemed to notice that he saw more issues with people adding the tooth bars. Many years ago he is who talked me out of ever getting one. Since then, I have had Kubota and CNH reps tell me that they strongly advised against tooth bars.
I'm going to put the thumb screws and bright lights to Bob. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif I have good information on where his attorney went to school and, I have a good source who claims that Bob's attorney did actually drop the bar of soap. /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif )</font>
JD does offer a tooth bar as an option so that pretty much nullifies the argument that tooth bars will automatically void your loader warranty.
I think the problem with the Kioti loader design is that the access hole in the cross tube has created a stress riser in a structural member that was meant to evenly balance the stress between each of the loader arms. In an unbalanced condition the stress flows from one side to the other and concentrates at the corners of the cut out and causing it to crack. Usually during the design stage some kind of testing or simulation either manually or computer aided is done looking for this potential condition. When a product is designed certain assumptions are made as to how it will be used perhaps the Kioti engineers ignored the fact that these loaders are likely to be used in an unbalanced conditioned.
I remember when I was a young engineer just starting out in the design area my Supervisor told me it was just as important to imagine how a product will be "misused" as well as how it will be used.
