Kubota Legal request this be posted.

[Robert_in_NY]

I couldn't read all the way thru (short attention span) but it seems people think that attaching a non kubota implement will void the warranty. If this was the case then why doesn't Kubota do what all tractor companies use to do in the 50's. Make their hitch unique so only thier implements will work. JD use to do this with the letter series and each tractor had its own line of equipment. So the only way you could hook up a non JD implement is either modifying something or by using a pull type implement on the drawbar. The fact that Kubota is using the standard 3pt setup means they have designed their tractor to work with the large assortment of 3 pt implements on the market. If this went to court this would be my argument. Why design a tractor to work with any type of implement if it will void the warranty? Make their own attachment system to avoid this problem. Take care.

 

[JerryG]

I don't know Robert. one of the reasons that all of the tractor companies went to a TPH was also for safety. The TPH was the only hitch of that era that didn't allow the tractor to turn over if the implement lodged on a rock or root. Of course the other reason was compatibility. Not telling how many law suites for overturn tractors they would have if they didn't use the TPH now.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

I am sure the engineers at Kubota could come up with a variation of the 3pt hitch that was unique to them. It was just a point, the main reason the 3pt is standard is so that tractor companies do not need to have their own implements to sell tractors. It must have cost JD a fortune to design implements for each model of tractor so in the long run it saves them time and money by having a set of standards to go by.

 

[lamarbur]

A possible problem with this idea is Kubota well may price themselves out of the market place. As far as I can see, here in NEw England area, they are near out anyway. However, a proprietary three point hitch, and just who will be willing to buy Kubota fit only? I believe this move will finish them off, for sure.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

Then they shouldn't void any warranty if someone puts on a non Kubota implement. That is the point I am trying to make. If they want to complain about non-Kubota implements then they should make a Kubota only setup. If they don't want to then they should accept the fact that people will use 3pt implements without the Kubota name on them.

 

[lamarbur]

I totally agree with you, just making a statement of how something can go the "other" way and not benefit anyone in the long run.

 

[Hoeman00]

Seth have U ever used a hoe?
I have used lots of them and been around even more.
I haven't seen a structural part of a hoe broken.
I have broke things on hoes but this was from wear.
This is because u have pressure reliefs to stop it before it damages the machine.
Don't u think the manufactures over built the equipment to have a safety factor,if not then everything is going to fail if used to the maximum specs.
A lot of equipment has to have a 4-1 safety factor.
My climbing gear has a 18-1 safety factor.
Have u seen or done destructive testing it takes a lot of force on some small things to hurt them.
Back to the hoe, I got a 9000 woods specs below,
Dipperstick digging force 2,600 lbs.
Bucket digging force 4,100 lbs.
Power mode digging force 5,100 lbs.
I was using it to tear out 4000#slabs of concrete to repair a septic tank.
I stuck a corner of bucket under the 6"+slab then lift and roll bucket, some of them broke on the saw cut (only 3-4"deep).
One chunk wouldn't break so I set the stabilizer on the slab to keep from buring them in the dirt trying to break it.
The hydraulic bypasses got a good work out but the structure wasn't hurt.
All the thumb does is let u clamp something in between the bucket so if the weak point is the dipperstick everytime u stall the bucket trying to dig tough clay u run the risk of bending the dipperstick, I don't think so.
Do u use the bucket to pin big stumps or other objects against the dipperstick to lift them out of a hole?
If so this should break or bend the dipperstick every time u do.

BTW if I was Kubota I would want it back to test it and find out ALL the factors leading up to this and if the machine has a SERIOUS defect in it.
If it was operator error then Kubota should send out a bulletin advising this to all the dealers.
A million $$$$$$$$$ company can't give out a $50+ (their cost to build) part for some real world destructive test.

 

[SethO]

I did not dispute your extensive experience with hoes.

But those diagrams will show that you know hoes, can design them, can build them, and can determine the specifications for each component. That you can then predict where they may fail and anticipate the pattern of failure.

SethO

 

[Hoeman00]

Seth do U work for Kubota?

When I buy equipment the manufacture is supposed to have done all of the design, testing,setting specs.
I work for GM ( as a CAD-CAM operator and CMM operator)and we do this designing and testing w/ Unigraphics.
If I had a hoe here I could digitize the whole unit, load it in CAD and do the testing on it.

Diggin out a 16" fir stump and the dipperstick failed and Kubota's response is he didn't sever the tap root so it failed.

Come on now, everyone that uses a hoe to did stumps is going to have to hand did the roots out so they can be cut before using the hoe to lift it out,Kubota's plan?

 

[5030]

Robert:

I will not try to wake up an old or should I say "getting old" thread, but Kubota does have their own standard as far as pto goes, just like the reverse spline on a JD (garden size unit, not ag unit).

Kubota uses an involute spline on their mid pto. That is, most certainly not an industry standard 6 spline.

I have a friend who has I believe a 23 horse JD lawn tractor with a Cat 1 3 point and reverse spline 540 rear pto. I machined him an adapter so he could mount implements other than JD.