Please, Groundbreaker X

[jim_wilson]

Chroming for looks is ok but every race sanctioning organization whose rulebook I have read specifically prohibits chroming of roll bars or roll cages because the chroming process affects the strength of the metal. While I don't think that the ROPS on a BX23 is going to be subject to the kind of abuse that a race car gives a roll cage when it crashes this is still something to bear in mind.

I don't have any pictures of myself on the tractor under the ROPS on my BX23 but the pics the other posters put up gives a pretty good representation of the operator position to ROPS height. What they don't show however is that the ROPS on the BX23 is also tall enough that you can stand up in the backhoe operators seat and still not hit your head on the ROPS. I have thought a few times myself that the ROPS is too tall - mostly because I keep thinking about adding a canopy to my tractor, and I think a canopy on the BX23 will look goofy because it will so far above the tractor. But as far as giving a nice operators station for the backhoe the BX23 ROPS is pretty good.

 

[Av8r3400]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ...because the chroming process affects the strength of the metal... )</font>

Its called hydrogen embrittlement (imbrittlement?), and any chrome shop with equipment newer than the 70's doesn't really have a problem with it. If it was an issue, chrome bumpers, wheels and even the chromed hydraulic rams on your tractor would be at risk. In the application of a CUT, its a non-issue. Now if your BX was going 220 mph at Talleadega...

Go for the chrome, Matt. Make sure they put light mounts all over it too! Spot lights, floods, rotating beacon lights, the whole thing! You'll get a cover shot on "Hot Rod - Tractor" magazine or something! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[MarkV]

I guess it is unlikely to become an issue but is anyone worried about voiding the manufactures liability by modifying the ROPS? If you are under warranty I guess it is a given that you void that by changing the tractors original equipment. How it would effect a non ROPS warranty issue I don’t know. There are government standards the manufacture has to meet for roll over protection and it is one of the only things they will back once the tractor is out of warranty. I had a broken bracket on the FOPS of my B21 and Kubota replaced the part, sent a rep, took photos and sent the broken part off to be evaluated well after the warranty had expired. That told me that ROPS or FOPS failure plus liabilities were taken very seriously by Kubota.

MarkV

 

[TDiPatrick]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I guess it is unlikely to become an issue but is anyone worried about voiding the manufactures liability by modifying the ROPS? If you are under warranty I guess it is a given that you void that by changing the tractors original equipment. )</font>

Mark - you're mixing two different issues. First, regarding the warranty. Obviously, Kubota will not warranty a ROPS that they didn't manufacture. However, in order to void the warranty on the rest of the tractor, they would have to prove that the aftermarket ROPS caused the problem. This is a provision of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. For example, if it's an engine or electrical problem, then it would be difficult to prove that the aftermarket ROPS was a factor. If it was a frame problem, then it could get messy. Of course, since this thread originated around the addition of an aftermarket BH, the addition of an aftermarket ROPS is a smaller step down the same road.

With regard to liability - that's a matter for a court to decide. I'm not a lawyer so I can't begin to intelligently discuss that. I will say IMO, common sense should imply that injury resulting from an aftermarket part shouldn't incur liability on Kubota's part. That also explains in part Kubota's adamant position on messing with the ROPS - all part of a legal defensive strategy.

FWIW,
Patrick

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

Whatever you do just don't get rid of the OEM rops, if you ever go to sell the tractor your going to need to put it back on otherwise you expose yourself to huge liability issues.

 

[TDiPatrick]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Whatever you do just don't get rid of the OEM rops, if you ever go to sell the tractor your going to need to put it back on otherwise you expose yourself to huge liability issues. )</font>

As a dealer, this is probably true for you. As an individual, it's not necessarily so. Again, I'm not an attorney, but individual liability and product liability are two very different issues. IMO, the manufacturer of the aftermarket ROPS would be more exposed. If this were the case, then as an individual, you'd be exposed by any minor change or even maintenance of your own tractor(there's a thread for you - don't do your own maintenance; you could get sued... /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif ).

There are many good reasons to put the tractor back as close to stock as possible before selling - resale value, trade-in acceptability, etc. I'm just not sure that, for an individual, liability is one of them.

Slightly OT - I remember a story several years back of a meat grinder that was sold under contract to the US military during the Korean war. Supposedly, military sales had "Hold Harmless" agreements in the contract for liability since the products necessarily are used under adverse conditions. After the war, the grinder was sold as surplus, passing thru several hands. Along the way, sheet metal guards were lost and eventually someone was injured operating the machine. The manufacturer was successfully sued by the injured party. The moral - It apparently didn't matter to the court how many intervening hands had touched this machine, they still held the manufacturer liable.

BTW, I'm not an attorney and I don't give professional advice, but I am an insurance underwriter with a general knowledge of the subject...

Patrick

 

[Junkman]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( . After the war, the grinder was sold as surplus, passing thru several hands. Along the way, sheet metal guards were lost and eventually someone was injured operating the machine. The manufacturer was successfully sued by the injured party. The moral - It apparently didn't matter to the court how many intervening hands had touched this machine, they still held the manufacturer liable.

BTW, I'm not an attorney and I don't give professional advice, but I am an insurance underwriter with a general knowledge of the subject...

Patrick )</font>

How can a manufacturer be held liable for a product that has been altered or safety parts removed, when it has no control over these acts? My gut feeling is that this is a Urban Legend, not a fact. I do know of a instance where a Corvair engine was modified for use in an airplane and the fuel pump also altered. When the plane crashed, the survivors sued GM and the seller of the fuel pump. After much litigation, both were cleared of wrongdoing by the courts. If it wasn't for GM being involved, then the part seller wouldn't have had the resources to fight the legal battle and might have lost as a result.

 

[TDiPatrick]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( My gut feeling is that this is a Urban Legend, not a fact. )</font>

IIRC, it was in a WSJ article about product liability issues. Would have been about 20 years ago. It was one of a half dozen examples of product liability nightmares.

 

[Woods]

I'm 5'10" and clear fine (2"-3") Previously I posted about the distance from the seat back corner to the ROPS on the BX2230 during the installation. Look at the pics of that incredibly handsome man... I mean tractor.

 

[Woods]

Another head banger...not.