ROPS Modification and Lights

[escavader]

GOMER ,
I feel real bad that your new here on TBN and we are beating you up so bad.Ive seen your work youve got talent,and we would all like to see more,so be carefull man.Please dont let this keep you from posting your projects,just remember we all try to look out for each other here.Most of us here get beat on on occasion[yesterday for me ]Just dust yourself off ,and move on. Safety is a strong subject here,my butts been saved a few times too.
ALAN

 

[Glowplug]

GOMER ,
I feel real bad that your new here on TBN and we are beating you up so bad.Ive seen your work youve got talent,and we would all like to see more,so be carefull man.Please dont let this keep you from posting your projects,just remember we all try to look out for each other here.Most of us here get beat on on occasion[yesterday for me ]Just dust yourself off ,and move on. Safety is a strong subject here,my butts been saved a few times too.
ALAN

I'll second that!
It seems to me the members of TBN are a different breed. Tractors are their passion. They don't just see a tractor as a mower or a piece of equipment, they admire it. TBN members don't just buy a tractor because they have to, they do so because they want to. TBN members don't see time spent on their tractors as "work" but often "play". TBN members aren't satisfied with buying a tractor for a single task, they're always thinking of new and creative uses. TBN members build and modify their own implements. They also often modify their tractors. In short, TBN members are serious about tractors. They know the potential of a tractor and since they know it so well they also know the potential dangers thereof. I have never seen such a group of people so conscientious about all the aspects of tractors, including the potential dangers that they entail. TBN members want fellow members to enjoy their tractors to their fullest potential and be safe doing so. I am a relatively new member to TBN and I don't feel that I qualify as a "true" member with all those above listed attributes but I'm striving to get there. I think you will be an asset to the club!

 

[ozzie tractor]

I'll bet that's what each of the 250 Americans who die in tractor roll-overs each year were thinking too.

hey i agree with you here. just throwing the odd joke in. i made a quote a few weeks ago stating that farming is the most dangerous (statistically speaking) occupation in Australia. it's true too. the scary fact is it isn't just the old farmers who have done it for years, or the new guy on there first tractor. its everyone. no one is safe from the unexpected. i think some of the safety cut outs are getting a bit ridiculous, like the one on mowers when reversing. but on the whole I'm a fan. they are there for a reason and there is no way in **** I'm ever going to disable or modify them. its like riding down the road on a motor bike wearing shorts and sneakers with no shirt on. its all OK until it goes wrong. then i bet they wish they had a set of full leathers and boots, (helmets are compulsory here). but when they left home the thought must have been that it wont happen to me. I have news for everyone. IT CAN AND DOES. BE CAREFUL

 

[LBrown59]

hey i agree with you here. just throwing the odd joke in. i made a quote a few weeks ago stating that farming is the most dangerous (statistically speaking) occupation in Australia. it's true too. the scary fact is it isn't just the old farmers who have done it for years, or the new guy on there first tractor. its everyone. no one is safe from the unexpected. i think some of the safety cut outs are getting a bit ridiculous, like the one on mowers when reversing. but on the whole I'm a fan. they are there for a reason and there is no way in **** I'm ever going to disable or modify them. its like riding down the road on a motor bike wearing shorts and sneakers with no shirt on. its all OK until it goes wrong. then i bet they wish they had a set of full leathers and boots, (helmets are compulsory here). but when they left home the thought must have been that it wont happen to me. I have news for everyone. IT CAN AND DOES. BE CAREFUL

That's rite it always happens to the other guy.
The problem with that reasioning is you never know when it's your turn to be the other guy.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

. . . its like riding down the road on a motor bike wearing shorts and sneakers with no shirt on. its all OK until it goes wrong.

We often ride "scooters" around the countryside. Each member of the family has their own. My daughter does not understand why I make her wear long pants, tie on shoes, and a long shirt & a helmet to ride. Our typical speeds are 20 to 30 mph. My wife thinks it is being over protective. Nobody has skidded a scooter into roadside gravel . . . yet. But I'm willing to bet that my daugher will be the first, and that my wife will be screaming and crying when she sees our daughter go down in the gravel. Maybe that day they will understand why shorts, flip-flops and a T-shirt are not appropriate riding gear?

Tractoring is not really any different.

Nobody goes out thinking that today is the day they will tip over, or get struck by a tree branch, or end up in the hospital.

 

[whodat90]

All that said, it is not a safe modification for a whole bunch of reasons but mainly because the triangle of safety is dramatically reduced and it is very likely that a rollover will result in a crushed head (unless the owner has a body with an extremely short torso).

The problem with the 'triangle of safety' is that it only applies IF the body within the triangle is immobile and IF there is no intrusion into the triangle. The first IF, body immobile: The tractor rolls, and the robs bar deforms enough that the triangle is made smaller and the body now is outside the safe zone. The body moves back into it, being forced by the ground or whatever is outside the trangle. Until there is some kind of force behind the body (steering wheel, seat, whatever) to stop movement, it doesn't crush the body. Crushing by it's very definition requires force on both sides, either that of a mass or inertia. If it's inertia, the body will face that regardless. The triangle gets smaller, but does not necessarily imply a crushing injury. Second IF, no amount of ROPS is going to protect against an intrusion into the triangle. Only an armored cab will do that, as evidenced by the thread about the ASV that stood on it's nose and loader (unless I misread the pics, the rops never touched the ground.)

I'm certainly not saying that a ROPS is a bad idea; I have them on both my tractors. I am, however, saying that the rops bar provided by the manufacturer is not the only possible thing that will ever work, and that any shortening thereof is instant death and that a pack of feral lawyers will automatically sue the shortener. As an example, doesn't kubota offer two heights of rops? If taller is automatically better, why offer the shorter?
whodat

 

[LBrown59]

doesn't kubota offer two heights of rops? If taller is automatically better, why offer the shorter?
whodat

...........................
It isn't about better.
The taller ROPS is for tractors with a Back Hoe.
A different matter entirely.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

As an example, doesn't kubota offer two heights of rops? If taller is automatically better, why offer the shorter?
whodat

Asked slightly differently, why does Kubota offer 2 heights of ROPS bars . . . Standard tall enough to meet accepted safety standards and Optional Taller?

I don't know if LB is correct, but I believe he might be.

 

[whodat90]

What are the standards? Not trying to be argumentative, but if there are standards out there I'd like to know them. If there are no standards, then how is the minimum height set per tractor?
whodat

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Yes there are standards, I looked them up a year or two ago. You'd need to do some searching to find them. It is some engineering standard that was developed that was far too technical for me to understand completely and it was developed by some group of engineers and accepted by OSHA and several other governmental agencies. But I was talking to an engineer for JD one day and he explained in simple terms, the information that I posted. I believe I explained the information pretty clearly (even it is is simplistic and incomplete) and I believe the photo I posted also conveys the concept pretty accurately.

 

[whodat90]

Roll-Over Protective Structures - 70:76979-77025

I just looked through the link I provided, and while I'm not an engineer, I didn't see any standards for height; only for maximum allowable deflection of the rops?

Here's another neat one with lots of info.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/2002/crr02425.pdf

 

[m7040]

GOLIGHT Wireless Permanent Mount Lighting Tool| GEMPLER'S Was wondering if anyone have tried one these wireless controlled lights for farm tractors?

 

[Glowplug]

I'll bet if you go to the Hercules ROPS website you'd find some information. They have a whole bunch of links to websites in regards to some of the technical and statistical information on ROPS. I just don't have the time to check them right now but I will.

 

[whodat90]

Found lots of links to press releases and such, nothing substantive stating 'this is how big the operator safety zone must be' which is what I'm really looking for. FWIW, although I have no dataplate on it, it appears that the rops on my B7200D is a hercules.
whodat

 

[Glowplug]

With looking at all this complex info and regulations it just makes me feel even more strongly that there ain't no way I'm modifying my ROPS.

 

[psdx]

...I kept saying I wasn't going to intrude into this thread, but in the end I guess I couldn't resist. It's been said that by shortening the ROPS Gomer's tractor is less safe that it was. It makes for interesting reading, and I'm not complaining at all - but Gomer has taken a fair amount of grief over his ROPS modification. So I felt that a counterpoint was in order.

According to the Kubota specs, the fixed ROPS version of the 2630 is 11.56" shorter than the folding ROPS version. By looking at the picture, Gomer's ROPS still looks taller than a fixed ROPS version. And he is still using the original material that was designed to carry the rollover load. So if the fixed ROPS is sufficient at 11.56" shorter than the folding ROPS, then why is Gomer's modification so unnacceptable if it's as tall or taller than the fixed ROPS? ...not intended as kindling - just trying to offer a view that hasn't been mentioned.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

According to the Kubota specs, the fixed ROPS version of the 2630 is 11.56" shorter than the folding ROPS version.

I dunno. I can't find those specs but if they exist (which I do not doubt, I just don't have them in my brochure) then baring some other tidbit of knowledge that we may not be privy to, Gomer may still be safe, which is what he was trying to do. One other thing to factor in is the angle of the ROPS bar and if the fixed ROPS bar is angled differently than the folding bar then it would change the location of the triangle of protection and that alone could be why one is lower and one is taller.

Found lots of links to press releases and such, nothing substantive stating 'this is how big the operator safety zone must be

And I doubt you ever will find it in any cut and dry format. What you will probably find are ratios and tolerances and weight/stress bearing load requirements that an engineer will use to calculate the appropriate size ROPS bar needed for any given tractor size and shape. Certainly a heavy tractor would require a stronger ROPS bar, but would likely require a stronger front crumple brace too. Certainly a longer tractor would require a different height ROPS than a shorter one. And logically a tractor with a low mounted drivers seat would not need a ROPS as tall as a tractor with a higher seat. So there are lots of factors that will come into play which is why each ROPS is tractor specific.

 

[Glowplug]

So if the fixed ROPS is sufficient at 11.56" shorter than the folding ROPS, then why is Gomer's modification so unnacceptable if it's as tall or taller than the fixed ROPS?

It may very well be as safe. I think that most of the discussion on this thread has been about the problems that modifying the ROPS could result in. That's great if it's perfectly safe. I think early on I stated that he would probably be okay as long as he has his seatbelt on and the bar is still over his head. We now know that "safety" is much more complicated than that. But let me offer a counter-counterpoint. Maybe the Kubota fixed ROPS is 11.56" shorter than the folding ROPS. And we know for a fact that Gomer's ROPS is only 10" shorter than the folding ROPS. But is the Kubota factory fixed ROPS a solid one-piece structure and is the modified ROPS a cut-off folding ROPS welded back together to be shorter? And does this make this modified ROPS more prone to breaking than the original Kubota fixed ROPS? Something to make you think about.

And, let me reiterate, I'm not attacking Gomer. I'm just trying to bring up a point of discussion so that we can all be safer.

 

[Toolguy]

It is my understanding that the B2630 or B3030 needs to have the taller, folding ROPS if the tractor is equipped with a Backhoe. If a BH is not going to be used then the shorter, non-folding ROPS is sufficient. I don't believe the extra height is any safer, it just gives the operator more headroom when setting on the BH seat. I prefer the shorter ROPS on my B3030. It fits thru all my doors and I don't have to trim the trees around my yard as high. It is a factory, stock unit so I have confidence it will work as designed if needed.

 

[psdx]

I dunno. I can't find those specs but if they exist (which I do not doubt, I just don't have them in my brochure) then baring some other tidbit of knowledge that we may not be privy to, Gomer may still be safe, which is what he was trying to do.

See page 7 of 22 in the PDF file here - contains dealer order sheets for Kubota B-Series http://www.dot.state.mn.us/equipment/contracts/tr_cpt_utl____shrt version/k b series.pdf