Shortening folding ROPS on BX24

[cheesehead]

The tennis ball idea is a good one but let me offer another one. There once was a guy I know who had a bicycle carrier on top of his car. He had a great ride and was quite tired when he came home so he forgot about the bikes on top of the car. The crash he heard as he entered the garage brought him back to reality as did the huge dent in the roof of his SUV.

There was no way to shorten the SUV to prevent this in the future. So each time this idiot loads the bikes on the SUV (outside of the garage), he puts the trash can in front of the garage door. When he returns, the garage opening is blocked by the trash can, which forces him to get out and move it. This has resulted in no more incidents in the last 4 years.

I believe this will also work for tractors.

 

[RayMunising]

I read an article on ROPs several years ago but I can't find it now. The bottom line of it was the height of the ROPs is designed so that it will protect anyone (regardless of the operators height) in a roll over. The height of the ROPs is one point in determining the size of the safety envelope formed by the ROPs and the front of the tractor. That's the 2 points that the tractor is going to rest on in a roll over. In a roll over you (as the tractor operator) will be suspended from your seat belt and need to have your head within the safety envelope. A tall person needs to have a taller ROPs to keep within the envelope. At 5'5" I don't think lowering the ROPs a few inches will put you in any danger whatsoever as long as the modification doesn't effect strength (it isn't rocket science) BUT if you let someone else (taller person) use your tractor or ever sell your tractor problems could arise. Certainly having an unmodified folded ROPs does not offer any protection so if you have a tendency to keep it folded because you forget to put it up you'd be much better off with a modified ROPs that you always have up. That's my 2-cents and worth every penny.

 

[offcamber]

My dealer told me the ROPS on the BX24 was higher becasue of the BH. I think he was trying to make it a selling point that it won't interfere with using th BH....like smacking your head on it when you get off the seat. Anyway I don't have the luxry of parking in a garage...its full of my other crap....maybe I'll use the FEL to clean it out this thread is getting almost as long as the towing the boat out thread lol

 

[LBrown59]

My dealer told me the ROPS on the BX24 was higher becasue of the BH. I think he was trying to make it a selling point that it won't interfere with using th BH....like smacking your head on it when you get off the seat. Anyway I don't have the luxry of parking in a garage...its full of my other crap....maybe I'll use the FEL to clean it out this thread is getting almost as long as the towing the boat out thread lol

The Rops has/needs to be taller on any tractor; Kubota or any other brand that has a BH on it than it needs to be on tractors that do not have back hoes.
There have been incidents of people being crushed to death between a to short Rops and 3 point backhoes.
There was in one thread I read where a dealer had to exchange a short Rops for the taller ROPS because it was the wrong one for the tractor that had a BH attachment on it, so apparently there is some Fed Regulation involved here.

 

[LBrown59]

I don't buy it. The 2350 has the same chassis, with a much smaller ROPS.
*1*Is the 2350 less prone to rollover, just because it does not have a factory backhoe?

*2*Kubota simply chose to provide the BH operator with copious headroom, at the cost of some inconvenience...
.

1* Well, now come to think of it a BH can in certain circumstances be a direct or indirect contributor to accidents.
2* Or is it they're more safety conscience than JD?

 

[ray66v]

It appears I assumed correctly, when I said the size of the ROPS is likely mandated by the same federal regulations that require the ROPS in the first place.

I was reading the regulation trying to find the "heart" of it. There is a lot of mumbo jumbo. But, I did find a section where they refer to how the height is determined:

"1926.1002(d)(4) Dimensions relative to the seat shall be determined with the seat unloaded and adjusted to its highest and most rearward latched position provided for a seated operator"

This means that the seat would be put in the backhoe operating position when determining the height of the ROPS on a subcompact TLB. This also explains why the ROPS is higher on a subcompact tractor with a backhoe and folding seat, than the same model without.

There were other parts I saw that also indicated that these dimensions were specified.

If I find time, I will waste some more of it, looking for the specifications later. If someone else wants to do some googleing and find it first, I would be grateful.

 

[LBrown59]

*I think if it was me i would do as he is going to do and clamp a piece of timber across it to see if the lower height would be a problem with backhoe usage .

Been there tried it with my bx23 didn't work.

 

[LBrown59]

It appears I assumed correctly, when I said the size of the ROPS is likely mandated by the same federal regulations that require the ROPS in the first place.
I did find a section where they refer to how the height is determined:

"1926.1002(d)(4) Dimensions relative to the seat shall be determined with the seat unloaded and adjusted to its highest and most rearward latched position provided for a seated operator"

This means that the seat would be put in the backhoe operating position when determining the height of the ROPS on a subcompact TLB. This also explains why the ROPS is higher on a subcompact tractor with a backhoe and folding seat, than the same model without.

There were other parts I saw that also indicated that these dimensions were specified.
===========

Basically what I've been saying all along.

 

[Volfandt]

There could possibly be liability issues if you go to sell a tractor with a modified ROPS so it might be wise to put it in writing and signed that the buyer has been made aware that the ROPS has been shortened.
I'm no lawyer but that along with the "buy it as-is" should cover ones behind.

I've also toyed with shortening mine as I've seen no liability issues that have arisen yet with the multitude of BX's with std ROPS modified w/Woods BH's. Seems if there was an issue with the ROPS being too short that Woods wold have included a taller ROPS w/the kit. Course they may have some disclaimer in the fine print of their paper work to cover that.

Kubota is known to overbuild to avoid lawsuits, like how they've made sure the BX 50 series tractors will definitely stop abruptly when slowing/stopping in reverse. Internet rumor has it that this was due to a lawsuit because the earlier BX series would not stop abruptly. Was this a good modification? Obviously not since it's being modified on the new 60 series to work more in line w/the earlier BX's (00 and 30 series).

re. the tall ROPS on the BX TLB's, perhaps they want to make sure that tall operatiors, real tall operators won't bang their noggins

I mounted a 4 1/2" entertainment and lighting housing to the underside of my ROPS and it hasn't interferred w/my noggin in BH mode and I'm at 6'. The ROPS can definitely be shortened in my case....

 

[ray66v]

There could possibly be liability issues if you go to sell a tractor with a modified ROPS so it might be wise to put it in writing and signed that the buyer has been made aware that the ROPS has been shortened.
I'm no lawyer but that along with the "buy it as-is" should cover ones behind.

Life is not ever simple when you involve lawyers. There is nothing you can ever do that will fully insulate you from a lawsuit.

From what I have seen, you cannot transfer liability for something you did to someone else.

Say you sell an aircraft you built. You inform the purchaser that you were the builder and that he is buying the aircraft as-is. because you do not want the liability for the aircraft after it transfers ownership. The buyer agrees to absolve you of any liability and signs a written document stating such. He then promptly crashes and burns with his neighbor in the aircraft. Now the buyer cannot sue you because of the agreement, (won't anyway he's pushing up daises). But, his family never agreed to not hold you liable, and they sue you. And guess what, the neighbors family does also, their lawyer simply needs to convince a jury that you screwed up somewhere. And if all else fails, they claim you lied about something, and use fraud to get the agreement thrown out. This happens all the time. Just the cost of defending such a suit, let alone loosing, will bankrupt most people.