TC33 - Question on Lights and a No Start Issue

[seacove]

First - Have finally started aggressively clearing my heavily brush/small treed rear acreage with my new TC33DA. I have already broken 3 of the lenses on the lights attached to the ROPS, and knocked the left light plastice housing right out of the inserts! Just really poor design - things that clear the driver/tractor/attachments seem to always catch on the lights. The question is, does anyone know of any aftermarket housing that would cover and protect the lamps from my over zealous bush-hogging?

Second - After coming out of the field from bush-hogging this past weekend, I disengaged the rear PTO and turned off the tractor. When I tried to re-start the tractor, it wouldn't crank and I notice that the PTO light on the dash was on even though the PTO was definitely disengaged, and found in the manual that the tractor cannot be started with the PTO engaged. After about an hour of inspection, cursing, etc. I found that on the underside of the tractor a wire had pulled apart at the connection - I put back together, PTO light went out, and I was able to start the tractor. Doesn't seem like good placement of such a fragile wire connection. Just wanted to give other TC33 owners a heads up as to where to look if they have a similar occurence.

All else considered - still love my TC33DA!

 

[BadDog]

Oh the joys of hogging nasty fields...

Get your welder turned on and build yourself some tractor armor; you're about the 1000th person on TBN who's moaned about this.

If tractors came armor plated they'd be bulldozers.... and three times the cost.

 

[seacove]

For what you pay for a compact tractor you could buy an auto with A/C, PW, PL, Stereo, CD, Airbags, Fully enclosed, 200HP, 4 doors, etc., etc. etc.

Now don't start preaching about apples and oranges, but I do think that it is reasonable expectation that a tractor is built/designed to stand up to field work without being broken and/or disabled. Bottom line - poor design by NH.

 

[jinman]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( For what you pay for a compact tractor you could buy an auto with A/C, PW, PL, Stereo, CD, Airbags, Fully enclosed, 200HP, 4 doors, etc., etc. etc.

Now don't start preaching about apples and oranges, but I do think that it is reasonable expectation that a tractor is built/designed to stand up to field work without being broken and/or disabled. Bottom line - poor design by NH.
)</font>

So... Where in that list of car options is FEL, hydraulic system, 3PH, and lights that won't break if you drive the car through the woods? /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I feel you pain. I just don't think you'll see that kind of protection on a tractor as long as the competition doesn't put it on theirs. Innovation is driven by competition a whole lot more than need. . . unfortunately. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[BadDog]

You can blame it on the design but it all comes down to this. You get what you pay for. I'm guessing you did your homework when you bought your 33... and I'm sure price had something to do with your decision.

In my professional engineering (yes, I am one) opinion, NH did a very good job to fill the market demand (they delivered a very capable machine for a good price). I believe they have come up with a very good design... and the best proof is in the fact that ever other major manufacturer has now copied most of their innovations in their latest products.

Yes, I would like to see more armor on the thing. I've beaten my machine up pretty bad, and armor would have let me keep beating on it. Instead, it broke several times, in several ways. However, I learned a lot about operating it, and I'm a much better operator now, even though my lessons were delivered the hard way.

My warranty and my dealer came through every time. With all the abuse I've given it, the 55 runs and looks like new. Yes I have experienced a bit of down-time, but that just allowed me to work on other things.

I still have another year of warranty, but more importantly, I now have nearly 400 hours of seat time on my 55. I know its capabilities and its weaknesses. In terms of the work it has done for me in those 400 hours, it has already more than paid for itself.

I could have bought a nice car for the same money (and in fact, I bought two of them since buying the 55), but I couldn't do any of the work with either vehicle that I do with the tractor.

Note that I'm writing this after spending 6 hours of pure joy on my tractor leveling a new field. I wouldn't trade the ability to do the kind of work I can do with my tractor, when I want, how I want, for nearly anything.

 

[seacove]

I think you're missing my point. I am not suggesting that the TCs be built like an armor covered tank - just that reasonable design considerations be utilized for the purpose intended. Placing light duty plastic housed lights on the outside of the ROPs sticking out like rabbit's ears is just poor design. NH could have easily (and inexpensively) placed the lights in the inside of the ROPs, and probably engaged in a wire guard - similar to what is done on other off road vehicles. Dangling unprotected wires on the underside vulnerable to typical conditions found in brush fields is just another poor design that could easily and cheaply be rectified by minor redesign.

There is no reason for defensiveness - if enough owners speak up, improvements will be made by the manufacturer of tractors as well as for any other product. I love my TC33 as much as the next guy; however, that doesn't mean I need to be blind to flaws that can and should be improved upon.

 

[LarryD]

Welcome to the club, although I think BadDog's estimate of the number of members is a bit conservative. /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

While I like all the bells and whistles my 33 has, integrating these conveniences together probably does leave some weaknesses. These machines certainly aren't like the old Fords that probably would start with the pto engaged or the transmission in gear. Many of the the current "inconvenciences" are driven by federal safety regulations including tail light spacing (but I can't confirm this).

There is a huge industry of after-market parts for so called off-road vehicles that are supposed to bullet proof your pickup or SUV. Someday we may see the same thing for tractors but so far mine has only revealed minor flaws that I improve myself.

 

[seacove]

A reasonable response - and I wouldn't be surprised if compliance with some federal "safe our us from ourselves" regulation contribute to design, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't suggest improvements. I also like to tinker, and will probably invovate a solution of my own (or implement one recommended from another poster). After all isn't this what the forum is suppose to be about - sharing information and solutions. However, ignoring flaws/issues will never get anything resolved. Thanks.

 

[adlertom]

Yes, the light placement is a poor design. I ended up taking mine off - who do I need to signal my turns to in the woods anyway /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Yes, the unprotected wiring underneath the tractor is a poor design. I soldered, taped, and wired tied mine after I experienced the same problem as seacove.

The "bottom line" is the bottom line. Every reinforcement, beefing up, or protection adds cost, and the manufacturer wants to keep his cost as low as possible. At least all the cheap stuff I've encountered so far on my TC33DA has been stuff that I can deal with myself. Hopefully they put their money into the drivetrain, engine, and other stuff that I don't want to mess with or modify.