schmism
Super Member
Rebel said:Not meaning to ruffle any feathers but I find the above very unlikely. In my experience in the engineering field most things designed for safety sake I.E. "ROPS" has a built in safety factor of 2 to 2.5 This is due to the dynamics of a potential rollover is largely unknown and can very greatly for each incident.
From a business point of view it would make very little sense to design a marginal ROPS to save a few bucks in the manufacturing process only to create a huge liability in terms of product defect and the ensuing legal problems.
ummm what world do you live in, becuase its not the US. Every major company has played the EXACT $$ game as above. If we save $100 on 10,000,000 cars , and it could lead to a safty issue, we will proceed, and pay out on the 10 or so $3,000,000 lawsuit claims from the safty issue we cut to save money.
we have now saved a net of what class?
as for the engineering world, yes it may have a saftey factor involved, but that still doesnt preclude the possiblity that the ROPS was TESTED at a max tractor weight of ____, and now with new options, you can exceed this tested number. If you do, who's to say what MIGHT happen as you never tested it under that weight.
So while it MAY be ok, they arnt going to say, oh ya btw it was only tested for a 100lbs, but you should be ok up to about twice that weight....
From my experience working for a company that seals truss designs, the truss MIGHT hold more weight than the paper says, but if it falls down, and it was found to have more weight on it than the sealed drawing said was ok, your SOL buddy