Texas Grapple Shootout

[IslandTractor]

Everyone seems to think the weight of the grapple is important. I do not. A few hundred pounds will not affect how much brush you can carry. brush is light. I think the 3/4" tines are plenty thick enough but I would get the extra bottom tine to reduce the distance between the tines to 6 1/2". Large trees are heavy but most likely you will be dragging them anyways unless you have a 30' opening.

Carrying brush, as you point out, is not the issue. Lifting trees and rocks however is an issue and even popping roots can be limited by the force you can apply if the loader has to lift a 600lb grapple rather than a 300-400lb version.

3/4" tines on a CUT grapple just seems like serious overkill. I've never bent the 3/8" tines on my light duty grapple using roughly the same tractor size (Kioti DK40/KL401).

 

[mark02tj]

3/4" tines on a CUT grapple just seems like serious overkill. I've never bent the 3/8" tines on my light duty grapple using roughly the same tractor size (Kioti DK40/KL401).

While I'm generally a proponent of "over building" stuff, I know where you're coming from here. When I went to the Farm Machinery Show in Louisville a couple of weeks ago I tried to look at all of the root grapples on display there. There weren't as many on display as I would have like to have seen, but most of the ones for smaller tractors were 1/4" to 3/8" thick tines. ANBO did have a display there and even their "heavy duty" grapple for a 35hp CUT had 3/8" tines on the inside with 1/2" on the two outside tines. It looked plenty big to me.

BUT... what makes me wonder is the longer tine on TXDon's grapple. I really like that design - without the brace - but would something that long and unbraced stay put if it was thinner? Would 1/2" be sufficient? That would cut the weight by another 15% or so. (Yeah, I know that 1/2" is 33% less than 3/4", but we also have to take into account the frame, hydraulics, etc.)

Decisions, decisions...

 

[IslandTractor]

While I'm generally a proponent of "over building" stuff, I know where you're coming from here. When I went to the Farm Machinery Show in Louisville a couple of weeks ago I tried to look at all of the root grapples on display there. There weren't as many on display as I would have like to have seen, but most of the ones for smaller tractors were 1/4" to 3/8" thick tines. ANBO did have a display there and even their "heavy duty" grapple for a 35hp CUT had 3/8" tines on the inside with 1/2" on the two outside tines. It looked plenty big to me.

BUT... what makes me wonder is the longer tine on TXDon's grapple. I really like that design - without the brace - but would something that long and unbraced stay put if it was thinner? Would 1/2" be sufficient? That would cut the weight by another 15% or so. (Yeah, I know that 1/2" is 33% less than 3/4", but we also have to take into account the frame, hydraulics, etc.)

Decisions, decisions...

Yes, I can understand the need for thicker tines if they are unsupported by bracing, but, why design something without bracing? Unless you need to insert a tine deep into the ground, there is no disadvantage to having some bracing or linkage of one tine to the next. I suppose a subsoiler tine would need to be thicker than for a boxblade but why would a grapple be built like a subsoiler?

 

[pacerron]

While I'm generally a proponent of "over building" stuff, I know where you're coming from here. When I went to the Farm Machinery Show in Louisville a couple of weeks ago I tried to look at all of the root grapples on display there. There weren't as many on display as I would have like to have seen, but most of the ones for smaller tractors were 1/4" to 3/8" thick tines. ANBO did have a display there and even their "heavy duty" grapple for a 35hp CUT had 3/8" tines on the inside with 1/2" on the two outside tines. It looked plenty big to me.

BUT... what makes me wonder is the longer tine on TXDon's grapple. I really like that design - without the brace - but would something that long and unbraced stay put if it was thinner? Would 1/2" be sufficient? That would cut the weight by another 15% or so. (Yeah, I know that 1/2" is 33% less than 3/4", but we also have to take into account the frame, hydraulics, etc.)

Decisions, decisions...

The old adage "the chain is only as strong as its weakest link" always applies.
I believe in building things super strong as well since I grew up in an era when that was the way to do it, rather than the way things are built as cheap/weak as possible now using "minimized design engineering."
Even if the hydraulic relief has not been tampered with a lot of stress over time can do real damage to front end parts beyond the FEL.

 

[Xfaxman]

THANKS for the reply, TXDon! I do have about 4 acres to clear, but my brush ranges from pencil thin to about 6" or 7". Most of the brush is under 3" though. And it's honeysuckle which is pretty shallow rooted.
--------------------------------------------
You mention your ratchet-rake. I don't have one.... yet. :laughing: Do you think I should get one before I buy a root rake? Could it take out the majority of my brush? I do understand that the root rake grapple and ratchet-rake are two totally different animals but I'm wondering if I should spend $350 before I spend $2500.

------------------------------

Decisions, decisions...

For your honeysuckle a 3 point tree puller and a ratchet-rake might be the fastest way to clear 4 acres.
Remember that the 3 point has more lift power.


From: 200-30 Post And Tree Puller

This guy will make them with a 3 point mount.

Buckthorn Puller - Custom built Skid Steer attachments to fit almost any need you may have.

My tree puller thread: http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/attachments/277824-tree-puller.html

 

[txdon]

My soil is white, and almost beach sand. If you have any dirt or darker soil the 7" will be fine. I do have some black soil and it does not sift as well there.

Hmmm, you got me thinking about which one first the grapple or the ratchet rake. They both have their strong points on removing vegetation but the grapple will win in the moving and removal of larger vegetation. The ratchet rake removes vegetation like the wedge part of the grapple but smaller and cannot go deep only scratches (max 4") the surface pulling/pushing out roots. The ratchet rake is shaped like an backwards and upside down "L" and cannot dig like teeth on a bucket.

Maybe some others that have worked with your type of vegetation can chime in.

 

[bindian]

I am also in the bigger (thicker) is better crowd. Sticking thinner tines deep into dirt is a good way to bend it accidently in a fast turn or by just screwing up. Too many broken fork attachments are testament to this. Tractors driving forward and accidently hit a bump too fast causing a fork to auger into the ground, where the momentum of the tractor does the rest of the damage.
hugs, Brandi

 

[IslandTractor]

I am also in the bigger (thicker) is better crowd. Sticking thinner tines deep into dirt is a good way to bend it accidently in a fast turn or by just screwing up. Too many broken fork attachments are testament to this. Tractors driving forward and accidently hit a bump too fast causing a fork to auger into the ground, where the momentum of the tractor does the rest of the damage.
hugs, Brandi

The problem, besides weight and cost, is that CUT FELs are not designed to be bulldozers. Digging deep while driving forward is a good way to mess up a FEL. Having very long unsupported tines would allow that to happen more easily than if the tines were narrower, shorter and supported by pipe that acts as a depth limiter. You can still get at roots with the shorter tines while digging around a tree but are less likely to have an unexpected encounter with a rock or buried stump while the tractor is moving with a lot of energy.

 

[TomSeller]

This is the classic problem with Rake grapples. Shorter Lower tines do not allow the rake grapple to pick up much since there is little lower support to the load. Longer lower tines allow the grapple to pick up more load. Longer tines allow deeper penetration into the soil for root removal. Shorter lower tines allow for better back raking since longer lower tines prevent using the lid with FEL float to back rake.

I don't think there is an ideal multipurpose grapple so I have three. A short lower tine Rake, a wide L bottom with tall opening and a narrow L bottom. Each with their own use. When working an area, I take as many as I need and just swap them out during the day.

 

[Cord]

I also think the Faver design is nice. The lack of cross brace tube reminds me of my Wildkat Deep Penetration grapple. You can use the tips more effectively to penetrate into tree limbs, etc. when picking things up. Faver uses a high quality steel that allows them that long of a lower tine without as much danger of bending the tines which I think is the real reason mild steel grapples have the cross tube out front. I like their narrow 31" model. The upper tines cross over the lower tines in the attached image, making for a very small 12.5" holding area compared to most L bottom grapples.

This is the exact model that I have on order. Should be here in a couple of weeks...