The Car-ification of tractors

[daTeacha]

I don't want to get into a contest with you guys about ages, but the first truck I owned was a '52 Dodge with the Red-Ram flathead V-8, 3 on the tree, negative ground, narrow bed, and a wooden floor in it. I bought it very used to haul a furnace I had purchased used to our first house(also used but cheap at $8k for 2 bedrooms on 20 acres with 2 trout streams) on the other side of the state. It had a rear bumper, but homemade from a piece of "I" beam with the ends obviously torch cut. My first car was an earlly 50's Beetle -- small rear window era, and my first tractor, just to stay on topic, was what the people up north of Grand Rapids called a Celery Tractor with no steering wheel, but a tiller like device. I, too am glad to see the new comfort features on tractors for those who want them and spend more time on the seat, but I don't want to see the basic machines go away so some of us have a chance to fix 'em if they break.

Expensive maintainence or repair issues can take a lot of the fun out of owning/operating a CUT. Half the justification of having a tractor for those of us who don't farm for a living is to enable us to do jobs on our own that we'd have to pay someone else to do. If the cost of ownership gets too high because of expensive repairs, why should you bust your back and wallet when you can hire it done for less money and have all that time left over for other things?

It all comes down to priorities, as usual.

 

[andrewj]

almost 6000 (thousand) reads in a few days? what have all the blue, green, orange and red employees visited the site to see what we are up to? (or what I'm up to...) haha.

 

[daTeacha]

Yeah, this does seem like a never ending thread. I wonder who will have the last post before it slides down the roster and into history?

 

[5030]

Probably Mike, Bird or another Moderator....when it gets off track and is destined for oblivion. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[JasonH]

I don't think the quality of tractors has gone down at all. All of the modern gadgets that have found their way onto compact tractors started out on the larger ones years ago. I remember hearing a relative talking about having heat and a/c in his tractor cab 20 years ago. As far as computerized engine management goes, that's technology that has existed for decades in the automotive industry and has certainly proven its reliability. I was born in the 70's. Most of the cars I've been around have had fuel injection. A lot of people complain about the complexity of fuel injection. To me it doesn't seem that complex. But then again, I don't have to know every detail of its operation. To me, complexity is some of the cars with emissions controls and carbs. The ones with literally dozens of vacuum lines going everywhere. That's a nightmare. But electronic fuel injection is simple whether it's on a car or on a tractor. If something goes wrong, it lets you know. It lets you know precisely what is wrong. Then all you have to do is swap a part and you're good to go.

Plastic is one of the two greatest inventions of the 20th century. When properly utilized it is very effective and pratical. I've seen Glock pistols that have fired countless thousands of rounds without any problems at all. Would I want the crankshaft in my car made from the stuff? Probably not. But it certainly has its uses. They use it on tractor bodies because you have a choice. You can use plastic and risk breaking it. Or you can use stamped steel which will eventually rust if it has been damaged. For the tractor body itself, one is no better than the other.

In terms of fancy electronics what's in most tractors is the equivalent of a transistor radio versus one with vacuum tubes. They are inexpensive, and very reliable. Replacement is a moot point since it probably won't break. If it does break, then it's a likely result of operator failure/abuse/neglect. Those electronics are what gets that diesel started up on a cold winter morning. They make it run smooth. They virtually eliminate stalling.

Another complaint is the Hydro trans that most tractors now have. I really wish my father's had one of them. For actual farm use the hydro is great because you just set the cruise and go. I think the real problem is people on the compact end pushing them past their capacity because they're doing stuff the tractor wasn't meant to do. Pulling stumps with a hydro probably isn't a recipe for long life. Mowing the lawn with a hydro will give you years of use. And let's be honest. The primary role of the compact tractor is cutting grass.

People have told stories about the old days when you got off the tractor feeling like you've been on a machine all day. At the time, the old, noisy, gear tractor was superior to the mule. And you have to judge it by the standards of yesterday. But times change and so do people. Better yet, they evolve. And today's tractors allow far greater productivity than anything from even 25 years ago. The a/c, heat, cd player, leather massage seat, all increase productivity. The nicer you make it, the longer you can go between breaks. An operator can take his lunch with him in the cab. And keep going as he eats. That productivity translates to dollars and cents.

The compact market is an offshoot of the commercial market. But I'm certain it's gaining speed rapidly. Most of the mechanicals are adapted right off of the larger machines. You all notice we now have full cabs for 30hp tractors? That was unheard of just a few years ago. Styling is probably driven off of the consumer compact market. That's important to consumers. I don't worry about the reliability of the newer compact tractors because most of the equipment has already been thoroughly tested for long term duty.

A couple of people have already mentioned that the tractor will last based on how well the owner cares for it. If you want a tractor to last for 50 years treat it in a manner that will allow it to last for 50 years. That about sums it up.

 

[RobertN]

The tractorification of the US took a LONG time. Horses were still in use up in to WWII(and some even after). WWII was a big reason to move to tractors; we needed bigger production, faster, to feed the war effort. 30 years in to tractors, smalller CUT types, there were still lots of horses. My Farmall-A was a replacement for two horses, the post war Cub was a replacement for one...

 

[daTeacha]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( The tractorification of the US took a LONG time. Horses were still in use up in to WWII(and some even after). WWII was a big reason to move to tractors; we needed bigger production, faster, to feed the war effort. 30 years in to tractors, smalller CUT types, there were still lots of horses. My Farmall-A was a replacement for two horses, the post war Cub was a replacement for one... )</font>

Around here, the Amish use their horses and are out on the fields long before the ground is firm enough for the English to get out. Of course, even with a couple of weeks head start for the Amish, the English farmers get their spring field work done sooner. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Just don't discount either horses or the simpler tractors. They have their place in the grand scheme of things as well as their followers. I know when I had my ground logged there was no question that I didn't want a big diesel skidder running around in my woods. The horses did a great job and left it looking so good that after I cleaned up the firewood you could hardly tell it had been logged. I literally had people tell me they drove by there frequently and never knew it had been logged. You couldn't do that with a big skidder.

 

[Jstpssng]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I know when I had my ground logged there was no question that I didn't want a big diesel skidder running around in my woods. The horses did a great job and left it looking so good that after I cleaned up the firewood you could hardly tell it had been logged. I literally had people tell me they drove by there frequently and never knew it had been logged. You couldn't do that with a big skidder. )</font>

I don't mean to start a war, but I have to respond to this. To a large degree the quality of a job depends on the equipment operator, more than what is used. It's also dependent on the financial considerations of the landowner, and whether the woodcutter wants to make a living long term, or simply pick up a few quick bucks.

While a skidder requires wider trails (how wide depends on the machine size)
those trails can be placed farther apart. Betwen the trails, anything a horse can a good skidder operator can do as well or better, given the same financial incentives which you gave the horse logger. Maximum skidding distances will be longer than with a horse, resulting in lower road building costs and less long term impact on the land.

There is no "one size fits all" tool for logging.
I'm cutting my woodlot with a little 27 HP Kubota. I could never make a living by today's standards; however my tractor and land are paid for, so I am recovering my stumpage and depreciation as I work. As I work I also try to think for the future, cutting "weed" trees and anything which won't live until the next time I cut, in 7-10 years depending on how well the trees respond. I also try to plan 20 years ahead to when I'm retired; that harvest may be done by somebody else, but I'll still expect a viable return on my investment.
When I'm finished harvesting my lot I plan to post a few pictures of the finished product, as I feel I am doing a good job, although it isn't always aesthetically pleasing. My "ugly" slash piles already are attracting snowshoe hares; and I'm trying to leave some cavity trees, so that the pair of pileated woodpeckers which have visited for the last 5 years will still pass through occasionally.

There are many harvesting options out there for woodlot owners. Besides horses, tractors, and more conventional logging the latest innovation is cut to length sytems ; these employ a felling machine which also delimbs the trees, using the slash as a base for the skid trails, reducing ruts; and cuts the stems to merchantable lengths. Another machine then loads the logs onto a bunk, and carries them out of the woods.

DaTeacha hired a horse logger, and was happy with the results; as the landowner, obviously he chose the proper tool for the job he required.


I apologise for hijacking the thread, but this post hit a nerve which is very near and dear to me... and to the economy of northern Maine.

 

[daTeacha]

In fairness, I need to mention that I live on the land in question. The only trails left were ones I wanted there or put there prior to the operation. We're only talking about 18 acres among 3 residential landowners here, not a big tract. The logs ranged up to 70 feet in length when hauled out, and they did use a tractor to guide a lot of the falls. It was a very selective cutting, not a go for all the dollars operation. On my 7 1/2 acres, I took out about 100 trees, mostly Cherry, Red Oak, Hickory, Maple and Ash. I made brush piles and firewood with my Stihl and B7100. The work was done in winter when the ground was frozen enough to support a team of Belgians and the log cart behind them. A skidder would have broken through the frost layer, I'm sure.

My point was, as yours, each level of technology has it's place in this world. We shouldn't write off the older or simpler ways just because something new, shiny, and easier comes along, nor should we avoid the new because it isn't the way things have always been done. The marketplace will determine what remains available for purchase in never used condition. The rest, as they say, is history.

For those interested in old time or non electric techonology, search for Kidron Hardware on the web, a local business that started out serving the Amish community and grew incredibly in the Y2K paranoia. You might be amazed at what you can find.

 

[SnoFalls]

Jstpssng makes some points I've tried to tell "tree huggers" around me ...

I *harvest* trees ... you can do that and maintain ecosystems .. and yup I also have a pileated pair around me too (BTW, a pair covers a 320 acre habitat). I'm "developing" my property, but by thinning out what is harvestable, using wildlife friendly under plantings, and restoring what "clearcuts" had destroyed 100 years ago ... That leaves _ME_ with a very nice ecosystem.

In order to even do what is reasonable forest management I have to use "loopholes" (aka the harvest was within "danger" of buildings) ... my logger was pointing to trees down a slope that are literally $2K each, but untouchable ... they will soon blow down, and do absoultely no good. In fact that area *NEEDS* thinning ...

Some think cutting _any_ tree means you're doing "destruction" ... obviuosly they have absolutely no idea about sound forestry management ... (aka ... hug a tree, kill a forest).