Tractor Rollover

RayIN · Saturday at 9:02 PM

SmallChange said:
Actually, I think this speaks to a useful instrument tractor makers could include. It'd be a meter that takes into account both static gravitational effects and dynamic inertial effects. In fact, it could even take loader height into account, and even the load itself, perhaps by watching hydraulic pressure when the loader is going up.

This is a complicated thing. For one thing it would have to be done with thorough understanding of the tractor's weight distribution. It's not something we could practically do ourselves. But if there are lawsuits out there, this might make huge economic sense for a manufacturer.

About 45 years ago I worked with some guys who designed systems with microprocessors in them. Microprocessors are common and cheap these days -- for example, they are the reason I can't understand the user interface on our goddam toaster. But back then, this was rare. These guys were working on a project to monitor the movement and forces on cranes, to prevent them tipping over. One situation they were working on concerns having the boom nearly vertical, lifting a load near the crane body, and then starting to lower the boom. It's very tricky, because stopping the boom will add tipping force from its inertia. An operator can start lowering the boom and put the crane in a condition where there is no way to avoid tipping a few seconds into the future, even though it is stable when the operator does this. If they could solve that problem back then, imagine what a manufacturer could do today.

I have never tipped. But I don't know if my worst near miss was 10% of the way to tipping, or 90%. Sure wish I knew.

What you say can be done, at a cost of several thousand dollars to the purchaser. Look what has happened to passenger cars.
Bring back common sense!

WinterDeere · Saturday at 11:20 PM

RayIN said:
What you say can be done, at a cost of several thousand dollars to the purchaser. Look what has happened to passenger cars.
Bring back common sense!

Development cost is likely close to $1M, amortized over the entire product line, plus $200k per year ongoing costs for development and maintenance of the product line. Actual hardware cost is going to be on the order of $10.

Over how many machines might that $1M initial + $200k per year be spread? If done by a third party and sold to several major manufacturers, the numbers might be sufficient to bring total added cost to the user down to something reasonable.

dadohead · Sunday at 6:05 AM

The configuration and add-on's we put on our machines quickly complicates this concept: tires in/out? loaded tires? tire pressure? bucket size? ROP up/down? cab? on and on...

In the end, who will the lawyers go after if someone is hurt?: the manufacturer. Because of that, their direction will ALWAYS be to inform on safe practices but keep the ultimate responsibility with the operator.

Shawn T. W. · Sunday at 11:20 AM

Then soon ... The tractors will be unable to be used ... Like the stupid crash avoidance system on my truck, SLAMS on the brakes when there is NOBODY, or a VEHICLE withing a quarter of mile, sometimes nothing in view! Wait until your tractor stops and/or turns away from a situation that some programer deems "unsafe"!

Yeah I know ... I'm told the radar just needs to be adjusted ... Had that done, still does it!

When one of these so called safety devices will take over control, because the programer thinks they know how to drive a truck or tractor, but probably never has been in one before ... They don't make the computer to "think" like a human it's just "X's" and "O'" and once something doesn't line up with the program, it just defaults to "PANIC" ...

I'd never buy a tractor that was programmed to be "smarter" than me ... If I want a robot tractor, I'd buy one, I'll only buy a tractor with a seat for me!

It takes a responsible and intelligent human to make "on the fly" decisions, who are willing to be held accountable for there actions ... Nobody is forcing me to drive near my creek, and if I roll my tractor down into it, I don't expect anyone to pay for my "mistake", and it's not gonna hurt anybody but me, I'm not "endangering" anybody else ... I've had enough with the nanny state dictates about what they say "is good/safe for you" !

scootr · Sunday at 11:55 AM

Common sense and Personal responsibility are outdated ideas. It's the governments responsibility to ensure we are safe and fed.

dadohead · Sunday at 12:08 PM

WinterDeere said:
I don't buy this. After all, by choosing to not implement such systems, lawyers could go after manufacturers for not implementing reasonable technology that would allow one to better avoid rollovers.

Just illustrating their viewpoint.

Child backovers are the worst kind of accident. Usually, the root cause is that they had been given tractor rides by grandpa (teaching them "tractors are fun!") Later, they chase after the machine wanting a ride.

Sensor technology exists to equip that machine to warn the operator "something is behind". Making a smart tractor puts the responsibility on the manufacturer. The solution we get is RIO (reverse implement option) the mower won't run in reverse unless the OPERATOR hopefully looks back and overrides the system allowing the PTO to continue running. Responsibily is now on the operator. Everybody HATES that solution but guess what?... the manufacturer never loses in court.

A tractor manufacture will fill the manual with best practices regarding rollover. They will avoid "smart tractor" solutions everytime.