Trade Offs and Priorites: Maddening

MMM · Aug 31, 2004

For an all around tractor, I'd pick the heavier one and leave the lawn mowing to lawnmowers. I went to the neighbors other day to move a pile his 30somthin hp kbota wouldn't do. It would spin the minute he hit the pile and couldn't get anything in bucket. Enough can't be said about weight and the ability to do work. For their weight, a dozer or skidder for instance really doen't have that much hp. Many of the older IH dozers have same 179ci engine as my tractor, yet they can move things my 7k# machine won't budge. Who came up with the idea that tractors need race car power to weight ratios?

KiotiJohn · Aug 31, 2004

( did they do that because cast iron is simply a cheap material? Did they do that because they beleive tractors should be heavy? Did they do that because they don't have easy access to stronger & less brittle alloys? Did they do that because the foundry they have is not capable of casting modern materials? )
It doesn't now nor never has mattered to me why they use cast, but probably because it's cheaper and available. Tractors were made this way for many many years, and I prefer the configuration of engine/trans better than ladder frames. Hey, the Kubota frames are strong as heck, no argument there! John

shoppintractors · Aug 31, 2004

Who came up with the idea that tractors need race car power to weight ratios? 

Anybody heard from Bob "Nascar" Skurka lately? /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Don

PS: Powers back on.

Bob_Skurka · Aug 31, 2004

Don,
I know this is going to make me unpopular (more unpopular) but I really dislike NASCAR.

Now if you want to talk about Formula 1 racing, I can get into that, or the IRL, I like that too. (the lovely Mrs_Bob was princess of the Indy 500 -many years ago- and I got to circle the famed brickyard many times with her in the pace car, she was on the back and I was assigned the task of holding her legs so she didn't fly off the car!)

But as for the power to size and weight ratio, you guys are simply ignoring everything that the PTO is used for. Personally I test the limits of the PTO far more often than the traction. For my uses, a tractor with more power in a small package is a big benefit.

MessickFarmEqu · Aug 31, 2004

I like rally racing myself... it makes NASCAR look boring!

I think people make a much bigger issue out of weight than it needs to be. It comes up with comparing equipment, but how often do you hear people who own machines even mention the weight as factor in doing actual work. It always seems to be a Kioti vs World issue.

In my opinion and experience, weight is needed for ground engaging work. In any other situation extra mass is a disadvantage. Weight is different than ballast, any tractor still needs to be ballasted properly to handle the proper implements.

Unless you are going to plow with your 30 HP compact, just ballast your tractor properly and you'll never know the difference.

Bob_Skurka · Aug 31, 2004

Neil, I have to agree with you that the Kioti guys seem to really feel that weight is a big deal. The Mahindra guys tout it as well. The funny thing is that from what I can see, Kioti has a lot of strong selling points that actually matter and weight is certainly not one of them. But weight seems to be a hot button. What about the fact that the features of the CK line place them in the deluxe range, or the fit & finish quality, or loaders? The LK line is certainly a value line that stands on its own merits as well. But more type has been used up touting how great it is to have weight, or defending that "in my yard on my soil I don't leave ruts" discussions. Hey, these are darn good tractors and in some areas they are a bargain compared to more established brands. Sort of a shame.

As for the rally events, yea those are a lot of fun. SCCA races too. I used to get free pit passes to Winston Cup races (remember those?) and never bothered to attend. Now an open cockpit car that turns both directions and negotiates hairpin turns while running the streets of major cities . . . ahh, you gotto love F1.

To20Chris · Aug 31, 2004

It is important to understand the design process - engineers don't just sit down to design something, and out pops a CK30. They are designing to a spec. It would be unlikely if weight and cost were not part of it. Also, iron and steel ARE high tech alloys, and have many desireable properties, such as infinite cyclic stress endurance (which aluminum does not have). Given that, it would be foolish to second guess the choices the designers made, when in fact we don't know what the design requirements were. Engineering is the art of balencing a thousand competeing constraints.

BTW, I don't see all that much aluminum on the Kubotas - it seems to me that the light weight of the Bs is a result of using steel instead of cast iron, and the lighter weight of the Ls is probably more due to the use of thinner wall iron castings (perhaps of different alloys).

Last, no one has brought up one of the benefits of light weight that may be quite appealing to a manufacturer - lower shipping costs!

Bob_Skurka · Aug 31, 2004

BTW, I don't see all that much aluminum on the Kubotas 

Chris, for what it is worth, I never brought up aluminum. Might have been a Kioti owner? But not me.

 it would be foolish to second guess the choices the designers made 

Agreed, the question was asked why does Kioti weigh more than Kubota. I simply offered up several possibilities and said I really didn't know.

I suppose I should have kept my mouth shut because we are still talking about weight. Again, to no real productive end. And again, too bad because the can be lots to brag about when comparing features or designs or loaders or . . .

To20Chris · Aug 31, 2004

Bob, I combined my responses in one post, and didn't mean to direct it all toward you, and I agree - there are many other things to discuss than weight!

KiotiJohn · Aug 31, 2004

( Neil, I have to agree with you that the Kioti guys seem to really feel that weight is a big deal. The Mahindra guys tout it as well. The funny thing is that from what I can see, Kioti has a lot of strong selling points that actually matter and weight is certainly not one of them. )
Bob, you continually left-handedly assault Kioti owners as touting weight and ignoring the other features that make Kioti a good tractor and good buy when the truth is that it usually comes up within a post of those very things. Then you tell everyone that the guru of specs, B.SH. thinks that weight doesn't matter, then we tell why we think weight DOES matter and get accused of making so much of it. It's you who have continued to make so much of it, and we don't want others to be mislead that weight is not an important feature in using loaders, ploughs and getting the most from HP without having to add extra weights that will often have to be paid for beyond the tractor cost.
It's amazing that you can put it off on us Kioti, and now Mahindra owners as well when it's you who constantly stir the weight pot. Okay, lighter is better for you, heavier is better for most I've read. We all have our opinions on it, and if you'd let it be just that instead of coming back everytime and accusing us of doing something heinous, we could all just state our opinions on why WE think heavier or lighter is better and leave it at that.
John

MMM · Sep 1, 2004

I don't see where weight is a disadvantage, except lawnmowing. Should we sell our tractors and buy giant 84" ZTR mowers? Ground engage involves a lot of equipment. Why add a loader if you can't get into a pile for a bucketfull. Boxblades, discs etc also need weight to operate them.

Cliff_Johns · Sep 1, 2004

( Ground engage involves a lot of equipment. Why add a loader if you can't get into a pile for a bucketfull. Boxblades, discs etc also need weight to operate them. )

This is all true, of course. I think the issue is whether the tractor should be fundamentally heavier, or if the extra weight should be added when needed (wheel weights, loaded tires, ballast boxes, suitcase weights etc.) and taken off when not needed, presumably to avoid making an impression.

Whether the weight needs to be removable depends on your view of what "too heavy" is for your application. Like choosing tire tread, this is dependant on your ground conditions, tractor uses, and willingness to back up to your ballast box and pick it up when using the FEL for heavy stuff or perhaps adding suitcase weights when carrying a heavy implement on the back when the FEL is not attached.

Like many things on TBN, it depends on where you are and what you are doing. It is something to consider when choosing your tractor.

Cliff

Bob_Skurka · Sep 1, 2004

KiotiJohn, fair enough. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. But in several of the threads about Kiotis (and Mahindras) owners state upfront that the tractors weigh more so that basically means they are better (and yes, I am paraphrasing).

What I have constantly and consistently stated is that weight, in and of itself, is not good or bad. And that weight is not to be confused with ballast.

As for the backhanded compliments, what about my own trashing of the Kubota loaders? And I own one of those? And I have complianed about switch placement on NH. I believe I am pretty objective. I point out flaws, I point out benefits. And yes, I stir up some muck and ruffle some feathers. I have stated the CK30 easily outclasses the B2910 and B7800, but argued the L3103 is superior. I have stated the CK30 is at least equal to the TC29 if not superior to it depending on the task at hand, but argued the TC33 is superior to the CK30. None of that is backhanded. It is objective opinion. I have trashed the CK25 and stated my reasons for it and will consistently defend them. I have stated admiration for and like of the CK20, it is possibly best of class in the 21hp machines and that says a lot because the JD4110 and NHTC21 are both awesome little tractors. However, the CK20 does not fare well against the TC24D or the JD4115 because it loses any advantage it might have had to the lower PTO hp it generates. I have stated that Kubota has the smoothest running engines, is that a backhanded slam against Kioti? or NH? or JD? Or is it simply a statement that stands on its own. I have clearly stated my opinion that the NH loaders are superior to all, in a size versus size comparison, but also stated that the Kioti 120 and 130 units are virtually equals of the NH and even wondered if they were made by the same company. But NH has a full line of these superior loaders, and their specs slightly out rate the Kioti line, which only has 2 sizes for their small tractors. I have also taken JD to task over their new curved arm 400x series loaders for their lack of ergonomics and obvious attempt to place appearance above function. I don't think I am backhanded. I think I tell it like it is. And the fact that I point out flaws in just about everything is testiment that I am willing to be objective. Heck, I even tout the Power Trac equipment, because if you want to get into a front end loader that will outwork any Kioit or NH or JD or Kubota, then go sit on a PT. Even with lower capacities, they will move 50% more dirt in 50% less time than it takes you or me to move with our conventional tractors.

KNotMe · Sep 1, 2004

Weight on a machine that moves beyond that required to provide friction for that movement is a disadvantage. For applications where there is no movement involved and weight is needed, you use the cheapest materials possible, concrete comes to mind. How often do you see steel used as a ballast for cranes.

MMM · Sep 1, 2004

Knotem, getting scientific now... you state the obvious, but we havent devised a weight transfer system for all traction sceanarios. Personally, the disadvantage of adding/removing weight, tying up my hitch is a bigger disadvantage. Do I unload my tires when not using the fel? I don't see the sense of buying a tractor that weighs half as much as another, then turn around and loading tires and hanging suitcases on front to be more like the heavier tractor. Call it ballast if you want, but it's still weight to me, and the heavier tractor can handle the heavier load, and put the power to the ground...just stay off the lawn.
I don't want to step on toes, but after handling a few smaller CUT's I've found they're a bit in no man's land between tractor and lawnmower- a little expensive to mow 2.5 acre lawn and and a little light to do farm work. This is from a farming point of view (and my financial consultant, er wife). Believe me I'd have a light one with 84" rfm if there weren't $50,000 worth of other stuff I need.

MessickFarmEqu · Sep 1, 2004

Plain old weight is not going to make a bit of difference in lifting, balast, and weight in the right places will. It does not matter what the weight of the tractor is, the loader determines the lift capacity and heavier tractor will not lift more simply because its heavier.

We sell both the Kubota and New Holland side by side, Kubota is a light ladder design, New Holland a heavier cast design. Thoughout the line both machines will lift the same weights and still need balasted the same places to be stable doing so. A heavy tractor does not remove the need for proper balast as most of that weight is towards the front and center of the machine, not in the back where its needed.

The weight argument is very valid in the situation you pointed out below, Farming, ground engauging work and major pulling are done better by heavier machines. Thats why every tractor in that class is built using cast iron. Even a massive Case MX 250+HP tractor gets additional suit case weights.

For the kind of work thats done by 98% of CUT owners weight is a moot point.

8561 · Sep 1, 2004

I would have to disagree that weight is a moot point for 98% of CUT owners, although I'm sure it is a moot point for some. If you're a homeowner, and intend to be on you lawn, either mowing or doing other work, I believe it is a consideration. It was for me, but perhaps I am in the minority. If you trailer regularly, I would think it would matter as well. I would much rather have a tractor with less gross weight that I can choose to add implements or weight to so I can achieve what I need to at that particular time. I have some soft areas around my property, and weight is a consideration.

Bob_Skurka · Sep 1, 2004

Tim, I believe that Neil Messick was referring to EXCESS weight being a moot point for 98% of the CUT owners.

8561 · Sep 1, 2004

Re-read it again Bob and I think you're right. My bad and apologies to Neil for misunderstanding his point.

shoppintractors · Sep 1, 2004

Personally, the disadvantage of adding/removing weight, tying up my hitch is a bigger disadvantage. Do I unload my tires when not using the fel? I don't see the sense of buying a tractor that weighs half as much as another, then turn around and loading tires and hanging suitcases on front to be more like the heavier tractor. Call it ballast if you want, but it's still weight to me, and the heavier tractor can handle the heavier load, and put the power to the ground... 

I could not have said it any better...

Don