Trade Offs and Priorites: Maddening

[MMM]

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]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( 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. )</font>

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[8561]

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

 

[shoppintractors]

<font color="blue">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... </font>

I could not have said it any better...

Don