Where does it stop?

[motownbrowne]

I don't know why I'm jumping in to this silly conversation, but I'll just say this. Jim, we know that gear tractors are more efficient at putting HP to the ground. No one is questioning that. That is why big ag tractors are not hydrostatic, because of efficiency. The difference of 10-15% fuel consumption over the course of a season for a 400 HP tractor would be huge, so the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits. Case closed. It has nothing to do with "superiority" of one or the other, just using the right tool for the job. There's plenty of pieces of big construction equipment that use hydrostatic transmissions because in some situations that is the better tool for the job. It's just not a one size fits all conversation.

As this conversation relates to the real world and to real operators who are reading TBN, hydro tractors make sense for the vast majority of users. This is a forum dominated by compact tractor owners who didn't grow up using tractors on the family farm. These guys need a tractor to do projects around the homestead. They don't put more than 200 hours a year on their machines. These are general figures here; I know that there are many many members who don't fit this description, but they're still in the minority. For users like this, a hydro tractor makes perfect sense. You can put a new operator on a hydro tractor and in an hour or two he'll be able to do stuff that would take much longer to get the hang of with gears. Do these guys need to deliver maximum torque spikes at the drawbar, do wheelies, or put a greater percentage of their HP to the ground? No.

An equally weighted gear tractor and hydro tractor with the same tires can pull just as hard from a stop. HP doesn't even matter. Now, if you're trying to pull a plow, or go up hills without slowing down, you've entered speed into the equation, and HP (and drawbar HP) becomes relevant. Without the need for speed, though. I can yank the same stump, pull the same log, whatever you like, as my tractor equipped with gears.

I grow vegetables for a living, and for what I do with my tractor, I'd never want a geared machine. That's not to say a gear machine doesn't have a place on the farm; I'd love to have a big gear tractor for big drawbar HP projects, but I'm surviving for now without one. I use a rototiller a lot for seedbed prep. Without stopping (which always leaves evidence of the transition) I can instantly adjust my ground speed relative to my tiller tine speed. By watching the soil coming out behind the tiller, I can always be in the exact right gear without even thinking about it. Yeah, you can run a tiller with a gear tractor, but not like that. Is my tractor "superior"? No, but it's a better tool for the jobs I'm doing.

There is no overall superiority on either side here. Some jobs are best accomplished with gears, some with fluid power. The majority of operators here will have better results achieving their tasks with their level of skill behind the wheel of a hydrostatic machine.

 

[WoodChuckDad]

Last week I had to dig for a new waterline on a steep hill. Sitting in the rear seat on the 110tlb to let myself up and down the hill. The driveway was unsafe for vehicles because it was too steep. Most vehicles would slide down the hill. With the creep to reposition it was easier than I expected. Took my time to make sure I did not loose control and slide down. Having the electrically controlled transmission enabled me to use the dipper and bucket to grip the bottom of the ditch while at the same time engaging the transmission, wheels, bucket and stabilizers from the rear seat. Used a chain connected to the 4520 over the top of the hill for safety. This was steep enough the 4520 and box blade could not drive up the hill without the fronts coming up off the ground. Had to back up the hill. Long story short, the hydrostatic transmissions will handle as much as the tractors will and allow you to carefully pick your way up and down a hill.

Sorry about the pictures being rotated on their left side. Just loaded Windows 10 this morning and haven't got the bugs worked out yet.

I have a few places on my land that have slope like that. They are staying natural. At the most, I will cut down a few trees with chainsaw, but the stump stays in the ground.

 

[WoodChuckDad]

As for where it stops? I started off looking for a 25 hp. I bought a 73 hp. Good luck with your search.

 

[AxleHub]

I agree with Motownbrowne . . A nice post. I spent time reading this thread thinking it was going to "go somewhere". . . . it did . . to the land of I wish I had my time back reading this thread. Think how ridiculous a poster sounds when he talks about foing a wheelie on his tractor with pride. In other words . . a front or rearvwheelie is supposed to be a point of proof of value ??

I read so many wrong statements O ran out of fingers. I own a subcompact with 2 ranges on a hst unit. I have hills and our area has hills. I can go up a 17 degree slope in high gear . . and I can go up a 15 degree road hill in high gear. My point is . . when someone makes a foolish statement that generalizes a category of product . . it weakens their debste on any other comments they mske. .

Geared vs hst is like having a long handle shovel and a trenching shovrl and a short d handled shovel . . if the work benefits from one or another . . you bring them all.

One of the points I was surprised no one mentioned in this thread . . is safety. I wonder how many operators in the 1940s and 50s and 60s had accidents because they were using a gear drive tractor? And if that same total group had been using hst instead . . how many of thatbtotal group would have avoided the accident. Why? Because of distraction. And why dustraction? Because unless you're on a flat land area with no obstructions or land deformities . . Gear drive requires some additional concentration that hst doesn't. You can be the best operator . . but gear drive is a more "operator involved" function. And on sidehills and inclines and around tricky banks is where alot of operators did and still do get hurt on a tractor.

And one other thing . . as operators age . . Issues with knees and ankles and hips grow too . . and pedal placement and multiple required movements becomes another consideration for hst choices.

 

[Deezl Smoke]

I agree with Motownbrowne . . A nice post. I spent time reading this thread thinking it was going to "go somewhere". . . . it did . . to the land of I wish I had my time back reading this thread. Think how ridiculous a poster sounds when he talks about foing a wheelie on his tractor with pride. In other words . . a front or rearvwheelie is supposed to be a point of proof of value ??

I read so many wrong statements O ran out of fingers. I own a subcompact with 2 ranges on a hst unit. I have hills and our area has hills. I can go up a 17 degree slope in high gear . . and I can go up a 15 degree road hill in high gear. My point is . . when someone makes a foolish statement that generalizes a category of product . . it weakens their debste on any other comments they mske. .

Geared vs hst is like having a long handle shovel and a trenching shovrl and a short d handled shovel . . if the work benefits from one or another . . you bring them all.

One of the points I was surprised no one mentioned in this thread . . is safety. I wonder how many operators in the 1940s and 50s and 60s had accidents because they were using a gear drive tractor? And if that same total group had been using hst instead . . how many of thatbtotal group would have avoided the accident. Why? Because of distraction. And why dustraction? Because unless you're on a flat land area with no obstructions or land deformities . . Gear drive requires some additional concentration that hst doesn't. You can be the best operator . . but gear drive is a more "operator involved" function. And on sidehills and inclines and around tricky banks is where alot of operators did and still do get hurt on a tractor.

And one other thing . . as operators age . . Issues with knees and ankles and hips grow too . . and pedal placement and multiple required movements becomes another consideration for hst choices.

Thank you Axlehub.

Hydrostatic has the ability to utilize full engine power without regard to speed. This works well for many applications from a rototiller to a 100 ton mining shovel. With hydro you have full engine power available all the time. This does come at a price however. As mentioned, "efficiency" being the largest expense. Even hydro requires gears to be user friendly. Otherwise why not put a hydraulic motor right on each wheel and eliminate the "final reduction"? Because running any vehicle that way would be a true joke.

True gear drive with a dry clutch is, at this point in time, the most efficient means of power transfer when multiple speeds are required. It's much lower maintenance and much lower cost to produce. But use of full engine power is directly related/limited to the chosen travel speed gear set.

There are hybrids out now that combine much of the efficiency of the gear drive with the variable speed qualities of the hydrostatic.

As to my original statement, I am narrowing it to a tractor and loader, then going with an aftermarket hoe. I called Woodmaxx about the 8600, they do deliver free all the way to the west coast and I can get more backhoe for barely over half the price of the tractor color matched one.

 

[k0ua]

I don't know why I'm jumping in to this silly conversation, but I'll just say this. Jim, we know that gear tractors are more efficient at putting HP to the ground. No one is questioning that. That is why big ag tractors are not hydrostatic, because of efficiency. The difference of 10-15% fuel consumption over the course of a season for a 400 HP tractor would be huge, so the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits. Case closed. It has nothing to do with "superiority" of one or the other, just using the right tool for the job. There's plenty of pieces of big construction equipment that use hydrostatic transmissions because in some situations that is the better tool for the job. It's just not a one size fits all conversation.

As this conversation relates to the real world and to real operators who are reading TBN, hydro tractors make sense for the vast majority of users. This is a forum dominated by compact tractor owners who didn't grow up using tractors on the family farm. These guys need a tractor to do projects around the homestead. They don't put more than 200 hours a year on their machines. These are general figures here; I know that there are many many members who don't fit this description, but they're still in the minority. For users like this, a hydro tractor makes perfect sense. You can put a new operator on a hydro tractor and in an hour or two he'll be able to do stuff that would take much longer to get the hang of with gears. Do these guys need to deliver maximum torque spikes at the drawbar, do wheelies, or put a greater percentage of their HP to the ground? No.

An equally weighted gear tractor and hydro tractor with the same tires can pull just as hard from a stop. HP doesn't even matter. Now, if you're trying to pull a plow, or go up hills without slowing down, you've entered speed into the equation, and HP (and drawbar HP) becomes relevant. Without the need for speed, though. I can yank the same stump, pull the same log, whatever you like, as my tractor equipped with gears.

I grow vegetables for a living, and for what I do with my tractor, I'd never want a geared machine. That's not to say a gear machine doesn't have a place on the farm; I'd love to have a big gear tractor for big drawbar HP projects, but I'm surviving for now without one. I use a rototiller a lot for seedbed prep. Without stopping (which always leaves evidence of the transition) I can instantly adjust my ground speed relative to my tiller tine speed. By watching the soil coming out behind the tiller, I can always be in the exact right gear without even thinking about it. Yeah, you can run a tiller with a gear tractor, but not like that. Is my tractor "superior"? No, but it's a better tool for the jobs I'm doing.

There is no overall superiority on either side here. Some jobs are best accomplished with gears, some with fluid power. The majority of operators here will have better results achieving their tasks with their level of skill behind the wheel of a hydrostatic machine.

Very well stated.

 

[arrow]

I agree with Motownbrowne . . A nice post. I spent time reading this thread thinking it was going to "go somewhere". . . . it did . . to the land of I wish I had my time back reading this thread. Think how ridiculous a poster sounds when he talks about foing a wheelie on his tractor with pride. In other words . . a front or rearvwheelie is supposed to be a point of proof of value ??

I read so many wrong statements O ran out of fingers. I own a subcompact with 2 ranges on a hst unit. I have hills and our area has hills. I can go up a 17 degree slope in high gear . . and I can go up a 15 degree road hill in high gear. My point is . . when someone makes a foolish statement that generalizes a category of product . . it weakens their debste on any other comments they mske. .

Geared vs hst is like having a long handle shovel and a trenching shovrl and a short d handled shovel . . if the work benefits from one or another . . you bring them all.

One of the points I was surprised no one mentioned in this thread . . is safety. I wonder how many operators in the 1940s and 50s and 60s had accidents because they were using a gear drive tractor? And if that same total group had been using hst instead . . how many of thatbtotal group would have avoided the accident. Why? Because of distraction. And why dustraction? Because unless you're on a flat land area with no obstructions or land deformities . . Gear drive requires some additional concentration that hst doesn't. You can be the best operator . . but gear drive is a more "operator involved" function. And on sidehills and inclines and around tricky banks is where alot of operators did and still do get hurt on a tractor.

And one other thing . . as operators age . . Issues with knees and ankles and hips grow too . . and pedal placement and multiple required movements becomes another consideration for hst choices.

This post brings out the point of "variables" that I was speaking to earlier. Perhaps its wisest part has to do with how the "majority" of us use their tractors. What goads me into the debate is the seemingly generalization that even if it's weighted toward a preponderance of mindsets, may not reach the nooks and crannies of a person asking the basic question. The results of which help create a seeming truth for the majority but may be false for the particular.

I do suppose going round and round being a propensity of TBN, does eventually help even if what one thinks as "foolishness" abounds. After all, even if lost in a forest and going round and round to find the answer of the way out, one is still learning from the total process.

 

[jenkinsph]

I don't know why I'm jumping in to this silly conversation, but I'll just say this. Jim, we know that gear tractors are more efficient at putting HP to the ground. No one is questioning that. That is why big ag tractors are not hydrostatic, because of efficiency. The difference of 10-15% fuel consumption over the course of a season for a 400 HP tractor would be huge, so the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits. Case closed. It has nothing to do with "superiority" of one or the other, just using the right tool for the job. There's plenty of pieces of big construction equipment that use hydrostatic transmissions because in some situations that is the better tool for the job. It's just not a one size fits all conversation.

As this conversation relates to the real world and to real operators who are reading TBN, hydro tractors make sense for the vast majority of users. This is a forum dominated by compact tractor owners who didn't grow up using tractors on the family farm. These guys need a tractor to do projects around the homestead. They don't put more than 200 hours a year on their machines. These are general figures here; I know that there are many many members who don't fit this description, but they're still in the minority. For users like this, a hydro tractor makes perfect sense. You can put a new operator on a hydro tractor and in an hour or two he'll be able to do stuff that would take much longer to get the hang of with gears. Do these guys need to deliver maximum torque spikes at the drawbar, do wheelies, or put a greater percentage of their HP to the ground? No.

An equally weighted gear tractor and hydro tractor with the same tires can pull just as hard from a stop. HP doesn't even matter. Now, if you're trying to pull a plow, or go up hills without slowing down, you've entered speed into the equation, and HP (and drawbar HP) becomes relevant. Without the need for speed, though. I can yank the same stump, pull the same log, whatever you like, as my tractor equipped with gears.

I grow vegetables for a living, and for what I do with my tractor, I'd never want a geared machine. That's not to say a gear machine doesn't have a place on the farm; I'd love to have a big gear tractor for big drawbar HP projects, but I'm surviving for now without one. I use a rototiller a lot for seedbed prep. Without stopping (which always leaves evidence of the transition) I can instantly adjust my ground speed relative to my tiller tine speed. By watching the soil coming out behind the tiller, I can always be in the exact right gear without even thinking about it. Yeah, you can run a tiller with a gear tractor, but not like that. Is my tractor "superior"? No, but it's a better tool for the jobs I'm doing.

There is no overall superiority on either side here. Some jobs are best accomplished with gears, some with fluid power. The majority of operators here will have better results achieving their tasks with their level of skill behind the wheel of a hydrostatic machine.

This is an excellent post with good examples.:thumbsup:

 

[Gary Fowler]

There is no way you can pop a wheelie with any hydro tractor I have owned and used. The next question I have is why would you want to? Slow steady ever increasing power applied to the ground is one of the virtues of a hydrostatic transmission. I have many times appreciated the ability to apply power in a nice slow even manner to pull over trees etc. I don't understand the usefulness of this wheelie popping application of torque? Perhaps I have missed something?

I was popping a slight wheelie with my TLB a couple days ago. I had a huge log clamped against the boom on my backhoe in order to drag it (I had no chain) a few feet distance. When I lifted the stabs, the front wheels came off the ground. They wouldn't lift far because the log would touch the ground, but I managed to drag the log several feet away so it was accessible with the FEL.

 

[k0ua]

I was popping a slight wheelie with my TLB a couple days ago. I had a huge log clamped against the boom on my backhoe in order to drag it (I had no chain) a few feet distance. When I lifted the stabs, the front wheels came off the ground. They wouldn't lift far because the log would touch the ground, but I managed to drag the log several feet away so it was accessible with the FEL.

Well, I guess it is possible with a backhoe on. I have never owned a backhoe, only loaders on all of my tractors.