No more 3-pt hitch

kenstrac · Jun 24, 2009

What was wrong with the old Case eagle hitch that was a good system.why don't the MFG replace present arm w/ball with old case eagle hitch end no need for adaptors.

nomad · Jun 24, 2009

Folks,

Is it me or you who are missing some points here?
Let me clarify somethings first so that we can have a discussion on the correct road.

1. Assume that that red frame is welded to the gray frame. What is the difference between classical 3-pt and this a-frame 3pt? In my opinion, it is the same system. But, with this A-frame, 3-pt on implement is TRANSFERRED to the tractor and this cancels 3-pt system in attaching the implements. This means 3-pt is movable now and this means no more 3-pt system on implements. I can't see any difference in force/dynamic/strength diagrams in this a-frame coupling. Again, just imagine red frame and gray frames are welded each other. We can comfortably assume this if we are to analyse forces when operating an attachment; coupled with tractor which both (attachment and tractor) can be considered as single item. Technically, I don't see any difference between classical 3-pt and this a-frame when operating an attachment.

2. This is not a new patented system. Invented by Germans 2 decades ago (patents expired.) We manufactured tousands of this and exported to Europe in last 5 years. But, I don't see it in USA. Just wondering why. Maybe, I am missing somethings in their use?

nomad · Jun 24, 2009

Let me add these also.

Note that the movable (rotating) 3-joints in this coupling are still there when attachment and tractor are coupled. When coupled, there is no difference in the overall picture at all.
Difference can appear in the picture when they are uncoupled. Rear of tractor and front of implements willl look different when they are not attached to each other. But, when the are attached/coupled it is not different than classical 3-pt system at all.

Gittyup · Jun 24, 2009

Looks pretty good to me. I just wouldn't want to modify all my implements to use it, though. Most implements attach easy enough with the classic 3 point system, for my needs. Telescopic arms make all the difference. PHD is the only implement that gives me any real trouble, and I don't see this helping with that.

On new equipment it might have some merit. But, given that a lot guys purchase used, I'm not sure how quickly such a thing could become dominant. But, then I've never understood the expense and bother of outfitting implements with those "easy change" systems. Seems like they are more trouble than they are worth.

nomad · Jun 24, 2009

But, given that a lot guys purchase used, I'm not sure how quickly such a thing could become dominant. But, then I've never understood the expense and bother of outfitting implements with those "easy change" systems. Seems like they are more trouble than they are worth.

Actually, the philosophy behind this A-frame is not same as in that of those "easy change" systems. This A-frame is not an easy change system. It is rather a total solution to a problem of different kinds of quick hitches. This A-frame has started to become a dominant in Europe in last years and also started to be sold in Australia. If one tractor factory gives the male part of a-frame for free, the rest is easy. It will be easier to make female part for implement manufacturers. However, I am not expecting this a-frame cancelling the classical 3-pts as male and female parts have to be sold together and the price will be more than 150-200 USD. Much money considering the economy crisis. But, we can have CEOs walk in workshops now as they are jobless people, right?

Knight · Jun 24, 2009

nomad said:
Folks,

Is it me or you who are missing some points here?
Let me clarify somethings first so that we can have a discussion on the correct road.

1. Assume that that red frame is welded to the gray frame. What is the difference between classical 3-pt and this a-frame 3pt? In my opinion, it is the same system. But, with this A-frame, 3-pt on implement is TRANSFERRED to the tractor and this cancels 3-pt system in attaching the implements. This means 3-pt is movable now and this means no more 3-pt system on implements. I can't see any difference in force/dynamic/strength diagrams in this a-frame coupling. Again, just imagine red frame and gray frames are welded each other. We can comfortably assume this if we are to analyse forces when operating an attachment; coupled with tractor which both (attachment and tractor) can be considered as single item. Technically, I don't see any difference between classical 3-pt and this a-frame when operating an attachment.

2. This is not a new patented system. Invented by Germans 2 decades ago (patents expired.) We manufactured tousands of this and exported to Europe in last 5 years. But, I don't see it in USA. Just wondering why. Maybe, I am missing somethings in their use?

No difference in operating equipment, but a huge difference in connecting up
equipment. Just back up and lift. Slide pin in. Looks like a Home Run to me.

radman1 · Jun 24, 2009

The design idea is not bad. First problem I see is getting manufactures to adopt it. Good luck trying. Would require design changes in attachments and may cost more to manufacture. Would need to set standards by an organization that would be considered credible and universally adopted. Some manufactures still can't get the construction of current Cat 1 or 2 attachments in the proper specifications.

Secondly, like some one mentioned earlier, there is cross over implements between Cat 0, 1, 2 etc. One type of system would not be compatible across the various ranges of 3 pt categories. For example, many rear blades may be both cat 1 or cat 2 compatible. Is one size of frame going to work for both? Not likely.

Third issue is there are millions of 3 pt attachments that are still in service and won't be compatible. The OPs design is similar concept to the Freedom hitch. Adapters are available but the cost of these are prohibitive to most buyers.

SPYDERLK · Jun 24, 2009

Convenience comes at too high a cost when you start installing parts that limit versatility in the bargain. What Id like is link ends that would admit a ball and form a socket around it. Doesnt seem like that would be so hard to do.
larry

nomad · Jun 25, 2009

Actually, this A-frame thing isn't so complicated as it seems to be. Ok, this one in the picture is heavy duty type (for big implements which are not interested by hobby farmers), but, a lighter and a generic version which will fit any tractor and any implement can work well for hobby farmers. Lets estimate a quick cost. My estimate price for light version is around 200 USD. But, you don't need to buy outer u-frame female part. So, buying only male part will cost about 150 usd only. For outer part, DIY, you can simply cut & bend a sheet metal into u or L and just weld it to your old or new implement. That's it. For your every equipment, you will spend 20 USD only. If you have 5 equipments, 5x20 + 150 = 250 USD only, to stay in your seat of tractor when moving from equipment to equipment.