4707 3 Point adjustment issues

[EddieWalker]

I don't think so. in the picture, the part that connects to the lift arm is bent. This bend limits how far the arm will go together once the threads are screwed all the way in.

I'm heading to the store now to get some new new Category 1 lift arm pins. The current ones on my rotary cutter do not have enough room to fit the Category 2 lift arms on the 4707. I already have the adapter shims, but the opening in the arms are 1 3/4 inches wide and my current pins are 1 3/8's inches wide, so when I try to connect it, I can't get the locking pins into the holes.

This is what I'm looking for. Hopefully one of the Tractor stores have them in stock.

Amazon.com: Speeco Lift Arm Pin Category 1 7/8 " X 6-1/2 " Bulk : Patio, Lawn & Garden

Amazon.com: Speeco Lift Arm Pin Category 1 7/8 " X 6-1/2 " Bulk : Patio, Lawn & Garden

www.amazon.com

Once I get the new pins, I'll see if I have any issues hooking it up.

 

[MinnesotaMorg]

Apologies for being MIA the last 2 days. I think I am caught up.

Something isn't right with the set up of this tractor, it should easily be capable of using cat 1 and cat 2 implements.

No. The tractor is purely a category 2 - 3 point hitch. Category 1 implements do not fit on this tractor by default.

I too would be concerned about an implement flopping around.

But I'm with you that it sounds like a bad solution.

I would definitely want 2 stabilizer bars when operating that Bauma.

Make them solve the compatibility issue.

I don’t think I would like that setup. I would be looking for another option.

I think the opinions here have pushed me over the edge. I am going to return it. It's horse**** that it's listed as a category 2 implement and they want me to operate it with one stabilizer out. They need to redesign this so it fits category 2 by default. Not this category 1/2 hybrid stuff.

 

[K5lwq]

Apologies for being MIA the last 2 days. I think I am caught up.



No. The tractor is purely a category 2 - 3 point hitch. Category 1 implements do not fit on this tractor by default.











I think the opinions here have pushed me over the edge. I am going to return it. It's horse**** that it's listed as a category 2 implement and they want me to operate it with one stabilizer out. They need to redesign this so it fits category 2 by default. Not this category 1/2 hybrid stuff.

I do not blame you but I still would have issues with the way the stabilizers are designed. There may be times in the future you might want to hook to another implement that is out of spec.

 

[MinnesotaMorg]

There may be times in the future you might want to hook to another implement that is out of spec.

god I hope not. Is it so hard to just make implements to spec? The arms get plenty narrow to fit any cat 2 implement that's correctly made, I'm not sure what Ill do if I want to use a cat 1 implement.

 

[MinnesotaMorg]

2605 brochure

4707 brochure

CP572 brochure

@Cahaba Valley Farm would be proud of how convoluted hooking up 1 implement can be. Par for the course I suppose when it comes to tractors and tractor related stuff.

 

[Raul-02]

unfortunately it isn't the style with multiple holes you can pick from.

That beggers the imagination. I have to assume that you spent some time searching for more holes. Got a friend with a drill press or a miller you can install new holes located to your liking.

 

[MinnesotaMorg]

I have to assume that you spent some time searching for more holes. Got a friend with a drill press or a miller you can install new holes located to your liking.

I don't know for certain, but I imagine that the stabilizer arms that have multiple holes is for a purpose. That purpose is likely because the hitch is compatible with cat 1 and cat 2, thus the need for such a wide adjustment depending on what category you are using. There isn't any problem with my stabilizers, or the hitch in general. The problem lies with companies making new equipment not to spec.

I know these suggestions are in good faith just trying to help, but I think at this point the implement has been identified as the problem and I am having it returned. I'll be sure to keep this thread updated, I did suggest to them over email that they change the design to follow ASAE category 2 spec, and they were initially a bit dismissive.

 

[JWR]

Ya I see that now , what about where the bracket that holds that end of the sway bar, is it attached to the axel by bolts and could in be moved inboard more to allow the sway bar to move the lower link arm further in. ? Something isn't right with the set up of this tractor, it should easily be capable of using cat 1 and cat 2 implements.

Well probably so, but the culprit is the implement which CLAIMS to be a Cat II device and is not. A manufacturing, engineering, marketing or specification defect. Probably all of the above. As stated in post #67 "The problem lies with companies making new equipment not to spec."

 

[Raul-02]

There isn't any problem with my stabilizers, or the hitch in general. The problem lies with companies making new equipment not to spec.

There is no spec, no standard. There are hopeful ideas about standards but there is no standard. The industry generally has embraced ideas about diametrical standards but even that is mostly serendipity. It's just dumb luck that they are fractionals

 

[WranglerX]

A question I did not see a answer to is what is diameter of pins supplied with cutter....

 

[WranglerX]

There is no spec, no standard. There are hopeful ideas about standards but there is no standard. The industry generally has embraced ideas about diametrical standards but even that is mostly serendipity. It's just dumb luck that they are fractionals

AND there is this....

 

[MinnesotaMorg]

There is no spec, no standard. There are hopeful ideas about standards but there is no standard. The industry generally has embraced ideas about diametrical standards but even that is mostly serendipity. It's just dumb luck that they are fractionals

There is a spec/standard. If there wasn't - then there wouldn't be much point in declaring what category it is. Also see above, ISO and ASABE both have standards listed.

A question I did not see a answer to is what is diameter of pins supplied with cutter....

I don't know the measurement but they fit my ball ends perfectly. The pins are 100% cat 2.

 

[Raul-02]

There is a spec/standard. If there wasn't - then there wouldn't be much point in declaring what category it is. Also see above, ISO and ASABE both have standards listed.

I hear ya. But ISO and ASABE notwithstanding, if manufacturers blow 'em off then there is not, in fact, a standard.
I say it's more of a suggestion than a standard.

 

[Raul-02]

View attachment 751661
AND there is this....

I get it I do. but there are some problems.
1) The publishers of that "standard" don't have any authority to make such a declaration. They can say it, but that's it. It's just words in the wind.
2) There's no enforcement, so there can be no standard no matter how boldly they print the word "standards" on the book. Back to the authority problem.
3) We don't seem to care enough to make it our first and threshold question. We buy the nonconforming implements anyway. The consumer is the only authority and we seem disinterested. So there's no standard.

The dialog has to go like this:
Dealer: I have this Great XYZ Implement that'll do what you want."
Consumer: "Does it conform to ASE -278.6? If it doesn't, I won't touch it no matter how well built you say it is."
And that conversation Never takes place.


If manufacturers ignore it, then it is at best a suggestion.
I look at it like this, and for example, I offer the following:
There are all manner of "National" holidays that are most definitely not national. There is a book (recently there are two) published by a concern that records these "national holidays." The Wisconsin cheesemakers paid for a "national Wisconsin cheese day" so it's in the book, I could get one for me "National Raul-02 day"
But none of these days are actual real holidays, they are just entries in a book run by a private company. They exist for marketing purposes, so the Cheese Sales men can have something to talk about.

Standards like this are in the same class of things that are not in fact real.
Or stated another way Just because some bozo put it in a book doesn't make it a standard.
With no way to enforce it, it is meaningless.

Lubricating Oils meet the standards because they pay a stiff price for failing to do so. No one will buy them if they don't. And they can bask in the pride of adhering closely to the standards.

But Farm Implements? If we really cared, we'd boycott any manufacturer that doesn't adhere to 'em. It'd be the first question we asked our dealers. If Company X put out one single nonconforming impliment, the whole of America would regard their entire lineup with dark distrust.

But we don't do that, so in the real world, outside of those pages, there is no standard.

As an aside, most of the standards we have today arose from military acquisition. The military wouldn't buy a nonconforming product. Armies around the world tend not to get into farming.

 

[MinnesotaMorg]

I see your point about authority. Either way I'm pushing back on the manufacturer. It would appear it starts and stops with what I (the consumer) is willing to accept and I don't accept an implement that doesn't fit on my tractor.

 

[WranglerX]

MinnesotaMorg​

I get it I do. but there are some problems.
1) The publishers of that "standard" don't have any authority to make such a declaration. They can say it, but that's it. It's just words in the wind.
2) There's no enforcement, so there can be no standard no matter how boldly they print the word "standards" on the book. Back to the authority problem.
3) We don't seem to care enough to make it our first and threshold question. We buy the nonconforming implements anyway. The consumer is the only authority and we seem disinterested. So there's no standard.

The dialog has to go like this:
Dealer: I have this Great XYZ Implement that'll do what you want."
Consumer: "Does it conform to ASE -278.6? If it doesn't, I won't touch it no matter how well built you say it is."
And that conversation Never takes place.


If manufacturers ignore it, then it is at best a suggestion.
I look at it like this, and for example, I offer the following:
There are all manner of "National" holidays that are most definitely not national. There is a book (recently there are two) published by a concern that records these "national holidays." The Wisconsin cheesemakers paid for a "national Wisconsin cheese day" so it's in the book, I could get one for me "National Raul-02 day"
But none of these days are actual real holidays, they are just entries in a book run by a private company. They exist for marketing purposes, so the Cheese Sales men can have something to talk about.

Standards like this are in the same class of things that are not in fact real.
Or stated another way Just because some bozo put it in a book doesn't make it a standard.
With no way to enforce it, it is meaningless.

Lubricating Oils meet the standards because they pay a stiff price for failing to do so. No one will buy them if they don't. And they can bask in the pride of adhering closely to the standards.

But Farm Implements? If we really cared, we'd boycott any manufacturer that doesn't adhere to 'em. It'd be the first question we asked our dealers. If Company X put out one single nonconforming impliment, the whole of America would regard their entire lineup with dark distrust.

But we don't do that, so in the real world, outside of those pages, there is no standard.

As an aside, most of the standards we have today arose from military acquisition. The military wouldn't buy a nonconforming product. Armies around the world tend not to get into farming.

You point is well taken, but if industry creates a standard, and a manufacturer does not recognize it or built to it its on the manufacturers shoulders...

Got to agree with MinnesotaMorg... Push it back to manufacturer...

​

 

[MinnesotaMorg]

Good news.

I thought I was going to encounter pushback about returning the unit, but it seems that my message eventually made it to the owner who is going to make a design change and trade out my unit.

I have to say it's a bit relieving that I got someone in the industry to agree with me that something isn't quite right here. After getting enough pushback you start to think you're the crazy one.

I hope this makes the product better going forward, and I guess this is now a good example of pushing back on manufacturers to help enforce standards.

 

[WranglerX]

Waiting patiently for final outcome...

 

[Dmacleo]

Good news.

I thought I was going to encounter pushback about returning the unit, but it seems that my message eventually made it to the owner who is going to make a design change and trade out my unit.

I have to say it's a bit relieving that I got someone in the industry to agree with me that something isn't quite right here. After getting enough pushback you start to think you're the crazy one.

I hope this makes the product better going forward, and I guess this is now a good example of pushing back on manufacturers to help enforce standards.

awesome, keep us informed please.

 

[timmar]

I think I would drill a new hole in the part that attaches to the tractor 90 degrees from the other hole. Maybe split the difference from the end. That would give more flexibility.

View attachment 751529

So I finally got back out to my new (2022 mfg and June 2022 delivery) 4707. After going through this thread I wanted to see just what I have for adjustment. On mine, another hole would not bring the lower bars closer together because the limiting part is the swivel eye on the tractor end of the sway link. Even with the pin removed, the lower bar won't go any closer to center because the swivel eye does not have enough rotation. My lower bars are about 32" apart when there is still some play in the eyes. At 31" everything is bound tight.

It really looks like the geometry (not the pins) was designed for Cat 3 and the adjustments barely get you to Cat 2 spacing.