Having some experience under my belt, I am even more convinced now than I was when I began looking at tractors a year ago that the design of compact tractors, for us weekend diggers as opposed to real farmers, is all wrong. It is a design that has devolved, in an anti-Darwinian fashion, from a series of historical compromises and from blind mimicry of grandpa's agricultural tractor.
Here is a list of the design flaws and the obvious remedies:
1. The 3ph is an abomination. It is an historical industry compromise that, like all compromises, is a mediocrity at best. It is the interface that has launched a thousand hernias (and a googolplex cursewords). It needs to be replaced by the kind of simple, 30-second attachment interface that skidsteers have.
At the time it was introduced it was a Gift from Above. Before that all tractor companies had their own line of implements, and using one on any ohter tractor was a nightmare.
With the various quick connect systems, some of the pain is relieved. Much of the rest of the pain can be relieved by hanging your implements instead of parking them.
If a consortium of manufacturers got together to make pairs of adapter plates -- one master that attached to the 3PH, and a slave plate that attached to every implement you would get the conversion at the cost of only a few hundred bucks per implement, plus possibly the need for some longer PTO shafts.
2. Mowers should be on the front of a tractor. This is so for both finish mowers and brush mowers. It is also so for snow blades and snowblowers. Having any of these in the middle or back of the tractor is inefficient, clumsy, and puts you in the hospital for with neck problems in addition to your hernia. The solution is having fully independent attachment interfaces on both ends of the tractor. Thus, for example, you could have the mower on the front and the FEL on the back as your "regular" set-up. This would also have the virtue of eliminating the need for clunky, useless counterweights for the rear of the tractor such as weight boxes, concrete-filled cans or trendy boxblades.
Certain an option. A mower for the front has to be a different design, Would certainly make mowing easier.
The FEL arms would make it tricky to get to my seat.
3. This naturally means you should be able to swivel the driver's seat around and drive in either direction. Thereby, your FEL or hoe would then be in front of you for proper operation, with the mower (or other useful implement) then becoming the "rear" counterweight.
Seat flipping means duplicate controls (Have you priced 4 gang hydraulic valves lately) which also means greater complexity.
4. The power connection to the attachment interfaces should be hydraulic, not mechanical. Just one-second quick-connect couplers. No more dangerous, twirling pto shafts to to catch your lovebead neckaces and choke you to death. No more clumsy, heavy implement shafts. No more lining up splines, or fiddling with collars and buttons.
Hydraulic power is substantially more expensive. It's also a lot less efficient 20-50% less efficient. Which means you need a bigger engine, a big hydraulic pump. Which makes it more expensive.
I turn my PTO off before connecting anything to it. If you don't use breakaway safety love beads, you won't choke. Far more likely to have your neck broken as you wrap around some really high torque. But I get your meaning.
My deutz when the PTO is disenganged has a spline shaft that rotates slowly -- about 2 rpm -- with about a pound of torque. Makes lining up splines a piece of cake. Some of the PTO shafts are awkward to engage in the confined space of the PTO shield. I agree that needs work.
5. All wheels should be the same size. Small front wheels are (for us weekend diggers) a largely useless artifact of agricultural crop row navigation. Might as well put sundials on tractors. Having equal wheel sizes would have many benefits. There would be a larger tractor footrprint and hence greater overall floatation. There would be less scuffing of lawns and imprinting in soils, and less sinking into wet soils and mud, because it is the small front tires that are the primary culprits in these matters. You could change tire sizes without worrying about differing 4wd circumference ratios between the front and rear wheels. You could fill all four tires for more traction and stability, and be driving an overall more weight-balanced vehicle. You would have better traction in 4wd, which should be significant in mud and snow applications.
I disagree. Front wheel assist on both my Deutz 6250 (A utility, not a compact) and my kubota
B7100 is very valueable. Larger wheels would require the articulated steering to have a reasonable steering radius.
6. Because mowing is a primary activity of compact users, these tractors should all articulate. This means they pivot in the middle to promote ease of turning and driving.
Now you have to have a hinge that will have a huge amount of torque on it when using any large front or rear mounted heavy object. Take anohter look at the frame. There is a reason that tractors are not made with unibody sheet tin construction. Take another look at articulated loaders. Look at the size of the castings needed for the articulation.
7. They should be significantly cheaper than they are. Why should a small compact tractor cost more than a compact car? Tractors are 1930 technology, for goodness sakes, and have relatively few parts. Something is wrong. They are way overpriced.
The New Holland Tractor I want -- with bi-directional driving, PTO and hydraulics at both ends --- was only $120,000 last time I looked.
Sigh.
According to U of Nebraska even 30 years ago a tractor's average life span was 12,000 hours. A car driven at 40 mph (average of city and country) for 12,000 hours would cover half a million miles. Tractors are abused, neglected, run on bad roads, left out in the rain sometimes for months at a time.
Another way to look at it is the price per pound. I've had two tractors and a riding mower. All of them cost about $3.50 per pound 2nd hand. New they were about 3 times that.
Having been on sabbatical from this forum for several months, I am pleased to observe that there is now an American-made product that cures most of these problems and meets most of these objectives: the Power-Trac, courageously purchased by Willingtonpizza. Having reviewed the Power-Trac on their website, it is obvious that there is no sane reason anymore to purchase the historically-flawed compact tractor.
You all may disgree with this, of course.
I think you have some good ideas.
The compact tractor is a crummy lawnmower. Or it's a crummy tractor. Almost all users will do better to get a utility tractor and a ZTR lawnmower. It will be cheaper, and will allow you to do a better job of both.
