Curved VS Straight Loaders: PHOTOS

MadReferee · Oct 9, 2004

Bob, I think you are missing my point. Comparing a larger frame tractor to a smaller frame tractor is like comparing an apple to an orange. A more appropriate comparison might have been between the TC24 and a B2410 family tractor or some other similar sized tractor. A "real world" experiment would have done this since in a "real world" those are the ones a buyer would be comparing. Additionally, I think you may have described your experiment in such a way as to skew the results in favor of one over the other.

Your testing methodology is fine, it's just the parameters you used that are at fault.

Bob_Skurka · Oct 9, 2004

I was just wondering if NH had designed a higher seat, maybe for that reason, in addition to the sloped hood.


ns_in_tx: I won't claim to know why NH did anything, but the seat is on an incline so as the operator moves the seat to the rear, it also goes up. Just my guess, but I suspect it has more to do with giving a taller operator more legroom than to increasing the visibility???

PineRidge: regarding starting another debate about HST vs GEAR . . . I might have been dumb enough to get diesel on my daughter's school uniforms, but I'm not dumb enough to stand in front of EITHER a gear or an HST tractor while an angry mob has the keys.

Bob_Skurka · Oct 9, 2004

A more appropriate comparison might have been between the TC24 and a B2410 family tractor or some other similar sized tractor. A "real world" experiment would have done this since in a "real world" those are the ones a buyer would be comparing. 

Mad, we will have to agree to disagree on this. I think the B2410 is not comparable simply because the loader is so much weaker than the NH loader. The loader on the B2910 and the TC24 are nearly identical. The loader on the B2410 is a weak little sister by comparision. Further, you can see from the pictures that while the B2910 is longer, the two machines are basically very similar in size in other dimensions including having identically sized front wheels/tires, similar weights, etc. Sure, one is a bit longer but functionally they are similar. So similar in fact that someone who considers one machine might very well consider the other, or maybe do as I did and buy both.

Alan L. · Oct 9, 2004

Its obvious the slope hood gives better visability, but I wonder how long the Kubota is out to the front of the hood, compared to the TC24? If you have more tractor in front of you, its obviously going to block more of your view.

Bob_Skurka · Oct 9, 2004

Alan, I did not take this picture so it has a different perspective, but this is a shot of a NH TC40 with a loader.

NH TC40 with loader, a view from the driver's seat.

Now bear in mind that this tractor would be significantly larger than the B2910.

Zork · Oct 10, 2004

Yes, thank you for taking the time to check this out. Can you get one of those rear view video thingies that you put on cars for the front of that tractor? Would it come as standard equipment from the factory for those of us with kids under 21? The sloped hood and arms truly make a diffrence. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

MadReferee · Oct 10, 2004

( Mad, we will have to agree to disagree on this. I think the B2410 is not comparable simply because the loader is so much weaker than the NH loader. The loader on the B2910 and the TC24 are nearly identical. The loader on the B2410 is a weak little sister by comparison. Further, you can see from the pictures that while the B2910 is longer, the two machines are basically very similar in size in other dimensions including having identically sized front wheels/tires, similar weights, etc. Sure, one is a bit longer but functionally they are similar. So similar in fact that someone who considers one machine might very well consider the other, or maybe do as I did and buy both. )

Yes, we can agree to disagree.

However, based on what has been posted here on TBN (which is far from scientific /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif) most people who are looking at TC24's are also looking at the B2410 family not the B2910 family. Why? Probably because of size, weight, maneuverability and not just the loader. The B2410 is 7.5" shorter, 7.5" narrower, has a wheelbase that is 6.5" shorter, and is almost 300 lbs lighter (without loader) than the B2910.

I do not have the TC24 specs so I can't do a valid comparison, but I still get back to my apples to apples analogy. You are comparing 2 different classes of tractors, one of which happens to have a better loader with better visibility.

PineRidge · Oct 10, 2004

I do not have the TC24 specs so I can't do a valid comparison, but I still get back to my apples to apples analogy. You are comparing 2 different classes of tractors, one of which happens to have a better loader with better visibility. 

Mad I think that the better loader and higher visibility is the point of this whole topic. Anyone that thinks the squared off hood and loader arms might afford more visibility than the pictures that Bob posted using any other make or model tractor are more than welcome to post the picture(s) for comparison purposes. Most of us here would also love to see them. But I think that you'll not find a better view over the hood than New Holland affords IMHO.

Bob_Skurka · Oct 10, 2004

PineRidge we can't forget the Kioti CK series tractors and the 120 & 130 loaders. While they are only a very small % of the total tractor sales, they also have the sloped/curved hoods and curved loader arms (the LK and DK machines are traditional style tractors with flat hoods/dogleg loader arms). The one CK series I saw had visibility on par with the New Holland machines. There have been a couple posts by people who compared NH and Kioti and said the Kioti was not quite as good (in terms of visibility) as the NH units, but was still much better than a traditional tractor.

The curved/sloped hood with curved loader arms is validated in all sizes of the NH CUT line as is illustrated by the TC40 picture posted above. Other than Case/Farmall, the sister company to NH tractors, no other brand offers a line up of curved armed loaders that competes with the visibility that has been illustrated in this thread.

Even JD is starting to work on visibility, while they still have some work to do with their long & wide hoods, they are tapering them and working to increase visibility. As JD rolls out their new tractors, they have been reshaping their hoods to give better forward visibility. They started this trend with their larger CUTs and seem to be rolling it through their product line. The JD 400x loaders are a COSMETIC attempt to make a curved arm loader, but they have not actually built a true curved arm loader yet. So JD has apparently finished about 1/2 of the puzzle, but should probably be considered a work in progress.

shoppintractors · Oct 10, 2004

From a 'front end loader' perspective there is not an apples to apples comparison based on frame sizes/HP between class I & II New Hollands and the 'B' series Kubota's. From my view, the specifications will show the 12LA(TC24) and the LA402(B2910) loaders are as close as it gets.

It depends on what the priorities are. You can compare Loader specs......or....your can compare by tractor frame size/HP. In this instance you can't have it both ways. It will be interesting to see what Kubota has in store for the rumored B2910 redesign.

After test driving tractors with the curved arm loaders and sloped hoods.....I keyed in on the better visibility immediately.

Don

Poncho · Oct 10, 2004

Bob..... Thanks for taking the time to put this together. I think people try to get tied up to much in the technical minutia, when the only constant that matters is the operator. The machines are what they are as manufactured and trying to tie in seat heights, length of hoods etc., is not applicable in my opinion. This is why whenever someone posts the question "which tractor do I buy" the most common response.. try them all and get the one you are most comfortable with, along with "reputable dealer". I apprciate the fact that you used 2 different tractors of "comparable" size. To me... the more you can see and can apply depth perception, the better you are and if curved loader arms help accomplish this, than I see it as a benefit. All this and I don't even have a tractor with a loader /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

jinman · Oct 10, 2004

I'm gonna jump in here again with another thought about curved loader arms. I think they are easier to manufacture and this may be a strong reason they appear on new lines of compact tractors. Kubota has building compacts much longer than New Holland, John Deere, or Kioti. Their tooling and factory processes would have to be changed to accomodate such a radical change in geometry. I think the production lines of New Holland and Kioti are probably using new tools and techniques for bending the tubing that makes up the arms and they are producing a loader that reflects that ability to manufacture in a different way.

Maybe it's all bogus theory, but I think we always should put the economics of change into the equation. If Kubota feels their market share is lacking because of not having a feature like the curved arms, I bet they will respond. Has anyone heard of a whole new production series of tractors from Kubota? With the surge in compact sales, everyone is looking for something new and "spiffy" to market. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

To20Chris · Oct 10, 2004

I'm not sure I can agree with that - I imagine that curved arms would take an investment in the right kind of manufacturing equipment, while the straight arm design can be built with fairly rudimentary processes. Once you’ve got the equipment then it might be a bit quicker and easier, but while it might save a couple of welds in the middle it still involves all of the same processes as the straight arms do, it just adds the bending step.

Bob_Skurka · Oct 10, 2004

Jim & Chris, I suspect the arms are not bent at all.

On the inside of the arms is a seam that might be some sort of a weld??? The seam runs the length of the tube. I would suspect that the tube, which looks like a square wall tube that is bent, is really folded thick sheet steel that is then welded? The seam is very neat, neater than most welds I've seen, so considering I sell candy to kids, and considering it doesn't take a lot of brain power to do that, I might be totally wrong.

OkeeDon · Oct 10, 2004

My son-in-law took my tractor back over to Okeechobee to do some hurricane cleanup, so I can't run out and check, but I think I always assumed that the arms on my 12LA were forged. I never "thunked" them to see if they were hollow or solid, but they just seemed to have a cast or forged look to them. and I don't think that cast would be strong enough.

jinman · Oct 10, 2004

( I suspect the arms are not bent at all. )

( ...is really folded thick sheet steel that is then welded? The seam is very neat, neater than most welds I've seen,.... )

Bob, after running Wroughtn_Harv's bending machine and seeing how easy something like this could be done (just on a bigger scale), I'm going to disagree. I'm also going to point out that you even stated the best reason I can think of that the arms are not welded. I've looked at my arms and I don't see the bead you spoke of, but I saw lots of welds on the ends and in the middle where the lift and tilt cylinders attach. None of those welds are as neat as the weld you speak of. Why would NH make that weld near perfect on the arms, grind it down to bodyshop quality, and then have normal "sloppy" welds on everything attached to it? I believe the arms are an extruded square tube that is bent on some type of rolling jig that puts it in the perfect shape before the ends are installed. That bead you see may be from the roller and the fact that the metal on the inside of the bend has to be compressed.

OkeeDon, I think if you'll just tap on your loader arms you'll hear they sound hollow. Just imagine how much heavier they would be if they were solid. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

jjcc246 · Oct 10, 2004

I have to say that you put some effert and thought into it and it shows, nice job. But. When I bought my tc30 I looked at the NH with the curved front and as far as seeing and using the bucket, there was no differance. On mt TC30 (squared front) I can see the cutting edge of the bucket perfect. I think the seat position and the physical size of the operater makes a differance. If your on the short side, then your going to be standing up on the seat. If your average height like me 6' then you'll probally have no problem. For the differance in money for the machines I wouldn't base my decission soley on the bucket, there are other factors to consider.

PineRidge · Oct 10, 2004

I just took a good look at mine and I have to agree with Jim as they really do look like they were bent/formed and then the ends were attached.

rswyan · Oct 11, 2004

Mad wrote:

( If not then the viewing angle to the front will be different which will influence the distance viewed forward thus skewing the results. )

One thing that shows this clearly is the horizon line in the four pictures side by side that shoppingtractors posted - ideally it would be the same - but the camera is pointing up more in the Kubota photos than it is in the NH photos (it's fairly close in two of the photos but still favors the NH slightly.) This will affect the view - making the NH seem as though it provides more visibility - and the Kubota less - that's just a fact, optical and geometric.

Bob writes:

( With the operator being used as the control factor, then the frame of view remains realisticly valid. )

But only if the operator is looking out on the same geometric plane. Try tipping your chin up an inch while taking the NH photos and see what happens.

In my normal day job as an CG (computer graphics) artist and 3D animator one of the things I often have to do is match actual live action footage shot with a camera and then composite in 3D elements. In order to maintain illusion and suspend the disbelief of the viewer it is necessary that the perspective of 3D computer generated imagery exactly match the live footage. This means that number of things (field of view, camera angles, lighting, etc.) have to match between both the actual camera footage, and the 3D elements which I create, which are eventually then composited together. If one fails to make the match, it is readily apparent that something is 'wrong' - most people will sense this even if they can't quite put their finger on exactly what it is.

One way to handle this in this test would have been to put two objects a couple hundred feet out (one in front of both tractors) and then point the camera at them (putting each object in the exact center of the frame.) This would have resulted in almost exactly the same perspective, but would probably be hard to get an exact match handholding a camera.

Having said all that, it is fairly clear to me that the sloped hood/curved arms probably do provide better forward visibility close in, even though the evidence provided isn't exact or perfect, it's probably close enough.

BTW, thanks Bob for taking the time and effort - it's a pretty good illustration.

Bob_Skurka · Oct 11, 2004

even though the evidence provided isn't exact or perfect, it's probably close enough.


Well I tried to shoot from the same relative position and make them as good as possible. My goal was to present as unbiased view as is possible.

While you have the trained eyes and can make a strong case that my pictures are not perfect, I do appreciate the fact that you indicated that they are close enough to show that the evidence I presented is valid.

Based on the basic validity of the images, I think now it is up to the individual user to decide for themselves how much they could benefit from the sloped hood curved arm set up. After using both on many occasions, I believe most people underestimate how much benefit they would receive, but while I believe that, I wouldn't trade in a tractor to get a curved arm machine. But it buying new, I would definately factor the ease of use and the added productivity into the decision process because if I can work faster, then I can get more work done in less time . . . and that is the reason I got a tractor in the first place.