Curved VS Straight Loaders: PHOTOS

Bob_Skurka · Oct 11, 2004

Daryl, the main perspective of this tread is how the curved arms and sloped curved hoods work in conjunction to make loader work more productive. As you state, the straight hood may be better for real farming work, but for the context of this thread, I think we are more focused on the "estate type" uses that a typical CUT would be used for, and with the exception of tilling a garden, I don't think most of the users are going to be doing a lot of field plowing/etc.

jinman · Oct 11, 2004

Look at the loader arms on Deeres new 4000 series. I think JD is making a change too. Can Kubota be far behind?

Inspector507 · Oct 11, 2004

Ron,
 steel casting not a forged part 
Of course they're cast and not forged /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
What was I thinking when I made that post?

Inspector507 · Oct 11, 2004

did you measure how high above the seat your eye level is, seat location, etc? Your view is very similar to mine, but seems to be taken from a slightly lower position 

Bob,
I did go back out and measure. It took the wife, a level and a tape measure but...... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Seat (at my comfort zone) is 38" above the floor. My eye level is 67" above the floor, or 29" above the seat. Keep in mind, the seat height changes as the seat is moved back for longer legs.
Of course my camera angle was probably tilted down, I was looking "down" on the hood and trying to see the bucket. That would be the most logical line of sight if you are using the loader.

rockyridgefarm · Oct 11, 2004

Great job, Bob!

( current line up is not any better in terms of visibility than Kubota, at least not with their under 40hp machines.)

OK, I squinted HARD at your pictures, and other than grass, I see NO GREEN... /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

I drove all three side by side, doing loader work when I bought. While the Deere appeared like it would be just as bad as Kubota, in use it was actually very close to the Boomer. I am sure that seat position is affecting this somewhat, but I looked very carefully at the machines, and the Deere had significantly better visibility than the Kubota (L3430)

I have think that Deere straddled the fence with the 4000TENs, giving pretty good visibility while keeping the tractor "look" The TWENTYs are pretty incremental.

That said I love the Boomers
I always have. I think their hood and loader are awesome. The Deere 4x20 machines with their 400x Loaders aren't quite there. But I don't think they were ever that far off, anyway.

I will try and duplicate your procedure on my machine... Maybe I am at least half right...

Bob_Skurka · Oct 11, 2004

29" above the seat. 
Inspector: That would explain a lot in terms of the perspective, my eyes were 34" above the seat, so 5" of added height is why I could see over the loader arms and see the bucket over the arms (just barely) but the hydraulic cylinders of loader arms in your pictures are blocking the top view of the bucket.

 I have think that Deere straddled the fence with the 4000TENs, giving pretty good visibility while keeping the tractor "look" The TWENTYs are pretty incremental.

Mike: my observation of the JD machines is the newer machines are better and the older machines are pretty bad. So the 4x1x machines are pretty good, but the old x9x machines are on par with the Kubotas, etc. I've not sat on the 4x2x machines yet, but only because I've been busy, there is a dealer just a couple minutes from my house and I was meaning to stop over there to play.

PDe · Oct 11, 2004

Bob, Thanks for all the effort. Greater visibility is easy to "see" with the curved arms and sloped hood. Now I'll have one more thing to ponder when buying my next tractor. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

rockyridgefarm · Oct 11, 2004

OOPS! Bob I am sorry, but I never even considered the 90 series when I talked about Deere. When you consider them, I can see where you would put Deere in the visibility dept.

But then you have to average the TC30 and 3010 with the Boomers...!

Awesomne investigative reporting, Bob! Wish there were a few like you in news reporting business...

BTW, How do you think all that slope stuff would help in my bale jumping... /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

AndyM · Oct 11, 2004

HENRO I JUST SOLD MY RFM THIS SUMMER!!! NOW I ONLY HAVE A MMM. I guess you'll have to find a different volunteer for that one. But I will say that I like using both RMF and MMM and each as strengths and weaknesses for specific mowing applications. 

Bob, you'll have to bring your TC24 and MMM over to my house and I'll get out my TC18 and RFM, and we'll have a good old fashioned mow-a-thon. Henro can come over and set up cones on my backyard test track and be the judge of the ultimate lawn mowing test.

I can already visualize another classic thread in the making...

Bob_Skurka · Oct 11, 2004

BTW, How do you think all that slope stuff would help in my bale jumping.. 

Mike, just a guess here, but seeing as how the lovely Mrs_Bob was a princess for the Indianapolis 500 (many years ago) and consequently that put my seat right on the winners circle for the race, I think I know a little something about aerodynamics of vehicles (at least from the perspective of a spectator who couldn't keep his eyes off the pretty girl at the race track) I would have to say that the sloping hood of the Boomers would create considerable downpressure on the front end of the tractor when you got the machine up to "bale jumping speed" which would likely result in forcing the nose of the tractor down prematurely and probably causing the front wheels to contact the bales on your way down resulting in an end-over-end roll. Now if you are going to get into competitive bale jumping, I would suggest something like an Oliver "Fleetline" series, or possibly a tricycle Cockshutt 70 series tractor. Both are very streamlined, have raked back sheetmetal and I think might really elevate you into the pro-class of bale jumpers! Hope that helped. Now if you get really serious, go for a orchard tractor with enclosed wheels, those have the least wind resistence and will allow longer jumps (but I hear that in some states they have been outlawed for bale jumping competition because they can overshoot the landing areas and more than one has ended up landing in the hog exhibit splashing spectators with less than sanitary muck).

Alan L. · Oct 11, 2004

Yeah, I see what you're talking about. There's hardly any hood out there at all. Good illustration.

jinman · Oct 12, 2004

( Of course they're cast and not forged )

Jerry, it's just a curious difference, but the ends of the loader arms on my 16LA are not cast caps. They look like formed plate steel. The new 16/17LAs and 18LAs are now cast caps. Maybe the cast process is also easier than forming the steel. I had never noticed that until you posted your picture. I looked at some photos I've taken recently and the changes are all obvious. /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

I've attached a photo of the 16LA where the difference is obvious.

kensfarm · Oct 12, 2004

It def. looked diff. to me too.. I wonder if it is a cost factor.. or a strength factor that made them change it.. mine's the old type too.

PineRidge · Oct 12, 2004

Jim made a good point. I kept hearing forged or cast ends being mentioned yet my 17LA loader didn't use them. Once I saw that picture I realized the difference on my rig and I have to agree with the fact that the formed plate steel probably costs CNH a lot less to manufacture.

pekabu · Oct 12, 2004

Thanks for the photo Jinman. Everytime I look at my 12LA I say to myself "Wow, that is one strong setup". Especially the cast ends to the loader arms. After looking at some of the loaders JD, and Kubota make, it makes me think it is way overbuilt since they (JD, K...)don't seem to be having any issues.

Anyone have any pictures of a loader breaking at either the back pivot point or the front? Not the pin so much as the arm itself? I would be surprised to see one. (Except for the Dozer guy who kept trying to push every tree down with his loader)

hobbyfarm · Oct 12, 2004

Bob,
What a ripoff, you not only have two tractors /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif, but you've got two tape measures also!! /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
phil

Bob_Skurka · Oct 12, 2004

Well actually 4 tractors and 5 tape measures! But only 3 have loaders. And one of those loaders is on a garden tractor, so it only counts as 1/2 a loader?

JayC · Oct 12, 2004

Well actually 4 tractors and 5 tape measures! But only 3 have loaders. And one of those loaders is on a garden tractor, so it only counts as 1/2 a loader? 

Are you talking about the Ventrac with that bucket thing? (It's late and too much caffeine. lol) At first I was wondering what garden tractor has a loader? Then I looked at your profile, saw the Ventrac, and I remembered seeing a pic of the Ventrac with that bucket thing. That probably gives the best view. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Bob_Skurka · Oct 12, 2004

Yup, that bucket thing on the Ventrac! That's why I only counted it as 1/2. But in its defense, I've loaded it with 10 concrete blocks and driven it across a slope to get the blocks to a planter I was building. No other piece of equipment I have could do that.

hobbyfarm · Oct 12, 2004

Seriously though,
Has anyone made the obvious connection that the arc is the strongest possible shape. And, thus starting out stronger compared to the dog leg ones, the arms can be lighter for a given strength, which gives you more payload at the bucket?
/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
If this argument doesn't work, they are more streamlined! /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
BTW, good job on the photos, Bob. And be sure and give the young'un a big hug for the help.
phil