Cutter Size Survey

[JimMc]

I am needing the TBNer's here to give some input.

Traditionally, Rotary cutter manufacturers have built cutters in standard 1 foot increments with a few small cutters in 6 inch sizing. In our initial offering of light cutters, would a 52" and 44" size be of interest? This would more closely fit the needs of sub compact users than a 48" with the next size being 60" allowing the use of a cutter which covers the wheel tracks without hanging over too much reducing manueverability.

What do you think?

 

[njrqs]

Over here we can get a 4' slasher and a 4 1/2' slasher.

Cheers

 

[MarkV]

Jim,

Do you have any figures on the required PTO hp for the different sizes you are considering. With many of the small compacts the PTO power requirements can be the determining factor when it comes to size.

Sure is nice having a manufacture ask the users what they want.

MarkV

 

[JJT]

I'm happy with the widths being in 12" increments.

 

[Gary_in_Indiana]

While a 44" or 52" cutter might be more appropriate for certain machines than 48" or 54" would be, I question the non-standard sizes from a marketing standpoint. I'd tend to think they would be easy for a competitor to label as "odd" or worse and against which they could sell accordingly.

Unless there's a really easily quantifiable and easily understood reason to go with non-standard sizes, I think staying with 48" and 54" might serve you better. Just one guy's opinion, here.

Good luck with whatever you decide to do. I'm sure they'll be quality pieces regardless of the widths.

 

[Kodiak]

I would like to see the sizes actually exceed the width of the rear tires of the various tractor frame sizes by 3 to 4 inches on either side of the rear tires so it won't be so easy to get sucked in while mowing along fence rows.

 

[hazmat]

Jim,

I think you should offer
3.5' = 42" heavy duty
4' = 48" Light & heavy duty
4.5' = 54" light & heavy duty
5' = 60" and even foot increments up from there. in light & heavy duty

I don't think you need to offer a 42" light duty as I think most small tractors (TC18. JD 4010, BX2200 etc) can handle a 48" light duty provided it isn't exceedingly heavy.

As far as pricing goes, I expect you could charge the same price for the 54 as a 60". My impression is that people choose a 48" over a 60" because they feel the 60" is too large for their tractor, not because it is cheaper.

The definition of light vs. heavy duty varies by person & manufacturer. I'd say look at the top manufacturers and rate yours accordingly. I do think as you go up in size that the heavy duty has to be heavier duty. The smaller tractors aren't going to be able to push over 3-4" saplings. Maybe the smaller sizes would be available in light & medium duty & the larger ones in medium & heavy duty.

Someone brought up a good point about PTO HP. the 42" heavy duty & 48" light duty should run well with a min 14 PTO HP. The 48" heavy duty & 54" light duty should run well with 16-17 PTO HP min. (B2410, JD 4110, TC21 etc) and so on.

Thanks for requesting feedback from the end users. I can honestly say that First Choice will be considered in all my future implement purchases.

 

[hazmat]

Jim,

A couple more thoughts.

1. Offer some kind of anti-scalp roller or caster assembly for the front of the cutter as an option. Some users are interested in a nicer finish on their patures. See and <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.tractorbynet.com/cgi-bin/compact/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=genoperating&Number=156864&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=>What's a field supposed to look like after mowing

2. You may want to offer chain guards as standard or at least as a low cost option.

 

[looch]

If a cutter existed for an 11hp B5100E I would have never sold mine.
Also, there was a thread <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.tractorbynet.com/cgi-bin/compact/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=implement&Number=142288&Search=true&Forum=All_Forums&Words=check%20chains&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=50&Old=allposts&Main=142288>here</A> made by jdrotert with diagrams for making check chains. I would like to see these as an optional accessory. I'll be making some soon - it's a pain to keep guessing at what height the cutter should should be set to (no position control on my machine).

 

[JonLeonard]

I would definately be interested in a 4 1/2 foot model for my B2410. The 4 foot ones wont cover my tracks, and the 5 foot ones just seem too BIG for my needs.

Jon

 

[tdenny]

Hi Jim,

I myself would be interested in a 52" cutter. The track on my JD855 are approximately 4 feet and that would be just enough to cover it. I'm pretty sure I could handle the 5 footer (24 HP) with no trouble but the 52 inch would be closer to the size of the tractor so when I go in and out of places I would have less to worry about. But that's just me. I don't have as much acreage as some of the others who cherish every inch because of the time savings.

 

[tdenny]

Sorry I meant 54" it appears I never learned my standard lengths.

 

[Gary_in_Indiana]

<font color=blue>"You may want to offer chain guards as standard or at least as a low cost option"</font color=blue>

Another way might be to make them standard but to offer a credit if someone absolutely doesn't want them. That way anyone who didn't take them would have to make a conscious, proactive effort not to have them. I think fewer people would opt for the savings than would avoid paying "extra" for them.

 

[JimMc]

Due to liability concerns all our standard models will come with chain or belt guarding, but dealers may specify delivery without. Not trying to load up people with options they don't want, just need to make certain, as a manufacturer, that the customer is knowingly choosing to operate in a manner inconsistent with published safety standards.

 

[JimMc]

Interesting idea for the anti scalp roller/caster. Do you suppose this would flatten tall grass yielding an incomplete or inconsistent cut?

 

[JimMc]

All of our cutter designs are set up for chain or belt shielding and we will offer these kits separately as well as installed on our cutters.

One point of interest. I've noticed most manufacturer's have to extend their chain brackets forward from the front of the cutter to keep the chain from being hit by the blades. If a 6" chain can be hit by the blades, how do these designs pass the intrusions test as set forth by FEMA when front shielding is not used? (This test basically determines whether a person's foot could be hit by rotating blades while standing facing the cutter.) The way we handled this was to set the length of the deck long enough to be 6" past the blades both front and rear. This makes a longer deck than most, but passes intrusion testing with or without shielding.

 

[hazmat]

<font color=blue>Interesting idea for the anti scalp roller/caster. Do you suppose this would flatten tall grass yielding an incomplete or inconsistent cut? </font color=blue>

I've never used a rotary cutter. My experience with finish mowers is that if the grass is very tall (2') you do get an incomplete cut. However, moderately tall grass (1') is OK. I would think that the open front of the rotary cutter would alleviate some of these issues. But, it is my understanding that rotary cutter blades don't have any lift vs. finish mower blades. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe that those who are concerned about cut quality, and would opt for the anti scalp roller would be more inclined to mow their pasture once a month vs. once a season.

I think a little experimentation is in order. It wouldn't take much to bolt one of your anti-scalp rollers on the front of a rotary cutter. You have plenty of volunteer "test engineers" available at your disposal. Too bad I live in Mass.

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.sweettractors.com/compact.html#bigbee>Here's a link showing some "estate cutters" with the anti scalp roller</A> Click on the descpritions to see a picture

 

[JimMc]

Our rotary cutter blades are designed with a lift, however, the blade speed and consequently lift are somewhat less on a rotary cutter than that of a finish mower.

 

[TresCrows]

Jim, I would be gung ho for that idea. I think a 54/52 would be a great idea. My 2410 is more than enough tractor for the 48 inch I have but the 60 inch is a tad to large. Yep, a 54 inch would be spot on for the 2410 and the 7500 Kubotas and I think it would be great on the JD small tractors also. Since I am already stuck with this KK thing I would not immediantly buy one but I would in time since the 2410 is a "keeper", solid and powerfull and very manuverable. Yes, please offer a 54 or a 52. I would prefer a 54. J

 

[TresCrows]

I have seen "estate cutters" that are similar to cutters but have higher blade speed and do have usually dual wheels and scalp rollers up front. I dont see how scalp rollers would flatten grass much since they should only contact the ground when the edge would otherwise dig in. Not a scalp roller all the way across the front but a small one on either front corners. Yep, yep. 54, 54. 54!!!!!!!!!yep I need one. I looked and looked and could not find one in that size and it is such an obvious size for small tractors. Cannot speak for the 7500 but the 2410 has got the power to run one and then some. J