Hill Climbing Primer

[sacmarata]

...and this is why it's best to use all caution and never enter a new situation thinking you "KNOW" how things will go. Seat time pays of in dividends, but only then if it's dynamic.
Case in point; when I was a kid, I pulled the tobacco setter or hay wagon in 1 low while the grown ups planted or loaded behind. I was probably 7yrs old or so the first time and remember it was a few seasons later that I actually figured out the clutch wasn't a brake. With only 1 low experience on flat ground, every time I hit the clutch the tractor would stop. Pretty simple eh? I had this whole tractoring thing figured out. Left pedal = stop. Well the first time dad asked me to take the tractor on the road, down to a neighbors farm, he assumed I had been driving it for a few years now and understood the brakes. Well, in my mind I DID understand them. It wasn't until I got to the neighbors farm and was headed down a long steep hill that I realized I was in deep doo doo. I remembered dad and other farmers sayinng something before about those two weird pedals on the right but I kept mashing on the left pedal clutch with all my might thinking why isn't this thing stopping????

Finally, one of the older kids that was close enough ran up and managed to get on and mash the two mystery pedals on the right and stop the thing, but not before I had rattled off one fender, shook all the tools out of the tool box and popped the muffler out. My 2 or 3 seasons of seat time didn't mean anything when the dynamics changed.

Long story but it does illustrate the difference between application and theory and more importantly demonstrates that All caution should be exercised when approaching a new task; whether it be pulling up hill or for me it was driving unloaded down hill.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Did you note the mis information that is presented in the plan view of the "stability baseline" associated with conventional and tricycle wheel arrangements?
The front axles on all of my tractors pivot on a single pin ;-)

Yeah, but years ago when I really looked at it, rather than this time just making sure it was the one Id seen originally.
... I never commented because it would have been a side subject with nothing to do with whatever the subject was. Also some complexity must be introduced. ie - The 4wheel is more stable as shown, but in the showing they have exaggerated the appearance of it by not noting and discussing the pivot and modifying the depiction with reasoning. A key advantage of the 4wheel setup is that the pivot is hi relative to the tri, and thus causes a little less side shift of the COM as the rear of the tractor starts a tip.
... Then of course theres the 2nd chance the stops will give if its not too far gone
larry

 

[ovrszd]

...and this is why it's best to use all caution and never enter a new situation thinking you "KNOW" how things will go. Seat time pays of in dividends, but only then if it's dynamic.
Case in point; when I was a kid, I pulled the tobacco setter or hay wagon in 1 low while the grown ups planted or loaded behind. I was probably 7yrs old or so the first time and remember it was a few seasons later that I actually figured out the clutch wasn't a brake. With only 1 low experience on flat ground, every time I hit the clutch the tractor would stop. Pretty simple eh? I had this whole tractoring thing figured out. Left pedal = stop. Well the first time dad asked me to take the tractor on the road, down to a neighbors farm, he assumed I had been driving it for a few years now and understood the brakes. Well, in my mind I DID understand them. It wasn't until I got to the neighbors farm and was headed down a long steep hill that I realized I was in deep doo doo. I remembered dad and other farmers sayinng something before about those two weird pedals on the right but I kept mashing on the left pedal clutch with all my might thinking why isn't this thing stopping????

Finally, one of the older kids that was close enough ran up and managed to get on and mash the two mystery pedals on the right and stop the thing, but not before I had rattled off one fender, shook all the tools out of the tool box and popped the muffler out. My 2 or 3 seasons of seat time didn't mean anything when the dynamics changed.

Long story but it does illustrate the difference between application and theory and more importantly demonstrates that All caution should be exercised when approaching a new task; whether it be pulling up hill or for me it was driving unloaded down hill.

Well stated. I totally agree. Mathematically something may not be possible. But practically it is. But I'm sure I'll be proven wrong concerning that statement.

 

[sacmarata]

Well stated. I totally agree. Mathematically something may not be possible. But practically it is. But I'm sure I'll be proven wrong concerning that statement.

how dare you have an opinion!!!

 

[ovrszd]

how dare you have an opinion!!!

No kidding.

 

[SPYDERLK]

how dare you have an opinion!!!

Im not sure what opinion has to do with this. Opinion is based on conjecture. Fact just is.

... Also not sure how "Long story but it does illustrate the difference between application and theory" illustrates a difference between application and theory.

larry

 

[CalG]

Im not sure what opinion has to do with this. Opinion is based on conjecture. Fact just is.

... Also not sure how "Long story but it does illustrate the difference between application and theory" illustrates a difference between application and theory.

larry

I thought about that one too.

The "theory" may be since "the kid" had been operating for a couple of years he MUST know about the brakes or how to use engine braking.

In application, he didn't.

But, experience is not a theory. It is derived from practice ;-)

 

[sacmarata]

Im not sure what opinion has to do with this. Opinion is based on conjecture. Fact just is.

... Also not sure how "Long story but it does illustrate the difference between application and theory" illustrates a difference between application and theory.

larry

This is a great illustration of the disconnect that has happened between what the OP was getting at and what has happened here...and I don't mind saying a bit that whats happened here, regardless of who is "right" or "wrong" is nothing more than a P!$$!ng match.

Opinion is not based upon conjecture. Opinion CAN be based upon conjecture, but opinion IS based upon conjecture is a straw man you just built so you could smash it to pieces with your infallible logic that "fact just is" which is a quasi ad hominem statement and support no truths you have presented.

I could use examples like this all day and illustrate the sillyness going on here to the Nth degree, but it wouldn't benefit anyone here and only foment bad blood between myself and the "offended." I don't intend to offend anyone and I come here with respect to all; I wanna make that clear.

I used a personal example to help illustrate that ones theories, i.e., the magical mystery pedals on the right aren't required to stop a tractor, *may be open to interpretation and changed by a different dynamic. How that was difficult to understand...I can't grasp.

Y'all might as well have gone ahead and started the argument about punctuated equillibrium or a steady state universe, or who was hotter on Gilligans Island; Ginger or Mary Anne (I vote Mary Anne.)

There is a veil of civility here that is becoming more and more opaque the longer the streams get. :irked:

 

[SPYDERLK]

This is a great illustration of the disconnect that has happened between what the OP was getting at and what has happened here...and I don't mind saying a bit that whats happened here, regardless of who is "right" or "wrong" is nothing more than a P!$$!ng match.

Opinion is not based upon conjecture. Opinion CAN be based upon conjecture, but opinion IS based upon conjecture is a straw man you just built so you could smash it to pieces with your infallible logic that "fact just is" which is a quasi ad hominem statement and support no truths you have presented.

I could use examples like this all day and illustrate the sillyness going on here to the Nth degree, but it wouldn't benefit anyone here and only foment bad blood between myself and the "offended." I don't intend to offend anyone and I come here with respect to all; I wanna make that clear.

I used a personal example to help illustrate that ones theories, i.e., the magical mystery pedals on the right aren't required to stop a tractor, *may be open to interpretation and changed by a different dynamic. How that was difficult to understand...I can't grasp.

Y'all might as well have gone ahead and started the argument about punctuated equillibrium or a steady state universe, or who was hotter on Gilligans Island; Ginger or Mary Anne (I vote Mary Anne.)

There is a veil of civility here that is becoming more and more opaque the longer the streams get. :irked:

A related issue to the OP task developed into a disagreement as to the effect of hitch points. I think youve called the debate between true and mostly true a "pissing match". Perhaps it is instead an unwillingness to gloss over a physical reaction to which important distinctions apply. Incomplete info is sometimes enuf - when youre lucky - but if it becomes viewed as complete sooner or later it will hamper you ... or get you in trouble.

What is it you are attacking with all your "opinion"?
larry

 

[sacmarata]

Incomplete info is sometimes enuf - when youre lucky - but if it becomes viewed as complete sooner or later it will hamper you ... or get you in trouble.

Define complete. Look at the original question then define complete in the context of all the pissing. Pretty sure there is sufficient information for anyone wanting an answer to the original question to consider it "complete enough" to make an informed and safe decision. This isn't about an unwillingness to gloss over a physical reaction to which important distinctions apply....and if it is, look at the previous 35 pages and ask how beneficial that stance has become.