Kioti Broken in Half

[BigBlue1]

What exactly you see on a tractor that tells you it was designed to have a loader? They still have the weakest axle and subframe under that loader... Sure, manufacturers offer a loader because there is a demand for it, but still doesn't make it designed to have a loader.

Around here, you really can't buy a tractor off the dealer with the so called "factory" loader on it. It will be aftermarket, and even if it has the sticker saying the manufacturer of the tractor, chances are it will be a Stoll, Quicke loader or any other manufacturer on that specific country.

LOL! What??

 

[4570Man]

LOL! What??

Hey, let’s build a loader and put the smaller tire, weaker axel in the front. Also let’s put a pivot under the loader axel which will seriously compromise stability. While we’re at it we might as well put the engine in the front where it will provide zero counter ballast and block visibility. And for counter ballast nah the user can figure that out for themselves, hopefully they don’t flip first. Actually no loader engineer ever said any of that. Is there anything you could add that would make for a worse loader platform?

 

[4570Man]

If you were going to use a tractor to build a loader this is how to solve the inherent design flaws.

 

[sd455dan]

I think the new "styling" is saving a buck by eliminating the front upper loader braces to the front axle mount and also in some cases removing the rearward rear axle reinforcements make this kind of failure more likely on smaller tractors.
Also and this is jmo. using welded steel side plates and then just a small crossmember is not as strong, versus a heavier cast front cradle that bolts to a structural cast oil pan and the engine is inherently stronger imo But these new CUTS it is more modern looking, offers better accessibility to the engine and is visually more appealing.
If that tractor was mine I would get it on a rollback/trailer get it in the shop. replace the damaged parts like the front driveline. Reinforce the front cradle and add some extra bracing. and then get on with using a Good tractor. I would probably dump the extended length rock? grapple as well and take it a bit easier. Flame suit on. Kioti is a Good tractor

ps 4570 I guess the guy could always buy a Case 580 without a backhoe
FEL lift of about 6800lb. pivot front axle, smaller front tires, engine in front. Put a HD Gannon box blade on back
Not a CUT but still a conventional "Industrial" tractor that will load quite a bit and do a decent job at it.

 

[4570Man]

I think the new "styling" is saving a buck by eliminating the front upper loader braces to the front axle mount and also in some cases removing the rearward rear axle reinforcements make this kind of failure more likely on smaller tractors.
Also and this is jmo. using welded steel side plates and then just a small crossmember is not as strong, versus a heavier cast front cradle that bolts to a structural cast oil pan and the engine is inherently stronger imo But these new CUTS it is more modern looking, offers better accessibility to the engine and is visually more appealing.
If that tractor was mine I would get it on a rollback/trailer get it in the shop. replace the damaged parts like the front driveline. Reinforce the front cradle and add some extra bracing. and then get on with using a Good tractor. I would probably dump the extended length rock? grapple as well and take it a bit easier. Flame suit on. Kioti is a Good tractor

My backhoe that’s designed a bit more robust with a price tag to match has a frame that runs the entire length of the machine. That’s really how all tractors that are claimed backhoe/loader capable should be designed.

 

[sd455dan]

whoops guess I was adding the ps while you posted YEP.

 

[4570Man]

whoops guess I was adding the ps while you posted YEP.

A full size backhoe still isn’t an optimally designed loader platform but they were built with durability in mind. They also don’t go around bending the curl cylinder every time you miss treat it. You don’t see them with busted front ends either. I won’t say it doesn’t exist but mine is rated for 54,000 pounds static load rating and has a planetary reduction on it. I’m sure it’s possible but I’ve never seen a stripped backhoe front end. There’s dozens of tractor front end failures in this site alone. I’ve never seen one for sale locally or I might own it but I wouldn’t mind having a Deere 210 with a Gannon blade with hydraulic tilt, hydraulic toplink and hydraulic rippers.

 

[3 Horse Ranch]

Hey, let’s build a loader and put the smaller tire, weaker axel in the front. Also let’s put a pivot under the loader axel which will seriously compromise stability. While we’re at it we might as well put the engine in the front where it will provide zero counter ballast and block visibility. And for counter ballast nah the user can figure that out for themselves, hopefully they don’t flip first. Actually no loader engineer ever said any of that. Is there anything you could add that would make for a worse loader platform?

Your argument seems to be that a tractor is not designed as a dedicated loader, therefore the companies who build them didn't design them to have a loader. I've operated several John Deere and Cat loaders and they are not intended to do the same job, there is no reason they should be built the same.. I wouldn't take my tractor to a gravel pit and load dump trucks all day nor would I have borrowed my companies JD 624 to rototill a garden.

One could extrapolate your argument to say that tractors were designed for pulling only. It was only to satisfy customers that they added a PTO therefore tractors weren't designed to use brush hogs or rototillers. PTO powered implements are built by after market companies therefore tractor engineers never designed them for that. It's a ridiculous argument. Tractors are engineered to have a loader and do within reason what a loader can do, Tractors are engineered to have a three point hitch and a PTO and to operate powered three point implements within reason.

What you are arguing is that tractors aren't the best loaders. Yup I agree. You cannot with any intelligence argue that modern tractors Cuts and SCUTs were not designed, engineered to have a loader.

 

[4570Man]

Your argument seems to be that a tractor is not designed as a dedicated loader, therefore the companies who build them didn't design them to have a loader. I've operated several John Deere and Cat loaders and they are not intended to do the same job, there is no reason they should be built the same.. I wouldn't take my tractor to a gravel pit and load dump trucks all day nor would I have borrowed my companies JD 624 to rototill a garden.

One could extrapolate your argument to say that tractors were designed for pulling only. It was only to satisfy customers that they added a PTO therefore tractors weren't designed to use brush hogs or rototillers. PTO powered implements are built by after market companies therefore tractor engineers never designed them for that. It's a ridiculous argument. Tractors are engineered to have a loader and do within reason what a loader can do, Tractors are engineered to have a three point hitch and a PTO and to operate powered three point implements within reason.

What you are arguing is that tractors aren't the best loaders. Yup I agree. You cannot with any intelligence argue that modern tractors Cuts and SCUTs were not designed, engineered to have a loader.

A tractor was designed for pulling. Doing anything else with them is a compromise. Pulling a pto powered bushhog would still fall under the category of pulling. They were designed for a loader they just weren’t intended to be good at it or durable. Also the loader was designed for loading. It wasn’t designed for dozing, ramming, pulling, demolition work or pretty much anything besides scooping and carrying.

 

[3 Horse Ranch]

My backhoe that’s designed a bit more robust with a price tag to match has a frame that runs the entire length of the machine. That’s really how all tractors that are claimed backhoe/loader capable should be designed. View attachment 730007

Apples and oranges, one is a dedicated industrial tool, the other is a farm machine engineered to do a host of tasks your backhoe can't do. Can your backhoe detach it's loader and mount a snow blower? Tractors are designed to easily do that. But like I said, we are talking apples and oranges.
Nice looking machine though.

 

[4570Man]

Apples and oranges, one is a dedicated industrial tool, the other is a farm machine engineered to do a host of tasks your backhoe can't do. Can your backhoe detach it's loader and mount a snow blower? Tractors are designed to easily do that. But like I said, we are talking apples and oranges.
Nice looking machine though.

No, the backhoe can’t do that but my CTL can. I don’t how easily you’re going to be putting a front blower on the tractor either. That’s not exactly a quick couple and go implement.

 

[ptsg]

So I gather you don't have a loader on your tractor then.

Actually, when Kubota, John Deere et al markets a tractor with a loader, (see their respective websites) it is pretty much assured that it is engineered to take a loader. Nobody said tractors were the perfect or ideal loader or even that a loader is the primary function of a tractor, simply that modern compact tractors are engineered i.e. designed to have a loader.

I do have a loader. Matter of fact, I've built two loaders from scratch. I just use those as loaders, not as skidsteers or bulldozers.

On my loaders, and on most loaders here, I also added the support bars going to the front of the tractor, which is a game changer when it cames to being able to abuse a loader as it spreads the loads further, instead of concentrating on the weakest point. It would for sure prevent what happened on the tractor of this thread.

Again, what design changes did they make on the tractors to make them engineered to take a loader?

 

[ptsg]

Wrong. Both JD and Kubota manufacture their own loaders in the US. Are you saying that you don’t have those dealers in your area?

We don't get "factory" loaders here. Actually, those "factory" loaders you guys get there, on any brand, it's actually an US thing. Marketing most likely, to say they offer a "factory" loader, doesn't mean the tractor was design for it, at all. A simple proof of that is the use of ball bearings on the front axle instead of tapered roller bearings, and you know that those ball bearings will take a dump eventually on a loader tractor.

 

[Agvg]

My backhoe that’s designed a bit more robust with a price tag to match has a frame that runs the entire length of the machine. That’s really how all tractors that are claimed backhoe/loader capable should be designed. View attachment 730007

Backhoes are as also a bad design, it does not do anything real good, it's a very bad excavator and a bad wheeloader baked in to one machine.

The picture is a better backhoe

 

[K5lwq]

I would say these tractors were adapted to except a loader because of demand. I am sure it factors into the design today more so than 50 years ago.

But in more recent times we have seen loader use shift. What once was loading mulch or spreading a little dirt is now ripping out stones and trees. Add to that the inexperienced people owning these tractors and you will see more failures. It definitely is beyond the scope of what the original intent of use was.

 

[Agvg]

I would say these tractors were adapted to except a loader because of demand. I am sure it factors into the design today more so than 50 years ago.

But in more recent times we have seen loader use shift. What once was loading mulch or spreading a little dirt is now ripping out stones and trees. Add to that the inexperienced people owning these tractors and you will see more failures. It definitely is beyond the scope of what the original intent of use was.

The early 1900 design of tractors are bad, it's just strange that the world does not going forward, Class xerion is a interesting design and when we get rid of mechanical power train we might get more modern designs.

 

[deezler]

What a strange conversation going on here, haha.

The year is now 2022. Any mass produced tractor has had every single part engineered systematically, with all possible use cases and configurations incorporated. All structural and moving components on a new tractor have been designed and fit together in 3D CAD, each subjected to detailed finite element analysis for stress capacity and concentrations, and verified to have sufficient safety factors at all times.

Sure, sometimes a component is overlooked, accidentally under-designed, or more commonly - a supplier cuts a corner to save a buck, or the metal is not as strong as it is supposed to be.

But sheesh, c'mon. Any new CUT is absolutely, without any doubt, designed to have a front loader.

It's also a jack of all trades machine, that can easily be overloaded and over worked. It's all up to the user.

 

[deezler]

We don't get "factory" loaders here. Actually, those "factory" loaders you guys get there, on any brand, it's actually an US thing. Marketing most likely, to say they offer a "factory" loader, doesn't mean the tractor was design for it, at all. A simple proof of that is the use of ball bearings on the front axle instead of tapered roller bearings, and you know that those ball bearings will take a dump eventually on a loader tractor.

You have a fair point about the front axle bearings. Every new CUT sold here in the US has obvious aspects of cost cutting, as they fight the price war. Strikes me more as a delicate balance of intentional just-barely-adequate design, rather than adding a loader to a machine that isn't supposed to have it.

A vast majority CUTs here in the US have been delivered with front loaders installed for 30+ years now. Don't you think it's a bit ridiculous to presume that Kubota, Deere, New Holland, Kioti, and all the other manufacturers still can't be bothered to properly design a new CUT line, that they KNOW will be delivered with a front loader on it 95% of the time?

 

[Agvg]

On of the fine things with modern engineering is the fact that you can shave of all unnecessary materials, fine if you make aircrafts and things where this is very beneficial, on tractors not so much.

 

[Agvg]

You have a fair point about the front axle bearings. Every new CUT sold here in the US has obvious aspects of cost cutting, as they fight the price war. Strikes me more as a delicate balance of intentional just-barely-adequate design, rather than adding a loader to a machine that isn't supposed to have it.

A vast majority CUTs here in the US have been delivered with front loaders installed for 30+ years now. Don't you think it's a bit ridiculous to presume that Kubota, Deere, New Holland, Kioti, and all the other manufacturers still can't be bothered to properly design a new CUT line, that they KNOW will be delivered with a front loader on it 95% of the time?

Well, the price war makes it impossible to make it a better loader tractor, a hydrostatic motor in each front wheel would make it much easier to make a strong enough front axel, hydraulic stability control of the pivoting would greatly improve stability and so on. They could made them articulated but then it would not look like a tractor, witch seems to be a point for some reason. Is there any real technical development in this market at all?