Kioti Broken in Half

[hornett22]

This is why I bought new.

 

[BigBlue1]

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?

The comment I was replying to asked:

What exactly you see on a tractor that tells you it was designed to have a loader?

and asserted"

you really can't buy a tractor off the dealer with the so called "factory" loader on it.

Which are ridiculous statements. Deere for instance very clearly offers loaders for pretty much every tractor it has from 1-series to at least 6- or 7-series. You think they just designed each model without that consideration and then said "ok boys, go dump a loader on it in case someone wants to use one"??

No, I'm not saying that most CUT tractors are the perfect platform for high-volume, high load loader use, but within the specs of what the manufacturer says they can do they are totally fine and, yes, they were designed like that.

 

[ptsg]

The only design process going on between the loaders and tractors is to reduce the materials used and squeeze every living bit of strength out of those materials so they can still sell expensive while spending less money building the tractors and loaders.

Why do you think they got rid of those upper support bars going to the front of the tractor just like the older tractors had? It's not for ease of maintenance. It's for cost savings. Those bars add a lot of strength to the loader frame and tractor by spreading the stresses through other areas. Removing this, will concentrating everything on a single point between the front axle and the front bolts of the loader mounts.

By the way, for those all triggered about me saying that tractors were not meant to have loaders on, doesn't really mean they can't use them but doesn't make them designed to have loaders either just because the manufacturers put them on. Use and abuse it, just don't complain later if something pops. You can also use 3 pt backhoes, no one is forbidding you, but we all know what happens with a little bit of abuse.

And I'm still waiting for some of these triggered guys to answer the question on what exactly did the manufacturers change on the tractors to make them designed for the loader? Removing the front weights? (while increasing the price). Incorporate the loader valve on the tractor? That won't help much with strength.

 

[deezler]

And I'm still waiting for some of these triggered guys to answer the question on what exactly did the manufacturers change on the tractors to make them designed for the loader? Removing the front weights? (while increasing the price). Incorporate the loader valve on the tractor? That won't help much with strength.

Haha, No one is triggered, just trying to get it into your brain that these CUTs are indeed specifically engineered with front loader use in mind.

However you make some good points and I'm glad you seem willing to die on this hill so that we can have a good debate!

I don't specifically KNOW what manufacturers have done design-wise to better incorporate a front loader. But I can surmise the following: Modern computer aided design and analysis have enabled a better understanding of design strength and durability in general. So those fancy "bars to the front" of the tractor you keep mentioning - well, you simply do not need them anymore. Because we can easily make a loader mount that is just as strong and rigid, with intelligent design at the mid point of the tractor and loader mounts. It's not like we see loader mounts getting ripped off the frame all the time.

Decades of experience observing front axle failures develops a good understanding of how robust the internal components truly need to be. Again, CAD/FEA are our main tools to dial these components in, as robust as needed, but not more - to provide value to the customer.

Front axles might be the same general design, with ball bearings - but they can be made bigger and more durable.

Some of the intelligent changes you proposed to improve tractor design and durability would essentially DOUBLE the cost of the machine, meaning almost none would be sold. That's not a win for anyone. I know tractors are probably already quite expensive in Portugal, so maybe it seems warranted to you. But in the US you can still get a 35 HP, 4WD machine with PTO that lifts nearly 2000lbs on the loader and 2000+ on the 3-pt, for under $20,000 USD, which is a terrific value (at least, until covid. Now ~10-20% more).

 

[BigBlue1]

The only design process going on between the loaders and tractors is to reduce the materials used and squeeze every living bit of strength out of those materials so they can still sell expensive while spending less money building the tractors and loaders.

Why do you think they got rid of those upper support bars going to the front of the tractor just like the older tractors had? It's not for ease of maintenance. It's for cost savings. Those bars add a lot of strength to the loader frame and tractor by spreading the stresses through other areas. Removing this, will concentrating everything on a single point between the front axle and the front bolts of the loader mounts.

By the way, for those all triggered about me saying that tractors were not meant to have loaders on, doesn't really mean they can't use them but doesn't make them designed to have loaders either just because the manufacturers put them on. Use and abuse it, just don't complain later if something pops. You can also use 3 pt backhoes, no one is forbidding you, but we all know what happens with a little bit of abuse.

And I'm still waiting for some of these triggered guys to answer the question on what exactly did the manufacturers change on the tractors to make them designed for the loader? Removing the front weights? (while increasing the price). Incorporate the loader valve on the tractor? That won't help much with strength.

View attachment 730019

And again, LOL! Your angst over the fact that CUT models aren't the perfect loader platform doesn't mean CUTs aren't designed to use them. Just that loaders on CUTs are designed to do what owners of CUTs typically do with them. Nobody buys a CUT to use like a payloader (well, not 99% of buyers), nor do they buy them to do the work of an excavator. They buy them to be a multi-use platform that can do a lot decently, but not much perfectly.

I don't get triggered... I just point out ridiculous comments I see from people who don't operate in the real world.

 

[etpm]

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?

According to you my Case 580CK is poorly designed and should not have the factory loader on it.
Eric

 

[4570Man]

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 backhoeView attachment 730011

Yes backhoes aren’t good designs either. But they’re old machines and nearly obsolete. But they were built tough and don’t go around breaking all the time.

 

[IndyJay]

People, please. It is a matter of scale. I have a 1/4" Impact Driver, a 1/2" Drill/Driver, a 1/2" Hammer Drill, and a SDS Rotary Hammer. Each has it's place, all except for the last can pretty much do what the others can but obviously not as well. A Crescent wrench is no replacement for the right sized box end or ratchet. It is a matter of selecting the right tool for the job. I had a loader on my MF1250 for 27 years and never had anything break. If something was too big I got someone to bring a bigger loader.

So now that we have beat the front loader to death, can we move to the bacK of the tractor?
Seems there is lots of abuse there too, as well as appropriate tools for the job!

 

[k0ua]

And all of this crap about loaders, and not a single one of us on this forum has even the slightest clue as to what happened to this broken tractor. NOT A CLUE.

 

[RandyT]

Tractors operate just fine with a loader provided that are operated within the design specs. The problem is a lot of people with small tractors try to use them as if they were construction equipment and then complain when they fail.

 

[ranger danger]

Glad to see I'm not the only one capable of tractor carnage! I snapped a Kubota MX5100 in half about last July.

 

[LouNY]

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.

Nice looking large tractor, however it is going to be quite complicated in design and build.
I have to wonder how they will be doing in 20, 40 or 60 years.
My IH 574 is over 50 years old and still works good.
On the farm we are still using Farmall 656's, 560 and even a 400 then there is the H which scraps the free stall barn daily,
which is I believe a 1942 model.
I don't believe that any of the newer units will come close to the longevity and durability of those old farm tractors,
with all of 22 to 60 Hp.

 

[deezler]

Glad to see I'm not the only one capable of tractor carnage! I snapped a Kubota MX5100 in half about last July.

Holy ****!

How'd you do that?

 

[sd455dan]

Glad to see I'm not the only one capable of tractor carnage! I snapped a Kubota MX5100 in half about last July.View attachment 730030View attachment 730032

Yeah Now there is some Major Damage...
What Truly Broke in Half means.

From the pics shown I think the Kioti owner was a Whole lot luckier on the actual damage to the core tractor components.
That Kubota had to be an expensive fix. Here is hoping KTAC was in effect.

 

[IndyJay]

Holy ****!

How'd you do that?

 

[ovrszd]

And all of this crap about loaders, and not a single one of us on this forum has even the slightest clue as to what happened to this broken tractor. NOT A CLUE.

Yep.

I'll go out on a limb here..... A Grapple is potentially the most abusive attachment you can add to a tractor. Multiplies the FEL stresses on the tractor chassis many, many times over.

Whether the manufacturer builds in the structural strength needed to handle an FEL can be debated. But I am sure no manufacturer builds in the structural strength needed to handle a Grapple.

Does any manufacturer offer a Grapple as an option on their tractor? No.

If you break your tractor using a Grapple and honestly report that to the manufacturer they will deny your warranty claim.

This fuels my belief to always have a larger class tractor than you actually need. And be mature enough to keep your expectations at that smaller class level. Requires a lot of maturity.

I may break my tractor in half tomorrow. And if I do I'll have flashbacks of all the times I've overloaded my tractor. And I would never blame the tractor's design. I should have looked at all of that before making the purchase.

 

[Sawyer Rob]

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?

IF true, why did the john deere loader I saw at a farm show, say made in china on it?? AND their farm tractor loader mfg'ing moved from Canada to Mexico some years ago...

SR

 

[k0ua]

Anyone that has ever watched Ted from Everything Attachments abuse both a Kubota and a White Kioti (Bobcat) with one of his grapples on the front, wonders both how does the grapple survive and then wonder how did the tractors survive? That man is single handed the biggest tractor abuser I have ever seen. It makes you cringe just to watch some of the things he has done.

 

[k0ua]

More tree, tractor, loader, grapple abuse.

 

[Agvg]

Nice looking large tractor, however it is going to be quite complicated in design and build.
I have to wonder how they will be doing in 20, 40 or 60 years.
My IH 574 is over 50 years old and still works good.
On the farm we are still using Farmall 656's, 560 and even a 400 then there is the H which scraps the free stall barn daily,
which is I believe a 1942 model.
I don't believe that any of the newer units will come close to the longevity and durability of those old farm tractors,
with all of 22 to 60 Hp.

This old simple designs that went for decades unchanged is easy to keep alive my MF135 is basically still in production, if you read this forum it's obvious that most Japanese manufacturers don't really care much for long time parts support, and short model life and constant redesign does not help much.

Large tractors are production tools, nobody uses a 50 year old machine in extensive production so that is not an important thing for customers.

But even in a CUT a dual command would be very useful and would not be an very expensive option on a open station tractor.