Vigo327 thank you for your reply and input.
Mine too!!!
I though of this too, and agree.
I came to the conclusion it would be too weak for the complication.
If I'm going to build a tracked machine, I would want the beauty of 360 degrees of rotation. After the cost of the rotary union, turret bearing, motors, track and rollers, I would be better off going to the Kubota dealer.
Thats what I was curious about. I didnt think the arms were that strong, or needed to be, but the pin mounts I think I'll need to add material too.
And thats the problem, they all suck for this reason.
But they are cheap becasue of it. As Ive now learned, the driveline is the complicated/expensive part.
Oh its worst than that, as I want the 360 degree rotation, It'll need to be long and wide.
Looking at the design of my example, the engine and operator are the counter weight.
I think fully boomed out, with material in the bucket, you are at its tilting limit. Should you step off, over it goes.
I really do think the operator is the intended counter weight here.
When trenching, I don't think the minimal self propelled limit would be an issue, moving the machine across the yard would be the worst part.
I planned on adding a detachable trailer/handle bar, so I could insert it, and tow it with my mini dozer, then remove it when on the dig site.
Or, by hand by just tucking the boom in and lifting.
Here is my idea for the base (top view)
And it'll be easy enough to swap out should I ever want to add a drivetrain.
skip all the skepticism and just talk about the actual project. That's my opinion, anyway..
Mine too!!!
I do think it's a borderline reasonable idea to build a vehicle underneath a towable hoe...I have thought of using a zero turn mower as a basis for something like this with the caveat that the original transaxles wouldn't support any side radial loading of any kind
I though of this too, and agree.
I came to the conclusion it would be too weak for the complication.
If I'm going to build a tracked machine, I would want the beauty of 360 degrees of rotation. After the cost of the rotary union, turret bearing, motors, track and rollers, I would be better off going to the Kubota dealer.
As far as the material thickness, throw yourself into the rabbit hole/bottomless abyss of excavator arm design a little and i think you will be surprised how thin some of the sections are. But, there is almost always something going on internally that is not obvious from the outside on a commercial excavator arm. Only the homebuilt or the towable type stuff actually uses 'just square tube' for arm sections. But to answer your question, 1/4" wall thickness on the arms of a small digger is more than adequate. I have two small backhoes here and neither of them has 1/4" wall thickness ANYWHERE on either arm of either hoe, except where i am adding some (and not because the thinner stuff failed) or where the material is doubled because of the pin brackets welded to the arm walls.
Thats what I was curious about. I didnt think the arms were that strong, or needed to be, but the pin mounts I think I'll need to add material too.
As far as size, my experience with small backhoes is that UNLESS the thing easily and conveniently propels itself, then you should really build the arms (thus the whole machine) to a length that doesn't make you constantly have to reposition the machine.
And thats the problem, they all suck for this reason.
But they are cheap becasue of it. As Ive now learned, the driveline is the complicated/expensive part.
A short arm is fine on a real excavator where you can scoot yourself around effortlessly, but it's irritating on a backhoe where you have to change positions to move the machine. Narrow is one issue but if you aren't trying to fit it through a particular gate or doorway then that is a small issue. Length, on the other hand, has a huge impact because it changes the leverage your machine weight has on the fulcrum point created by the front blade.
Oh its worst than that, as I want the 360 degree rotation, It'll need to be long and wide.
Making a machine of the same weight longer will make it 'stronger' in that sense. Real excavators often need to be built as heavy as possible in their footprint to achieve 'zero swing' or something close to it where the entire back half of the machine basically stays in the same radius as the corners of the tracks no matter how you spin it. They usually have counterweights a lot like a forklift where most of the stuff on the very back of the machine is built out of solid metal to fit as much weight into the footprint as possible while reducing rear 'swing'. If you aren't concerned about that type of maneuverability, just adding length on the backside will reduce how heavy you actually need to build it.
Looking at the design of my example, the engine and operator are the counter weight.
I think fully boomed out, with material in the bucket, you are at its tilting limit. Should you step off, over it goes.
I really do think the operator is the intended counter weight here.
When trenching, I don't think the minimal self propelled limit would be an issue, moving the machine across the yard would be the worst part.
I planned on adding a detachable trailer/handle bar, so I could insert it, and tow it with my mini dozer, then remove it when on the dig site.
Or, by hand by just tucking the boom in and lifting.
Here is my idea for the base (top view)
And it'll be easy enough to swap out should I ever want to add a drivetrain.