Update on loader repair program from Kioti Jan 30

[Bob_Skurka]

and can honestly say my Kioti was a better value than any comparable Kubota or NH

And that is a discussion for a "comparison thread, until Tom brought up the subject there were no brand comparison, nor should there be in this thread.

As for the safety issue, it was alleged by Kioti owners and by others, in various posts in various threads. In this thread I simply countered the statement that the cracks are nothing but cosmetic, when there is no evidence to prove that point. And given that the cracks are reported to continue to grow, it is clearly likely that they are structural. And while nobody has been hurt yet, it does not make it less of a safety issue.


I was simply attempting to put some balance into the thread when in one post so many unsubstantiated allegations that needed to be addressed with simple counterpoints.

 

[Dodgeram]

More than a few folks over on the Kubota forum and the NH forum considered them safety issues.
No one, and I may be wrong, on the Kioti forum has remotely inferred that the loader issue was a safety issue. Well, maybe you did in the response to Cota. Like I stated previously, I will bow to your knowledge on safety issues.

Back to the issue at hand, and please answer this for me, how many Kioti loader cracks have you seen? 10, 15, 50?
How many have failed? Again 10, 20, 50?

Moderators, fear not, I promise I will not be baited into any further discussions with Mr. Skurka concerning the loader issues. I will hereby acknowledge his superior understanding of the Kioti Tractor/Corporation, gained from extensive reading on the Kioti forum.

I do own a Kioti, which I use on a regular basis.

KJ, where are you?

Tom

 

[kentrodngun]

KJ, where are you?

Tom

Lurking in the shadows until everyone in the sandbox learns to play nice. Come back KJ, we miss you.

 

[Limecuda]

And that is a discussion for a "comparison thread, until Tom brought up the subject there were no brand comparison, nor should there be in this thread.

As for the safety issue, it was alleged by Kioti owners and by others, in various posts in various threads. In this thread I simply countered the statement that the cracks are nothing but cosmetic, when there is no evidence to prove that point. And given that the cracks are reported to continue to grow, it is clearly likely that they are structural. And while nobody has been hurt yet, it does not make it less of a safety issue.


I was simply attempting to put some balance into the thread when in one post so many unsubstantiated allegations that needed to be addressed with simple counterpoints.

I appreciate your concern and thread steering. If it is indeed a safety issue (Kioti thus far says otherwise) then instead of them proving it is not, how about you prove it is.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

If it is indeed a safety issue (Kioti thus far says otherwise) then instead of them proving it is not, how about you prove it is.

Why is it that a kioti owner can make a wild claim and nobody says anything but when a non-kioti owner simply points out that other kioti owners have stated the opposite then the non-kioti owner is attacked? Are you folks that sensative that you cannot even hear what some of your fellow owners have said? Instead of listening to your own owners must you take knee jerk positions?

I've not levied one bit of criticizm about the brand in this thread, I've only pointed out that someone made some claims that many others have refuted.

What a silly turn of events and what thin skins some folks have here.

 

[CurlyDave]

...Zero proof that it's a safety factor...

Well, I don't own a Kioti, and I don't have a cracked loader, so I don't have a dog in this fight, but I can tell you that where I work any lifting device, which shows any sign of failure (and any cracks would be a sign of failure) would be scrapped immediately. No ifs, ands, or buts. And, no repairs. Now if an entire overhead crane failed, it might be repaired in place, but it would be x-rayed and proof loaded before it was put back in service.

It makes no difference if the device is used for overhead lifting or to hold ballast two inches off the floor. This is a stict safety policy and one of the few ways someone can get fired for a first offense, with no recourse.

You may say there is "no safety issue", but in my neck of the woods you would say it all the way down to the unemployment line. The union is 100% on board with this policy.

You might think this is complete overkill, but we also inspect every lifting device before every lift, and proof load it once a year. And, we still manage to kill a few people when something falls.

I am truly amazed at the way Kioti handled this. Their potential liability is enormous. It would have been far better to contract with an aftermarket loader supplier and replace all of them on an expedited basis than the stunt they have pulled.

And, no matter how good they are in other ways, and how cost-effective, you will never catch me owning one.

 

[Steve_Miller]

Here we go again?

Steve

 

[Dodgeram]

Sorry, you lost me after I saw "Unions".

 

[coasterez]

The safety issue hasn't been proven to the public either way. Kioti may have proved it to themselves. But, until they share that data and convince us all, each person is only expressing their opinion on whether it affects safety.

My opinion: I can't see how the cross tube affects safety unless coupled with another failure. Isn't this cross member there to provide lateral rigidity such that the bucket remains level and loads are equally distributed between lift cylinders/arms? If you cut the cross member completely out, wouldn't the bucket still operate? It might twist, if one cylinder is weeker/slower than another, and/or if the load is unbalanced. But, unless a cylinder fails, I don't see where a failure of the cross member by itself would cause harm. It's a lateral support, not a vertical (lift) support. The loader will neither raise nor drop based on its presence or absence.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Isn't this cross member there to provide lateral rigidity such that the bucket remains level and loads are equally distributed between lift cylinders/arms?

The torque tube's main jobs are to: 1) stabilize the load across both loader arms and effectively impart very similar weight onto each cylinder, which 2) also balances the weight to both the left & right sides of the tractor. Balancing the load on the tractor is the real critical point.

If the torque tube breaks, and if the load in the bucket is heavy on one side, the that side will drop and will compound the problem by shifting even more load to the heavy side, consequently the weight can shift to one side of the tractor which can cause the tractor to roll/tip.