[AT] Farmall H wide front end

[Guy Fay]

Great points. Also resist the urge to weld up your own ROPS. A ROPS is not
just a roll cage- it's a energy absorbing structure that has to work in a
variety of environments. There's a heck of a lot of engineering that goes
into those things. I've heard the stories about the first experiments- ROPS
that would crumble like cookies in cold weather.

-----Original Message-----
From: at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com
[mailto:at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com] On Behalf Of Mike Sloane
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 12:43 PM
To: Antique tractor email discussion group
Subject: Re: [AT] Farmall H wide front end

I completely agree with both Dean and Guy. But it should be pointed out 
that a ROPS without a seat belt is just as dangerous as no ROPS at all. 
And it has to be a *real* ROPS that has been certified by the ag 
engineering society - not just a sun shade or canopy that somebody 
slapped on the tractor. It has to be capable of supporting he entire 
weight of the tractor in a roll-over. Very few of our antique tractors 
can be retrofitted with a certified ROPS because the axles are not 
deemed sufficiently strong to bear the weight of an inverted tractor.

Some of the New Holland tractors I sold had a ROPS that could be folded 
down for work where low limbs or doorways were a problem. There was a 
sticker on the ROPS that instructed the operator to NOT use the seatbelt 
when the ROPS was folded.

I know this sounds a little picky, but it is important to understand the 
function of the ROP System.

Mike

Guy Fay wrote:
> ROPS and a seat belt are a good idea when you are on hillsides too.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com
> [mailto:at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com] On Behalf Of Dean Vinson
> Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 10:31 AM
> To: 'Antique tractor email discussion group'
> Subject: Re: [AT] Farmall H wide front end
> 
> Whenever the narrow-front vs. wide-front discussion comes up, I'm always
on
> the side that it doesn't make any difference.
> 
> With any tractor, operator awareness and caution, spacing of the rear
> wheels, speed of operation, terrain, height of the loader bucket if so
> equipped, etc, have got to make more difference in the tendency to roll
over
> than the front end style does.  If all those things have been controlled
as
> well as they can be, and the operator still has a concern that the
tractor's
> geometry is unsafe given his particular terrain, as a general rule I'd say
> forget about switching front ends and switch instead to a low-profile
> utility tractor.
> 
> It's not that I disagree with the personal anecdotes or detailed
> explanations of the physics or practical tests involving toy tractors on a
> tilted board or discussions of the effects of having larger and widely
> spaced front wheels, etc.  All of those sound reasonable and right to me.
> But at a very gut level I always come back to my instinctive position that
a
> tall row-crop tractor is still a tall row-crop tractor regardless of what
> type of front end it has.  Putting a wide front on an H or M won't
suddenly
> convert it into a Ford 8N or IH 300 or Oliver 550 or whatever, in terms of
> the relationship between the height of its center of gravity and the span
of
> its rear wheels.
> 
> In the end I think it's a shades-of-gray issue.  Is a wide front safer?
> Sure, probably so, but only by shades of gray.  If you evaluate those
shades
> and make a carefully reasoned choice for a wide front, great.  My concern
is
> our natural tendency as humans to latch onto quick soundbites and boil
> everything down to black and white, and therefore assume that "wide front"
> equals "safe".  It doesn't.
> 
> Dean Vinson
> Dayton, Ohio
> www.vinsonfarm.net
> 
_______________________________________________
AT mailing list
http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.800 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2788 - Release Date: 04/04/10
08:31:00