So, I was thinking about what I would change if I were designing a CTL to be more operator friendly. I honed my skills on track loaders and skip loaders (industrial tractors.) Both of these allow for a really good view of whats going on around the operator. In response to operator input, track loader engines were moved rearward and operator platforms for both track loaders and skip loaders were raised. Both of these changes were major improvements. I understand the dual platform (SS/CTL) capability of the design from a "bottom line" manufacturers viewpoint, but why the "stuck in a rut" mentality when it comes to improvements? The only improvement I've seen is "cab forward", which is a debatable improvement anyway. (I won't include JCB's one arm bandit in the discussion mainly because IMO it's a stupid gimmic design.) All of the designs out there today stick the operator down in what is essentially a daylight basement. The only decent view of what's going on is out of a narrow front door. Loader towers and the engine cover block the rear view, loader arms block the side views. Unless the door is a flip-up version, the operator is stuck in the cab if the loader arms are just a little off the ground. It doesn't make any sense to me. Imagine raising the operators station up just 12" on your CTL. (Takeuchi's roof is almost there anyway.) There would be a much better from grading to backing up to loading trucks...not to mention that better vision equals a higher degree of safety for anyone in the work area. The operator would be further away from all the mechanicals that make noise and heat. There would be more room for the mechanicals as well. Today's designs pack so much crap in such a small space that access to mechanicals has gotten ridiculous. So what do you think?
I think one of the concerns is the overall height of both SSL/CTLs. Otherwise I think you have some very good points. In some applications where height isn't a concern the compact wheel loader is a much better choice than a SSL, but it lacks the flotation of a CTL. Europeans have no problem digging and finish grading with them. They're quieter, easier on fuel and tires, faster and provide great visibility, etc. Other than not having tracks they meet many of the features you mention.
I said I wouldn't include JCB, but here I go. Imagine this unit without the hoe, but with a rear engine or additional weight/rippers for better lift capabilities. And think about the additional reach. I think a 10-12000 lb. rubber tracked loader along these lines would be ideal. Like the example above, maybe I'm talking more about an entirely different machine than a modification to the existing CTL platform.
Exactly haha, there would be some benefits of having a taller CTL, but IMO it would undermine a lot of point of having one. Getting into small spaces, and having a stable platform.
JCB's one arm is certainly not a gimmick. Several people I know are pretty crippled up with arthritis, and the side door makes getting in/out manageable. Sitting down in...yes, one friend has an old Ford skid steer, and he sits up high. He wants a new machine, but none are like his old Ford.
Yair . . . I think (generally speaking) that the Europeans are much more innovative than American manufacturers who have to cater to conservative market pretty much set in its ways. I am in no way being critical, I feel the same, but you only have to look at the multifunction machines that are common in Europe but don't sell in the 'States or Australia. One concept that is taking off here (I think) are large wheeled excavators. I wrote some time ago that I had noticed a few in the big smoke and a few days ago one ran down the highway past my gate towing a trailer . . . lime green colour I couldn't catch the make. The most interesting machine to me though is the combination excavator/loader. To me this would be the ultimate machine and does the job of a backhoe but with three sixty swing. Apologies to the O/P for the mild hijack but yes I think from a manufacturing point of view US manufacturers stick to the tried and proven. I remember seeing a skid (Melroe?) probably fifty years ago and one of the selling points was serviceability, the spiel was because it was hydraulic with no drive shafts they could mount the entire engine/pump assembly on rails and the whole thing rolled out the back giving complete access to all parts of the engine. I though it a brilliant idea and could see in my mind this feature would be common on machines in the future. It never happened and todays machines are mechanic's nightmares as far as I can see. Cheers.
While I think sitting higher would be nice for visibility, and maybe it could be a option from the factory? I think they probably wouldn't sell as many just because they would be so tall.
Cab height is an issue with the Tk's. That is one of the reasons that more OEM's don't use the flip up door. It raises the cab height and makes them less maneuverable in tight spaces. I am curious when the prices are going to stop raising 10% or more every couple of years. I know that the Tier updates necessitate the pricing (or does it?). However at close to s100K now for the most expensive machines, there has got to be ceiling in this. I realize they have a lot of capability but dam, at the end of the day it is 10k pound loader. You reach a point where unless your in a niche application it is hard to get the money back out of the machine. You can only input so much into your bids for the use of the CTL. Nobody cares that your new CTL has more technology than the space shuttle. Add to that, when these things go down and they all do no matter the color of it, it is big money. So I believe it is quickly getting to the point that you make sure that you have an extend warranty to take you through the time you plan on owning it. Actually I think we have been there for a while now, further adding to the upfront cost of the machine (however your out of pocket repair costs are now fixed, minus the things that are wear or operator related errors). I love the new machines, I like the comfort, the power and the technology. However I think we are approaching a point of diminished returns as far as technology and its associated costs.
KSSS I think you are right. Technology is a great thing, but its expensive. OEMs of everything from our pickups to our machines, to the wife's car to even our cell phones have built in huge amounts of technology which has driven the price of things up drastically. Now dont get me wrong technology is nice to have. I enjoy my handsfree system in my work car, ride control and adjustable hydraulic sensitivity is cool, touch screen navigation and remote start would be neat on a work truck. Bottom line is do these things add enough productivity in a "work vehicle" or machine to justify the cost... Does a machine (CTL) with personalized EH controls, satellite stereo, digital gauges and monitors, auto temp sensing HVAC do a better more efficient job than a machine from 10 years ago that didnt have all the electronic crap that costs huge amounts of money? In most cases no, so on our end it makes it hard to justify the cost and even harder to recoup that cost against a machine without all the cool technology. I for one wont invest dead money for the "frills" in a machine/vehicle whose sole purpose is to make me money as a return on my investment. I'd be all about buying a machine/truck/ whatever that didn't have all the expensive technology that is doomed to die and then cost a fortune in downtime and repair. Its one of the big reasons I run older equipment and vehicles. A throttle cable is 100 times more reliable than resistor switches, computer circuits, and stepper motors. If the throttle cable breaks I can tie the throttle open with a piece of wire run the rest of the day then fix it that evening Just my longwinded thoughts John
You mean one of these Scrub? Been out this last week on my interesting, ultimate machine, (Haulotte Multijob), clearing a house block in the bush for my neighbour. You're right, the Haulotte Multijob I have is definitely a multifunction machine. 360 excavator on the back telescopic 4 in 1 front bucket on the front, 4 wheel steer, it's the ducks guts Unfortunately it seems Australia and the USA are slow to take up new concepts sometimes compared to Europe. I think there are more developments on new and existing machine platforms floating around Europe and Scandinavia, and it seems to cultivate a more competitive environment to use these ideas to increase productivity. Theres a thread on this forum about rototilts on excavators which explores this subject. AusDave
Excellent points guys. I'm enjoying the discussion.
Thanks for posting a photo AusDave...I was wondering what the heck Scrub was talking about.
Why not go back to the roots of the old track loaders only now with technology make them smaller and more powerful. Take for example the Kubota r520 take that size platform remove the articulation and wheels/tires put a set of rubber tracks on it and call it a track loader. The companies have a whole new line of machines. I personally hate running skid steers just because of lack of vision and ability to get in and out easily without climbing over them implements. I would say there's a market to replace guys using tlb and also give the option of backhoe rear attachment or rear PtO. I'd buy one!
Now we're talking! I like the idea. Now imagine this...Take an old track loader, like a International 100E size or smaller, make it a rear engine design for increased operator visibility... with rubber tracks and all of the nice features like quick attach and hydraulic hookups. And don't forget a cab for operator comfort. I think there would be a market. Take the JCB example I mentioned above. Even with the front engine design...add a stronger loader and a removable hoe with the option for a quick attach three point system with down pressure and a pto. Talk about a tracked bag of tricks.
Yair . . . Good one AusDave that's the machine I was speaking of I sure hope that jigger works out for you. Dealer support will be important as the obvious criticism will be complexity and availability as the unit gets some hours. Having said that, once the concept is accepted and understood I can see a niche application where they could become the "go to" machine on almost any site. Cheers.
Guys still love tlbs and I don't blame them but if you could get one with steel or rubber tracks you'd have quite the setup. As a small contractor you could eliminate a dozer, tlb, and skid steer with one machine.
JNB I really like that little JCB machine you posted. Doesn't seem to be offered in the US. Interesting machine that would very useful.
I wonder how that would impact operator comfort? Certainly, on a full sized track loader the operator is much higher, but by their nature skidsteers and CTLs do a lot more bouncing around than the bigger machines. Would that extra 12" beat you up more by the end of the day? (Yes, that's the kind of question you think of when you're not 25 years old anymore.)
Yep, it's pretty interesting. As a one man show I'm always looking for the "magic" machine I guess. My mind is still 25, but my body...not so much. Two more years and I'll be hitting the big SIX-OHHHH. Still doesn't seem possible. I have a young family to support, so I don't see slowing down anytime soon.
JNB - Yes, I think CTL mfgs & mfgs in general in the US are "stuck in a rut"...the "profit" rut, where their profit is more important than innovating to offer users a better product. That small JCB tracked loader you pictured is a perfect example. I did not even know such a machine even existed 'til a short while ago. It's JCB's smallest "backhoe/loader", the 1CXT, weighs about 9,500 lbs, tipping load of about 4,190 lbs, & has a cab height of 93.7" (there is a low canopy option that is about 88" high). But it is NOT offered in North America, only in Europe!! But it is a sweet looking machine...std. dual loader arms with std. side entry cab, & much easier mechanical access. It's about 10" higher than most CTL's, but where headroom is not a big problem it sure looks like a great solution for a one-man operation. It's essentially a real small tracked loader. Maybe they could even offer steel tracks at some point. Add a rear PTO & 3-pt hitch option, & what a small woods machine!!
Yair . . . Another interesting discussion. I have had little to do with skids but have watched their evolution to tracks with interest but somewhat puzzled by the layout and geometry. For years I have been wondering why it was not possible to design a small conventional and accessible tracked machine . . . and then along comes the 1CXT http://www.jcb.co.uk/Products/Machines/Backhoe-Loaders/1CXT/Benefits.aspx I am curious as to what a "conventional" small CTL can do that this jigger can't. Stumpy Wally To my eye this is an integrated unit, the backhoe is part of the package and without it or an equivalent counter weight the performance would be degraded. Cheers.
I don't think that there is anything a "conventional" small CTL can do that the 1CXT can't...except get into spaces with less than 8' clearance. And Scrub, I agree that the current 1CXT is an integrated design, where the backhoe is NOT removable, but that's not to say that it couldn't be redesigned a little to be removable. And at least 2 other posters in this thread have voiced the desire for rear PTO & 3-pt hitch. You could then hang counterweights on the 3-pt hitch when no other rear attachments are mounted, & I was thinking of a 3-pt-pto-powered skidding winch for woods work. They are pretty heavy by themselves, & are readily available. Most small conventional SSL/CTL's don't even have ANY provision for a rear hitch, let alone a rear winch. And when they do provide for a rear winch (like on the JCB 325T Forest Master, or the Cat 299XHP from SuperTrak), the winches are expensive hydraulic affairs. The exception to the rear hitch availability issue is Case & NH, which at least offer an optional rear drawbar. I got one on my NH L220, & then added 2" receiver tubes to it, into which I slip an electric receiver-mounted winch.
3-pt Hitch weights could be used, and when running a Gannon on the rear there would be plenty of weight. Hard to tell by the 1CXT info I've found, but it looks like a 76" wide model would run outside of the tracks. With hydraulic hookups, that would be over 1300 lbs hanging off the back. StumpWally - I've always thought that the heaviest Earthforce / Ingersol Rand / Bobcat all-wheel-steer TLB would've taken off better if it had a removal BH with 3-PT and PTO. I think that IG/Bobcat only got it to use the AWS technology for their A300 and then dumped the machine so it wouldn't compete with their skids.
I did like the little bobcat loader. Cat does have some small wheeled loaders but they are rare. A guy here in town has the little JCB machine you showed. I drove buy and though, that must be handier than a shirt pocket!
That's a cool little unit Scrub . Mixing old school ideas with the track loader / back hoe combo but with all the modern comforts . I like it !
I saw a 1CXT at ConExpo a few years ago and i assumed they were gonna market them in NA, but it hasn't happened thus far.
Here is the service accessibility with the cab raised on the new NXT2 Series Mustang Compact Track Loader
That's a heck of a lot more organized than the hose jungle lying in the belly pan of my Case.
Yes Sir! We have a vast assortment of cut up and bent wrenches & crows feet just FOR those Case's!!!