Green Tractor Talk banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
So, I successfully installed my 47" JD Snowblower assembly today. Thought it would be a good idea to put the ROPS in the upright position and get a good photo of the unit in all it's glory with the snowblower and ballast box on - ready for winter.

You guessed it :banghead:..... forgot to lower the ROPS and drove the tractor back into the polebarn to make sure it would fit with all the extended implements attached and 'C-R-E-A-K, G-R-O-A-N, S-C-R-A-P-E.'

I stopped immediately, thinking I was dragging my ballast box on the cement or something, and then saw that I had wedged the ROPS under the aluminum jam facia up above. Thank God I was just creeping into the garage...no structural damage.... just scuffed up and slightly bent the underside of the garage door jam fascia and scraped a teeny amount of black paint off of one corner edge of my ROPS. :banghead:

Superficial.... but anybody knows me knows I will be thinking about this until I repair it to perfection.... you might as well have broken both my legs. Mr OCD here. Ugh !!!

Is it really necessary for the ROPS to be so friggin' tall?? I notice that the Kubota equivelent is not so tall and from what I hear, it will fit into a standard garage door. Maybe it's a safety thing.... but I bet you 8 out of 10 people keep their ROPS folded in half so they can get into and out of their garage. Damnit!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,750 Posts
When my 1025R came in August the rops was up. When we put it in garage hat day we lowered it to Half staff, after crackin my head 3-4 time I lowered all the way down. I even zip tided it so it would not rattle.Last weekend my son and i set it up for winter and raised it back up and measured it with the door. I figure i need 2" to get in door. If Deere made them to fit the 7ft doors they would get used alot more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,199 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I almost have to laugh at my stupidity.... I TOLD MYSELF...... "Self, do not be an idiot and forget that the ROPS is up." I never listen... not even to myself. :hornets:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,323 Posts
I never understood why Deere doesn't make it a priority to see that these tractors fit under a residential garage door, since that's where the majority of them will end up being stored. And it's about as bad when the ROPS is lowered to half-staff, makes it exactly the right height to give you a concussion when you walk into it. :laugh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,076 Posts
I don't know for sure, but I would be surprised if there is not a standard that keeps the operator in a triangle of safety, if you will, in the event of a rollover. The organization used to be ASAE (American Society of Agricultural Engineers), but I believe that it is now merged with SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers).

Maybe if Kennyd sees this, he can help me out.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,299 Posts
I don't know for sure, but I would be surprised if there is not a standard that keeps the operator in a triangle of safety, if you will, in the event of a rollover. The organization used to be ASAE (American Society of Agricultural Engineers), but I believe that it is now merged with SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers).

Maybe if Kennyd sees this, he can help me out.
I think you are 100% correct Don, here are some pics I've saved over the years (sorry I can't remember who they came from to give credit):


Rops.png

Triangle of safety.JPG

One other issue is that if you have a backhoe-you'd hit you head on the ROPS if it was shorter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
I'm pretty sure you can take two or three inches off the ROPS and still have no issues with backhoe use.

I suspect that the height of the ROPS is set by way of establishing a protected zone with the tractor configured in it's simplest form. That is, without a front brush guard. If the front brush guard was standard equipment I'd bet that the ROPS would be a few inches shorter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Levi and pcabe5

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,899 Posts
I think you are 100% correct Don, here are some pics I've saved over the years (sorry I can't remember who they came from to give credit):


View attachment 273249

View attachment 273257

One other issue is that if you have a backhoe-you'd hit you head on the ROPS if it was shorter.
Wrong, I'm 5' 11" ,lowered the top section of my ROPS by 6 maybe 8 inches. Have never hit my head on the ROPS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,228 Posts
They might as well put a cage around the driver. Not as much as the pulling guys but something like a 4 point. Rented a Kabota B21 that had something similar. Also had a built in roof with 4 work lights. That all sat on 4 uprights. Not sure if it will fit under a standard garage door.

Sorry for twisting everyone's neck. LOL
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
471 Posts
I feel your pain. I read over and over how people hit the rops on the garage or barn opening. I thought, "how in the world can one be so forgetful!?" Well...I've done it not once but twice now:laugh::laugh::laugh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,323 Posts
I think you are 100% correct Don, here are some pics I've saved over the years (sorry I can't remember who they came from to give credit):


View attachment 273249

View attachment 273257

One other issue is that if you have a backhoe-you'd hit you head on the ROPS if it was shorter.
If this is the problem, how about raising the hood/brushguard? :laugh:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,043 Posts
Threads like this one always bring back strong memories for me. As a former product safety manager for a company that designed and manufactured complex and potentially dangerous products, I have spent countless hours in discussions like this one--except that my discussions were with the designers (who understood the technical and cost issues) and marketers (who represented the needs and mindset of the customers). This is not to say that designers don't care about customers, but typically they are not as familiar with the daily lives of customers as those who spend time with them and meet them where they live. I used to bring antacids with me to the meetings and was more of a referee than a moderator. All sides were very passionate.

Given that background, I can speculate the following:

1. The height of the ROPS was calculated and debated at length (pun intended). If it could be shorter and not compromise safety, it would be--because it would be cheaper to make and would please more customers with low shed doors, and both the designers and the marketers would like this.

2. The "folding" feature of the ROPS was a compromise to the marketers to keep customers with short shed doors included in the target market for the product. The designers didn't like it because it added significant cost and complexity. The added costs were justified by the greater potential market. Nobody liked the ROPS because it depended on the customer remembering to have it in the right position at the right time to prevent mishaps or fatalities. Most reasonable people know this won't work. Real human beings don't work this way. Just read the GTT posts.

3. The ROPS design must protect really tall people, not just average people. There was a lot of thought, statistics, and debate that went into that height dimension. I suspect that the height considers both maintaining a protected space for the operator and preventing the tractor from rolling all the way over, both important to safety.

I'm a great believer in designing products for the way people really are. Real people will forget to put the ROPS up after leaving the shed or forget to put it down before entering the shed, with significant potential consequences for a reasonably expected, typical use of the product. The folding ROPS didn't go far enough, in my opinion. There should be a collision sensor that kills the engine when a forward impact with the top of the ROPS is imminent (even a tree branch). And there should be a sensor that would kill the engine if the ROPS remains in the folded position for more than a minute or two after the tractor is started. This approach meets all the needs without unrealistic expectations of the operators.

Of course, we'll need a GTT thread for those that would want to disable these safety features.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
I think you are 100% correct Don, here are some pics I've saved over the years (sorry I can't remember who they came from to give credit):


View attachment 273249

View attachment 273257

One other issue is that if you have a backhoe-you'd hit you head on the ROPS if it was shorter.
Threads like this one always bring back strong memories for me. As a former product safety manager for a company that designed and manufactured complex and potentially dangerous products, I have spent countless hours in discussions like this one--except that my discussions were with the designers (who understood the technical and cost issues) and marketers (who represented the needs and mindset of the customers). This is not to say that designers don't care about customers, but typically they are not as familiar with the daily lives of customers as those who spend time with them and meet them where they live. I used to bring antacids with me to the meetings and was more of a referee than a moderator. All sides were very passionate.

Given that background, I can speculate the following:

1. The height of the ROPS was calculated and debated at length (pun intended). If it could be shorter and not compromise safety, it would be--because it would be cheaper to make and would please more customers with low shed doors, and both the designers and the marketers would like this.

2. The "folding" feature of the ROPS was a compromise to the marketers to keep customers with short shed doors included in the target market for the product. The designers didn't like it because it added significant cost and complexity. The added costs were justified by the greater potential market. Nobody liked the ROPS because it depended on the customer remembering to have it in the right position at the right time to prevent mishaps or fatalities. Most reasonable people know this won't work. Real human beings don't work this way. Just read the GTT posts.

3. The ROPS design must protect really tall people, not just average people. There was a lot of thought, statistics, and debate that went into that height dimension. I suspect that the height considers both maintaining a protected space for the operator and preventing the tractor from rolling all the way over, both important to safety.

I'm a great believer in designing products for the way people really are. Real people will forget to put the ROPS up after leaving the shed or forget to put it down before entering the shed, with significant potential consequences for a reasonably expected, typical use of the product. The folding ROPS didn't go far enough, in my opinion. There should be a collision sensor that kills the engine when a forward impact with the top of the ROPS is imminent (even a tree branch). And there should be a sensor that would kill the engine if the ROPS remains in the folded position for more than a minute or two after the tractor is started. This approach meets all the needs without unrealistic expectations of the operators.

Of course, we'll need a GTT thread for those that would want to disable these safety features.
Two excellent contributions to this discussion...!

I don't have a real horse in this race as my garage door is high enough that I can leave my ROPS up. But I have noticed many incidents like this in the few months I've been a member here. I also can't help but notice many pictures and videos of 1 family tractors in action with the ROPS down or completely off (Tractor Time with Tim for example).

It's sort of surprising that there are so many companies making accessories, modification and parts for these machines and yet no one is offering a shorter ROPS. I bet people would be lining up to buy one if it would mean they could keep it up and not hit their shed/garage door/pole barn.

3. The ROPS design must protect really tall people, not just average people. There was a lot of thought, statistics, and debate that went into that height dimension. I suspect that the height considers both maintaining a protected space for the operator and preventing the tractor from rolling all the way over, both important to safety.
Yes, a shorter ROPS would potentially compromise safety. But, a shorter ROPS would be exponentially more safe than operating a tractor with no ROPS or a Folded ROPS.

Then comes the liability.... Who wants to sell a product that will most certainly land your butt in court when someone does eventually get hurt....?
 

·
Senior GTT Super Slacker
Joined
·
37,816 Posts
I feel your pain. I read over and over how people hit the rops on the garage or barn opening. I thought, "how in the world can one be so forgetful!?" Well...I've done it not once but twice now:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Rookie! :lol:
At least four times here. :munch:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,737 Posts
Given that background, I can speculate the following:

1. The height of the ROPS was calculated and debated at length (pun intended). If it could be shorter and not compromise safety, it would be--because it would be cheaper to make and would please more customers with low shed doors, and both the designers and the marketers would like this.
I'm not so sure. The height of the 2-series ROPS seems much higher than similar sized tractors from other manufacturers. It borders on ridiculous compared to even JDs larger tractors. Also, if you look at JD's older CUT tractors like the 650s, 750s, etc. they had non-folding ROPS that seemed to be more practical in size.

I am unfortunately one of those who can not make any use out of the ROPS. I cannot drive my tractor anywhere on my property with the ROPS extended and needless to say the garage door would be destroyed in short order.
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top