I ran a few numbers with respect to ground penetration, with some broad assumptions:
1. Assume the Tractor can provide 500# of forward force prior to losing tire grip. (wild guess, but it's a number)
2. Assume a 53" bucket and the edge after initial engagement is 1/2" thick. 500#/(53"x.5")=19 psi
3. Assume the Piranha bar has 7 forward "teeth", each 2" wide and again 1/2" thick. 500#/(7x2"x1/2")=71 psi
4. Assume a standard toothbar with 5 teeth, 3" wide x 1/2" thick. 500#/(5x3"x1/2")=66 psi
5. Assume Heavy Hitch split points have 7 teeth x 2 for the split. Figure 1/2" square after engagement. 500#/(14x1/2"x1/2")=142 psi
Now while my force assumption is arbitrary, my "frontal area" assumption may be way off but very critical to the analysis. Given I don't have any of these except the bucket, it still looks like the split point design provides a greater penetration potential than the other designs.
And again, I may be way off.....
Since the teeth are pointed you would have to calculate the force at the point of the tooth.
All of the teeth, either Piranha or typical toothbars, are sloped or sharpened to an edge, again making a smaller contact area at the point of penetration.
I think either will penetrate to the depth of the tooth very well. After that, it will take weight and power to continue to penetrate.
For digging, a typical toothbar design is likely the best. Hence, why they are used on most digging buckets. For clearing, I don't think the typical toothbar adds much.
I think it would be interesting to see a test with the same tractor/loader/bucket, same dirt, same operator, which one would "dig" the best. Especially on a SCUT sized tractor.
I do like the no drill attachment of the HH bar. :thumbup1gif: