Joined
·
525 Posts
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.....
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.....