View Full Version : Sorry but ASV's just look ******ed
04-04-2006, 11:09 PM
They need to tighten it up a little and fix those stubby arms - what the heck.
04-04-2006, 11:28 PM
I think they are looking sharper and sharper... is there any other reason you don't like the ASV, or just because it's ugly?
04-04-2006, 11:33 PM
I almost bought one but couldnt get over it. I find myself snickering whenever I see one. Smooth ride though.
04-05-2006, 12:01 AM
Also I saw one trying to load a truck and was having a heck of a time, he ended up having to buid a little ramp so he could reach to get the dirt in the back LOL.
04-05-2006, 01:51 AM
I've noticed their reach has been diminished by alot. Really a shame. ASV markets their machines as miniature bulldozers and have since the PosiTrak days. I think you'd be better off with a different machine if you did alot of truck loading.
04-05-2006, 09:53 AM
I'd agree with you that someone could argue that the ASV machines don't look as refined as some of the other manufacturers, but I'd also argue that they aren't the worst either. As far as loading trucks goes, I've never had a problem loading with my RC50. I think it has 24" of reach. Not the longest reach out there, but good enough to get the job done without any issues. It's far more productive and flexible with the applications that I can bid than the Bobcat machines. It pushes like no tomorrow, can operate on paved surfaces without problem, is lighter on sensitive surfaces like grass, is faster, doesn't get stuck as easy, climbs better, side slopes better, is far superior in snow removal than other tracked machines near the same size, and doesn't beat the s#*t out of me aver a full day in the seat. The new machines also look much "nicer" and may have one of the ncest cabs in the industry now. I'd bet that all of the other models will be changing over to look like the two new ones very soon.
I think Vermeer made a point in another thread that the ASV is designed as a loader first not a tool carrier. With that in mind it is easier to see why it looks like it does. I agree, they are ugly but I guess even ugly has a purpose. Also with 24" of reach you can't be dumping into the center of a typical tandem dump truck.
04-05-2006, 08:06 PM
I'm personaly afraid the neighbors will think I'm crazy if I brough one home. My question is, if it's ment to load, why such the small (low profile) bucket? I know they make a large capacity, but its only longer, not "higher"
04-06-2006, 08:55 AM
I don't have a real problem loading trucks. It just takes a little flick of the bucket to flop the load into the middle of the truck. It definitely outloads my S220 by a huge margin. The Virnig bucket that is standard with the machine actually holds a little more dirt than the CAT 247 66" bucket because it has a deep and high backboard.
04-07-2006, 09:12 AM
You would think it wouldn't be all that difficult to engineer some longer arms on them to get the bucket higher, wonder what the thinking was over there, this isn't rocket science. What good is a loader if it can't load well. I am sure it probably would make a good plow.
04-07-2006, 09:36 AM
They do make a machine that has more of a vertical lift so they must be thinking about it. It is their RCV series... see the attached link www.asvi.com/rcv_specifications.cfm
04-07-2006, 09:48 AM
These machines are not very heavy, so a high lift can really send them off balance. I'm sure there is a point where a machine cannot be considered stable, and the height of a load plays into this.
04-07-2006, 11:47 AM
Are you saying the RCV isn't a heavy machine? At 8,000 pounds, the last thing it needs is more weight. Should handle a full bucket at full height no problem, especially with the tracked undercarriage holding the machine to the ground. I can run a slack bucket at full height with our 216 as long as the ground is level, but I never need to run full lift height. I actually fell into our dump trailer while loading with the trailer slightly downhill from the machine. Machine just tipped right into the trailer and the bucket landed in the bed of the trailer. Trailer was fine and the machine just slightly bent the top of the ROPS which we bent back into place in about 10 minutes time. Overall, this biz is about hard knocks. I learned a valuable lesson that day.
04-07-2006, 12:29 PM
I'm thinking the RC30, or even the RC50. Not real heavy, but you're right the larger machines are heavier. I think the problem with the lift height is the hinge point for the loader arms being so low. The ASVs have a "cab forward" design, with a lower back deck, which seems to influence at which height they put the hinge pins.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.