PDA

View Full Version : I think i found bobcat_ron


cat2
02-01-2008, 06:57 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYdppluUbPo









sorry bobcat_ron when i seen this i thought of you. i don't know why, must be the Cat

KS_Grasscutter
02-01-2008, 07:23 PM
Wow, I have ran a bobcat ONCE for about 4 hours, and am MUCH MUCH better than that guy...

Landrus2
02-01-2008, 07:33 PM
No way Ron would smoke that guy.:drinkup:

Dirt Digger2
02-01-2008, 07:35 PM
haha been there and done that...i did it with #57's though...sounded cool when it hit the top of the cab

allinearth
02-01-2008, 07:38 PM
Lmao!!!!!!!!!

cat2
02-01-2008, 07:40 PM
No way Ron would smoke that guy.:drinkup:




i don't know that guy is good:laugh::laugh:. i never seen bobcat_ron drive before but anyone has to be better than that guy

RockSet N' Grade
02-01-2008, 07:43 PM
I had to watch that a couple times, and laughed harder the second time. Wonder if he was wearing a dust mask?.....not that it would have helped

ksss
02-01-2008, 08:04 PM
I had to watch that a couple times, and laughed harder the second time. Wonder if he was wearing a dust mask?.....not that it would have helped


Typical CAT, no power, no wheel torque and the driver sucks I wonder if Ron still believes that all the great operations run CAT?

cat2
02-01-2008, 08:18 PM
Typical CAT, no power, no wheel torque and the driver sucks I wonder if Ron still believes that all the great operations run CAT?



You all seen how smart that guy was, and you seen what he was driving. hmm what does that tell us:rolleyes:

bobcat_ron
02-01-2008, 08:32 PM
That's pretty darn close ya bunch of wise asses! http://www.p1x44r.com/smiles/sherlock.gif

Even the frame of the machine is similar to my 247. But that 216 has little balls compared to the 247, I think even the first 216's were only 45 hp at best, mine is 57 w/ turbo.

bobcat_ron
02-01-2008, 08:33 PM
And oh yah, Cat 297C power:
http://www.forconstructionpros.com/videonetwork/index.jsp?showid=728567

Let's see a T300 do that with out spinning the tracks.

Dirt Digger2
02-01-2008, 08:34 PM
i actually laughed harder at the machine almost stalling going into the piles then the fact he dumped all over himself

bobcat_ron
02-01-2008, 08:35 PM
He was slamming into the pile at WOT, any machine would bog down like that, that's a rookie mistake.

cat2
02-01-2008, 08:39 PM
He was slamming into the pile at WOT, any machine would bog down like that, that's a rookie mistake.






yes and don't you give the rookie the not so good machine, because they don't know how to drive?



just messing with you ron

bobcat_ron
02-01-2008, 08:41 PM
No hard feelings, someday I'll post a vid of my baby doing it's stuff on the "catwalk"!

ksss
02-01-2008, 08:45 PM
Listen to how far the machine pulls down as he functions the machine. Also note the speed he hits the pile, not that fast and how quick the engine pulls down. Very little lugging power, typical of a small displacement motor. All classic signs of an underpowered machine. Yours has 57hp? Wow what do you do with all that.:sleeping: That is spot on with your T-190. :hammerhead: Your 297C video does show great traction in what looks like slippery conditions I will give you that, but the discussion was power. At a whopping 217 foot pounds when the conditions get tough and you need to hog material, better get a machine that makes power. However you will comfortable in that cab it sounds like. You need to be 'cause your going to be in the machine longer than you would be with some competetive machines. :canadaflag:

Dirt Digger2
02-01-2008, 08:48 PM
KSSS you could be on CSI....CAT Sh*t Investigator

cat2
02-01-2008, 08:50 PM
KSSS you could be on CSI....CAT Sh*t Investigator



LMAO:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

BIGBEN2004
02-01-2008, 08:51 PM
How come this little ASV about the size of Rons 247 can out push this big old bad BOBCAT???/:hammerhead:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjYT8lQN6YU&feature=related

cat2
02-01-2008, 08:53 PM
How come this little ASV about the size of Rons 247 can out push this big old bad BOBCAT???/:hammerhead:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjYT8lQN6YU&feature=related




because of the tracks, the asv uses a much soft rubber than the bobcat does, giving it better traction on snow and ice.

Scag48
02-01-2008, 08:55 PM
That guy just can't run a machine. 216 has more balls for it's size than most machines. 48 gross horsepower and only 5600 pounds, makes Bobcat's T190 look grossly underpowered, I'd wipe a T190 and every wheeled machine in the 1300 ROC class with our 216 any day of the week.

BIGBEN2004
02-01-2008, 09:01 PM
Every time I have ran a T190 I always thought they were way underpowered. Even the dealer in my area said that he and many other dealers have been complaining to bobcat about how underpowered they are. They are a small machine but that doesn't mean they have to lack on power so much. I am sure I will get bashed for saying all that but it is just my $.02

cat2
02-01-2008, 09:03 PM
Every time I have ran a T190 I always thought they were way underpowered. Even the dealer in my area said that he and many other dealers have been complaining to bobcat about how underpowered they are. They are a small machine but that doesn't mean they have to lack on power so much. I am sure I will get bashed for saying all that but it is just my $.02





i never drove a t190 but i heard the same from many people. it should have at least a 65 hp motor

Scag48
02-01-2008, 09:06 PM
I'm just sticking up for the 216, they are great machines for their size. I'm more impressed with the 216's abilities at the end of the day than a 246B we rented last summer, that machine was not impressive for it's size. If the 216 had a turbo, watch out. Needless to say, I've never run a turbo'd 226, which is basically the same machine. I've run a 5 foot trencher with our 216 no problem, also ran a 6 foot Harley rake no problems there either. Handles a 60" 4 in 1 pretty well, which is a heavier bucket for a smaller machine. It's not all about horsepower, it's how you handle what you have. I've seen guys with larger skids get less down than I can do with my dad's 216. There's my .02

BIGBEN2004
02-01-2008, 09:06 PM
When compared to my Takeuchi TL130 it is a joke on power and breakout force. It is in the same general comparison league also. The T190 that is.

hosejockey2002
02-01-2008, 09:06 PM
My God, I think I'm smarter than that guy. Why would you want to turn a 180 twice instead of just backing up straight for 35 feet?:hammerhead:

BIGBEN2004
02-01-2008, 09:07 PM
My God, I think I'm smarter than that guy. Why would you want to turn a 180 twice instead of just backing up straight for 35 feet?:hammerhead:
You make a good point.:laugh:

cat2
02-01-2008, 09:09 PM
My God, I think I'm smarter than that guy. Why would you want to turn a 180 twice instead of just backing up straight for 35 feet?:hammerhead:


yea i noticed that right away too.

Dirt Digger2
02-01-2008, 09:10 PM
My God, I think I'm smarter than that guy. Why would you want to turn a 180 twice instead of just backing up straight for 35 feet?:hammerhead:

because it hurts your neck to turn around for that long...:laugh:....although who really looks behind them when they back up anyway...back until you feel a thump then throw it in forward and go!

ksss
02-01-2008, 09:13 PM
That guy just can't run a machine. 216 has more balls for it's size than most machines. 48 gross horsepower and only 5600 pounds, makes Bobcat's T190 look grossly underpowered, I'd wipe a T190 and every wheeled machine in the 1300 ROC class with our 216 any day of the week.

Who makes a machine in that class? By comparison the old 1840 which was designed in the early 90's had 50hp, and honestly in would interesting to see which would excavate better. I doubt the CAT could equal the torque of that Cummins engine. Great lugging ability. However I have never run a 216 so I will let it be. That and the 1840 is not in production any more so back to my original point. I cant think of many current OEMs that build a machine in that class.


Don't take this personally Scag, I am mostly just having fun with Bobcat (I am ordering aftermarket parts for my new CAT because it is so awesomely cool) Ron.:cool2:

Scag48
02-01-2008, 09:19 PM
I will agree that the 216 lacks a little in the torque department, that could be due partially due to the anti-stall system. I could hit that pile and fill the bucket, but I'd have to be at 80% throttle or so. This is assuming I don't "ruffle" the bucket at all to assist in loading it, just smack hitting the pile.

Bobcat's S130 is in the same class and I think Gehl produces one as well. Doesn't Case produce something that small? I know Deere doesn't.

You ought to try a 216, Kaiser, you'd like it. You might be running around going mustard yellow crazy after that. :laugh:

However, I think Cat should work harder to put GOOD parts on those undercarriages. I think their attitude is that since ASV builds them, it's out of their hands, but seriously. How about steel rollers?

BIGBEN2004
02-01-2008, 09:25 PM
http://comparison.casece.com/display.php?SID=Q2FzZVNpdGU=

Here is Case vs. Bobcat vs. Cat vs. Gehl

http://comparison.casece.com/display.php?SID=Q2FzZVNpdGU=
Sorry for the Bobcat guys this one compares the next size up Bobcat which is closer to the rest of the field of competitors.

Digdeep
02-01-2008, 09:25 PM
That guy just can't run a machine. 216 has more balls for it's size than most machines. 48 gross horsepower and only 5600 pounds, makes Bobcat's T190 look grossly underpowered, I'd wipe a T190 and every wheeled machine in the 1300 ROC class with our 216 any day of the week.

Very good point. I remember asking the Bobcat rep when he visited my dealership why they insisted on making their track machines out of their skid steers. How do you expect a machine to perform when you don't make any engine or hydraulic changes and add all of that extra weight from the undercarriage. He said it was because they could make machines without having to design new chassis. Many of the rubber track machines will continue to be underpowered as long as they are built from the skid steers.

BIGBEN2004
02-01-2008, 09:30 PM
Very good point. I remember asking the Bobcat rep when he visited my dealership why they insisted on making their track machines out of their skid steers. How do you expect a machine to perform when you don't make any engine or hydraulic changes and add all of that extra weight from the undercarriage. He said it was because they could make machines without having to design new chassis. Many of the rubber track machines will continue to be underpowered as long as they are built from the skid steers.

That is one good reason I bought Takeuchi. They are built from the ground up to only be a CTL. The entire undercarriage is welded to the frame and not bolted like everyone else does with their tire skid loader converted into track machines.

Digdeep
02-01-2008, 09:31 PM
because of the tracks, the asv uses a much soft rubber than the bobcat does, giving it better traction on snow and ice.

I don't think it is due to the rubber. That rubber must be hard as rock since it is in the snow. I was told it was due to the even weight distribution front to back on the ASV (not like a skid steer 30/70) and the suspension. Suposedly wehn down force is applied to the bucket lip the suspension forces the fron part of the tracks down onto the ground. It makes sense to me since if the suspension works with a load in the bucket as far as dampening the load by resistance it would work in the other direction.

cat2
02-01-2008, 09:35 PM
http://comparison.casece.com/display.php?SID=Q2FzZVNpdGU=

Here is Case vs. Bobcat vs. Cat vs. Gehl

http://comparison.casece.com/display.php?SID=Q2FzZVNpdGU=
Sorry for the Bobcat guys this one compares the next size up Bobcat which is closer to the rest of the field of competitors.





doesn't work

cat2
02-01-2008, 09:36 PM
I don't think it is due to the rubber. That rubber must be hard as rock since it is in the snow. I was told it was due to the even weight distribution front to back on the ASV (not like a skid steer 30/70) and the suspension. Suposedly wehn down force is applied to the bucket lip the suspension forces the fron part of the tracks down onto the ground. It makes sense to me since if the suspension works with a load in the bucket as far as dampening the load by resistance it would work in the other direction.




yes that has a big part in it, but i still think the rubber is softer. i may be wrong though

BIGBEN2004
02-01-2008, 09:38 PM
It works for me. Maybe your computer is bias and doesn't like Case since it is a Case website.:rolleyes:

Digdeep
02-01-2008, 09:40 PM
yes that has a big part in it, but i still think the rubber is softer. i may be wrong though

Who knows what the temp was but if it was really cold both tracks would be hard as rocks. It would be interesting to see that test in the snow with ASVs new agressive tracks for the RC50/60. I bet they're pushing beasts with that new tread. I push snow all the time with my RC50 and it runs circles around a skid. During the winter here in Wisconsin when I was selling bobcats we would practically hide our track machines because they are terrible in the snow removal department.

cat2
02-01-2008, 09:41 PM
does it work for anyone else?

cat2
02-01-2008, 09:42 PM
Who knows what the temp was but if it was really cold both tracks would be hard as rocks. It would be interesting to see that test in the snow with ASVs new agressive tracks for the RC50/60. I bet they're pushing beasts with that new tread. I push snow all the time with my RC50 and it runs circles around a skid. During the winter here in Wisconsin when I was selling bobcats we would practically hide our track machines because they are terrible in the snow removal department.




they are pushing beasts now, and then you put that new track on. wow it would be a bulldozer

Scag48
02-01-2008, 09:43 PM
Doesn't work for me either. I'm running Mozilla as my browser.

cat2
02-01-2008, 09:44 PM
Doesn't work for me either. I'm running Mozilla as my browser.




i'm glad i'm not the only one

BIGBEN2004
02-01-2008, 09:46 PM
Sorry guys I am running Firefox. Well anyway if you want to see how the Cat 216 compares go to Case's web site. It is www.Casece.com and click on skid steers then click on compare models.

Digdeep
02-01-2008, 09:46 PM
does it work for anyone else?

Nope. It says I must "select a product" but there isn't anything to select.

cat2
02-01-2008, 09:48 PM
Nope. It says I must "select a product" but there isn't anything to select.




same here........

cat2
02-01-2008, 09:49 PM
Sorry guys I am running Firefox. Well anyway if you want to see how the Cat 216 compares go to Case's web site. It is www.Casece.com and click on skid steers then click on compare models.



i have firefox too

Scag48
02-01-2008, 09:52 PM
The 216B compares almost directly to the 410, the 410 is 1,500 ROC and the 216 is 1,400. Net horsepower for the 2 are the same, 49. The B series 216's are 100 pounds greater in capacity, our A series 216 is rated at 1,300 and also has a net horsepower rating of 45 horses.

BIGBEN2004
02-01-2008, 09:52 PM
Who knows what the temp was but if it was really cold both tracks would be hard as rocks. It would be interesting to see that test in the snow with ASVs new agressive tracks for the RC50/60. I bet they're pushing beasts with that new tread. I push snow all the time with my RC50 and it runs circles around a skid. During the winter here in Wisconsin when I was selling bobcats we would practically hide our track machines because they are terrible in the snow removal department.
What is the new agressive track look like? Where can I read about it and see a picture of it?

bobcat_ron
02-01-2008, 10:37 PM
What is the new agressive track look like? Where can I read about it and see a picture of it?

Here: http://www.asvi.com/pdfs/spec_sheets/pt-60_4-page_spec_sheet.pdf

Look for the pic of the "extreme terrain track"

They eliminated every other track lug but still kept some of the rubber there.

Digdeep
02-01-2008, 10:59 PM
I bet they would be awesome for snow sand and slop but I don't know how they would hold up in heavier conditions with lots of rock. My current tracks with the current tread pattern have help up really well in rockier conditions.

bobcat_ron
02-02-2008, 10:26 AM
I think they are just meant for the really sticky stuff like wet clay, the more rubber you have the better, makes the overall thickness of the track better for wear.

YellowDogSVC
02-02-2008, 10:40 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYdppluUbPo




sorry bobcat_ron when i seen this i thought of you. i don't know why, must be the Cat


I had to leave a comment

BIGBEN2004
02-02-2008, 10:53 AM
I bet they would be awesome for snow sand and slop but I don't know how they would hold up in heavier conditions with lots of rock. My current tracks with the current tread pattern have help up really well in rockier conditions.
I have never seen tracks good in snow. They always act like a pair of ski's for me. Once they start sliding they seem to go out of control. I feel that the best way to plow snow is with a tire machine. Also when you wear out the tires on the blacktop plowing snow they will not cost as much to replace as the tracks.

bobcat_ron
02-02-2008, 10:59 AM
ASV's tracks are the mutt's nuts in the snow, even the suspension makes a difference, I found when I was plowing out my driveway, that when I put 2 inches worth of down pressure on the cutting edge, the tracks were still completely on the ground.

BIGBEN2004
02-02-2008, 11:01 AM
A friend of mine has a 257B and when on a little hill with some snow it just seems to slide out of control. Since they have very little ground pressure they don't seem to bite the ground wright for me.

bobcat_ron
02-02-2008, 11:05 AM
I found that out too, but it takes really hard ice, my old T190 would ski out of control with even just compacted snow, but the ASV rubber still grabs better because it is a softer rubber, that's why winter tires for cars are better than all season tires, but the play-off is the wear on the softer (winter tires) rubber, it's would be stupid to drive with them as they would wear out in a year.

cat2
02-02-2008, 08:09 PM
I had to leave a comment



lol i hate it when they all say bobcat. when its not:nono::nono::nono::nono::nono::nono::nono: