Super small skid...

[stuvecorp]

We all love our big skids and argue which one is the biggest and baddest but how many projects or situations come up where we can't use the big ones? I have an ASL and it is very good for many projects but could use something just a little bit bigger and can lift more.

I have some sales numbers(2006) from Case here and they show the small skids are not big sellers. Is that because there isn't a machine contractors want? Kind of 'build it and they will come'? Or is it contractors would not be willing to spend to make it worth wile?

These numbers are all wheeled machines.

900 # lifting and down: 1754 machines for 3% of the market

1000 to 1200 # lifting: 2592 machines for 4% of the market

1300 to 1600 # lifting: 6619 machines for 11% of the market

1600 to 1800 # lifting: 9602 machines for 17% of the market

1800 to 2200 # lifting: 18958 machines for 33% of the market

2200 to 2600 # lifting: 12683 machines for 22% of the market

2600 pounds up lifting: 5676 machines for 10% of the market

If someone has better numbers feel free to share and without having the tracked machines in there that is a big unknown. It shows that the small machines aren't that much in demand but once you have one machine what size is your other machine? I always though I would go bigger, for me like a 465 but in reality a smaller machine would be in more demand and useful.

I already posted this but again I would like a machine that could be 54" wide with tracks and be able to lift maybe up to 2500 pounds? I think it could be possible with a VTS, maybe that new 40 plus? It does wonders for a bigger machine, why not a smaller one? The power would be an issue but target around 60 horsepower. A two speed would be great but with the power I don't know if that would be doable.

Am I crazy or the only one wanting a smaller machine like this?

[DeereMan85]

Don't you think that if there were a practical way to make such a machine, it would have been built by now? High ROC machines are physically large for a reason. They're not wide for comfort. They're wide because it takes a certain amount of weight (relative to wheelbase or track length, weight distribution, and reach) to get to a particular ROC, and also to accommodate the larger engines that give your desired HP. This means that you would have to make a machine considerably heavier and longer to increase ROC at a particular width, and then cram a large engine into a small frame. You're also decreasing the machine's ability to operate on sidehills because you're increasing the amount of weight above the axles on a very narrow machine. You would end up with an incredibly long, heavy, hard to work on machine, that is unstable on sidehills.

The other thing to keep in mind is that CTLs' ROC is calculated at 1/3 tipping load, compared to 1/2 tipping load for skids. This only exacerbates the weight/length/ROC problem.

[stuvecorp]

I'm guessing that looking at those sales numbers from Case that there isn't enough potential to spend for R&D to create one?

If you look at the numbers for a 410 Case - 57 horse net from a turbocharged motor, is 60" across with 10/16.5 tires, has 1500 pound operating load with 3000 tipping load. From what I can figure the 'chassis' seems the same as a 420 which has a two speed although a bigger motor. Now this is theory but the performance with the VTS I've experienced with the 440 or 70XT why couldn't a 410 with VTS pick close to 2500 pounds? Other than the width Case is pretty close to what I would like, I'm sure others have something close?

[YellowDogSVC]

I have thought about this and wanted a smaller machine to haul in my dump trailer. I tried the Toolcat but was disappointed with the lack of power. I remember my 773 having more power and it used the same motor. I guess case has more torque in all of their smaller motors.

[YellowDogSVC]

I have thought about this and wanted a smaller machine to haul in my dump trailer. I tried the Toolcat but was disappointed with the lack of power. I remember my 773 having more power and it used the same motor. I guess case has more torque in all of their smaller motors.

oh and back in the day when I had a Bobcat 863 which weighed about 7300lbs, I could easily lift 2500lbs and up though it was only rated at 1900lbs! I think the Bobcat s185 (old 773), only 56hp and 60" wide is rated at 1850? I thought that machine was a bit light and tippy personally though it was rated within 50 lbs of a much heavier and stronger 863.

I think adding the VTS or any track would increase your ROC and especially your side-hill stability.

[stuvecorp]

oh and back in the day when I had a Bobcat 863 which weighed about 7300lbs, I could easily lift 2500lbs and up though it was only rated at 1900lbs! I think the Bobcat s185 (old 773), only 56hp and 60" wide is rated at 1850? I thought that machine was a bit light and tippy personally though it was rated within 50 lbs of a much heavier and stronger 863.

I think adding the VTS or any track would increase your ROC and especially your side-hill stability.

If you take the 410 which weighs 5400 pounds plus the approximately 1800 for a VTS that puts it around 7000 pounds. I want the VTS for it but that also makes it hard to hit the narrow width. Think about the older Case skids like the 1835/1838/1840, with the technology now I would think they could have very impressive numbers and still be compact. I will have an idea what a 410 or 420 costs tomorrow. There is a small Mustang(2041) that is potentially interesting and not sure how it could handle the VTS. I have to look up the ASV 50 to see what it weighs but they can't lift very much so it kind of rules that out.

[YellowDogSVC]

If you take the 410 which weighs 5400 pounds plus the approximately 1800 for a VTS that puts it around 7000 pounds. I want the VTS for it but that also makes it hard to hit the narrow width. Think about the older Case skids like the 1835/1838/1840, with the technology now I would think they could have very impressive numbers and still be compact. I will have an idea what a 410 or 420 costs tomorrow. There is a small Mustang(2041) that is potentially interesting and not sure how it could handle the VTS. I have to look up the ASV 50 to see what it weighs but they can't lift very much so it kind of rules that out.

Bobcat has the s205, so I know small can be powerful at least in the numbers.

[Tigerotor77W]

Tracked machines have recently begun to be tracked with a different measure from wheeled machines. Previously, only Cat (or Cat and ASV... don't remember) reported CTL sales as independent of SSLs, so they had 100% of the market. :)

Most of the replies have hit the nail on the head. There are essentially two considerations when it comes to trying to put a huge amount of performance in a small package. One is entirely physical -- it's difficult to get smaller pins, smaller booms, smaller motors, etc to last as long. It's the same reason that road bikes don't tolerate potholes nearly as well as mountain bikes do, and the difference in materials, weight, and dimensions aren't even that different. The second one, though physical, relates to the component design and specifically the "fluids" aspect. I'm specifically referring to heat rejection here, but it's also difficult to design a hydraulic pump that's, say, 30% smaller than those used on a the 450 and 465 but still have the same power output. It may be possible, but whether it's worth it on a machine the size of a 410 is another story. Some people might pay $45,000 for a 410-sized machine with the power of a 465, but that's a niche market. Anyhow: back to the engineering. The big consideration is how to reject heat. You have a small motor, and even if it's tuned appropriately and runs close to its optimal operating point, it's going to be under load a lot -- and it's going to make a lot of heat. The amount of "open space" around the engine and hydraulics will be less because the machine itself is smaller, so you have a lot of heat and not an easy way to get rid of it. You can't put a bigger fan in because of space considerations, so you're forced to spin the fan faster... which means more noise and more fuel consumption (parasitic loss). So even if you've got the physical designs entirely covered, there are still multiple "fluids" concerns to address that will ultimately force an increase in the size of the machine.

This isn't to say that a 410-sized 465 couldn't be designed. It probably could. While some contractors would pay for an 8,000 pound 410 with 90 HP, it'd be a niche market (see the sales numbers for the 747SP as a case study of what happens when you try to squeeze HUGE performance into a smaller package). It might sell a few hundred, even, but given the engineering costs required to make it work well, it's hardly worth it. Then you ask the question of whether you'd ruin a 410-sized attachment if you put the 465's grunt behind it... and marketing just laughs (engineers might appreciate the challenge, however!). If you put an 84" bucket on a 410 and use it for hogging dirt, the moment you run over a curb with a full bucket you'd tip the machine because of its narrow width. So for the few cases where it'd be nice to have a huge powerplant in a tiny package, well, that's about all the use you could get out of it realistically.

Remember, too, that SSLs and CTLs are by definition shrinks of full-sized wheel loaders/backhoe loaders and already do things that were once limited to 421s and 580s. Trying to cram more power density into the platform wouldn't be novel for that very reason (i.e. it's been done before), but I think we're seeing the near-term limit for how small 3,000 pound skid-steers will ever be.

[stuvecorp]

Good stuff Tiger, those engineers ruin all the fun.:)

I realize you can't have 440 or 465 sized performance in a small machine, am thinking more in proportional terms. Yes I'm asking more in the lifting department but just about any brand will lift much more than the rating especially with a VTS bolted on. And that is a can of worms for another time.

Lets use the 1840 for an example,Operating weight was 5500 pounds, 54" wide over 10/16.5 tires and had the old 3.9 that made 50 net hp without a turbo. That is a big motor in a smaller sized machine. I understand what you say about cooling and noise but with small gains on this motor would get over 60 hp I would think and not be to radical. I also don't want to see a $50,000 skid in this as it would take the ROI away. The two speed would be for the winter as then it can earn money in snow removal.

I guess the Takkie 120 sized machine is very close to what I'm asking of when you look at it, except being able to do snow work. Although I still don't like the ride of a CTL.

Judging by the response and sales numbers, not many are that fired up for a smaller machine. Look at Case for example back before the XT series, an 1845 was a big dog and compare that to now what's selling. I keep coming back to once I have a 440 I want other sizes to round out the fleet so I'm more versatile.

[Tigerotor77W]

I think it'd be interesting to find out what exactly caused the market to change. Bobcat's best-selling model was the 743, but it's gradually gotten bigger -- the thing is, I don't think the 763 was ever that much more popular (if at all) than the 773. I think machines have generally become a bit bigger to allow for various "things" -- bigger cab, more cooling, bigger drive motors -- and to make them more productive. It would be neat to see, say, a 70 HP 1840.

I dunno. If I ever work for Cat again I'll bring it up, but first things first. :)

[stuvecorp]

I got prices for the 410 and 420 and I can see why more aren't sold, they just are not reasonable. I would have just as much or more in them than I spent on my 440.

Right now the best option that I can see is a Tak 120/Mustang 312/Gehl whatever, they are 51 hp, weight 6129 pounds and are 58" wide. I know it can lift a pallet of block around 2400 pounds. They come in at 4.7 psi from ground pressure which is close to what a skid and VTS would be.

Sops, I know you run a small skid, what do you think?

[KTM]

I got prices for the 410 and 420 and I can see why more aren't sold, they just are not reasonable. I would have just as much or more in them than I spent on my 440.

Right now the best option that I can see is a Tak 120/Mustang 312/Gehl whatever, they are 51 hp, weight 6129 pounds and are 58" wide. I know it can lift a pallet of block around 2400 pounds. They come in at 4.7 psi from ground pressure which is close to what a skid and VTS would be.

Sops, I know you run a small skid, what do you think?

I priced 420's 1.5 years ago and thought they were priced high, and that was series II with the head gasket issue. I ended up with a L170, The dealer gave it to me for $400 more than there price 23 k, no cab, but it did have the nice road lights. If the smaller NH's hold there value like they have been I will do good on this machine. was not my 1st choice, but the more I run it the better i like it.

[stuvecorp]

I priced 420's 1.5 years ago and thought they were priced high, and that was series II with the head gasket issue. I ended up with a L170, The dealer gave it to me for $400 more than there price 23 k, no cab, but it did have the nice road lights. If the smaller NH's hold there value like they have been I will do good on this machine. was not my 1st choice, but the more I run it the better i like it.

I would never disparage a NH 170, I think they are the little skid that can. Those flashers that NH has is a nice touch. I hated the NH seatbelt thing though.

I've been going over the 440 specs and 420 specs and I am positive the 'chassis' is the same but with smaller motor.

[Hollowellreid]

The ASV RC30 size is awesome. I just wish there was some competition and they would step it up. A TK TL100 or maybe TL110 would be interesting to see. It would be nice to test out a Bobcat T110 but I don't think that is going to be quite what we would like. The RC 30 is a perfect smaller machine, any bigger and I might as well us a mid size machine. The new PT30 is supposed to lift higher and be beefed up a bit, although who knows when/if one would be available and at what cost..

[mrsops]

The ASV RC30 size is awesome. I just wish there was some competition and they would step it up. A TK TL100 or maybe TL110 would be interesting to see. It would be nice to test out a Bobcat T110 but I don't think that is going to be quite what we would like. The RC 30 is a perfect smaller machine, any bigger and I might as well us a mid size machine. The new PT30 is supposed to lift higher and be beefed up a bit, although who knows when/if one would be available and at what cost..

I posted a video on the t110 a while back going up against the asv 30. The video was removed but the t110 ran circles around the asv. I know the t110 is a little bigger

[mrsops]

I got prices for the 410 and 420 and I can see why more aren't sold, they just are not reasonable. I would have just as much or more in them than I spent on my 440.

Right now the best option that I can see is a Tak 120/Mustang 312/Gehl whatever, they are 51 hp, weight 6129 pounds and are 58" wide. I know it can lift a pallet of block around 2400 pounds. They come in at 4.7 psi from ground pressure which is close to what a skid and VTS would be.

Sops, I know you run a small skid, what do you think?

Small skids are a must with me.. Some of these smaller machines have balls to stuve. what are you looking for something 60'' wide?

[stuvecorp]

There is so much stuff where we use our ASL that if I had a machine just a little bigger it would handle it better. Also having a regular skid steer quick tach would be huge. I haven't checked the specs on the little Bobcat tracked machine but the Takkie 120 is under 60" and could lift stuff. I like the size of a ASV 50 machine for grading and the ability not to mess up the yard.

I remember a project couple years ago where I spread close to 80 yards of black dirt around a lake house. Had 6' around the house/sidewalk so the big skid wouldn't fit and then had to work on slopes around the trees. It took forever but was way better than wheelbarrows.

Sops, got some pictures of the shop for ya.

[mrsops]

There is so much stuff where we use our ASL that if I had a machine just a little bigger it would handle it better. Also having a regular skid steer quick tach would be huge. I haven't checked the specs on the little Bobcat tracked machine but the Takkie 120 is under 60" and could lift stuff. I like the size of a ASV 50 machine for grading and the ability not to mess up the yard.

I remember a project couple years ago where I spread close to 80 yards of black dirt around a lake house. Had 6' around the house/sidewalk so the big skid wouldn't fit and then had to work on slopes around the trees. It took forever but was way better than wheelbarrows.

Sops, got some pictures of the shop for ya.

Lets see the pics!! stuve what are they matching the tak 120 up against with bobcat

[stuvecorp]

Sops, that little T110 has some good numbers. 41.8 hp, 1100 operating capacity, weighs 5202 pounds and is 47.2" wide. I would say they should make it 6" wider, making the tracks wider would be big and some more power of course.:)

[mrsops]

Sops, that little T110 has some good numbers. 41.8 hp, 1100 operating capacity, weighs 5202 pounds and is 47.2" wide. I would say they should make it 6" wider, making the tracks wider would be big and some more power of course.:)

Theres always the t140 :cry:

[Junior M]

Theres always the t140 :cry:
and there's always a shovel!

seriously, ever ran a T140? :wall

[stuvecorp]

The size of the T140 looks okay, it weighs a bit much though. I'd say if the T110 could weigh a bit less and have wider tracks it would be close.

[SellingIron]

T140,S220,T250: Discontinued RIP....

[Junior M]

T140,S220,T250: Discontinued RIP....
Really?! :cry: :wall

(only for the last 2, they could sent the T140 off a cliff, burning, for all I care!)

[Tigerotor77W]

T140,S220,T250: Discontinued RIP....

When did this happen?

[stuvecorp]

Okay Deere guys, what would you think of a 315(or a 313?) with a VTS on it?

[mrsops]

and there's always a shovel!

seriously, ever ran a T140? :wall

I was being sarcastic thats why i put the crying face.. But if you want to use your home depot shovel over a t140 thats cool with me :usflag:

[mrsops]

Really?! :cry: :wall

(only for the last 2, they could sent the T140 off a cliff, burning, for all I care!)

It only makes sense the s630 is the 220 and the t630 is the t250.. The bobcat s220 is one of the best machines in the bobcat line up, but when i demoed the s630 i felt it was just as powerful as the s220

[DeereMan85]

Okay Deere guys, what would you think of a 315(or a 313?) with a VTS on it?

I would think that you have a machine almost as wide as a 319D, except with less power and a crappy cab.

[Tigerotor77W]

It only makes sense the s630 is the 220 and the t630 is the t250.. The bobcat s220 is one of the best machines in the bobcat line up, but when i demoed the s630 i felt it was just as powerful as the s220

Don't get me wrong -- I thought the S630 was a dead-on replacement for the S220 -- I was just wondering when they discontinued the S220 (and whether that means the S250 will follow suit or has followed suit). If the S250 goes, then that means they'll have two different frames (M-series and existing K-series) going through their factory, which seems counterintuitive. (They simplified their model lineup by having all the large frames based off the same frame initially.)

[Digdeep]

I would think that you have a machine almost as wide as a 319D, except with less power and a crappy cab.

Well said. :drinkup:

[stuvecorp]

Looked at a 410 and 420 and they don't really look small, they were parked next to a 430. They were just under 60", put with any type of track it probably could be under 66" wide. Looking at the specs I could swear that the 440 is the same 'chassis' wise dimensionally. So I'm probably stuck with a machine that would be 66" wide, I wonder if that is small enough?

[mrsops]

Looked at a 410 and 420 and they don't really look small, they were parked next to a 430. They were just under 60", put with any type of track it probably could be under 66" wide. Looking at the specs I could swear that the 440 is the same 'chassis' wise dimensionally. So I'm probably stuck with a machine that would be 66" wide, I wonder if that is small enough?

Stuve your looking for something under 60''?

[ksss]

Looked at a 410 and 420 and they don't really look small, they were parked next to a 430. They were just under 60", put with any type of track it probably could be under 66" wide. Looking at the specs I could swear that the 440 is the same 'chassis' wise dimensionally. So I'm probably stuck with a machine that would be 66" wide, I wonder if that is small enough?

You have my curiousity peaked. I thought they were different frames but I have never looked into it. MY 440 I ordered 66" wide. I would think the 410 would be more narrow, but maybe they are off the same chassis.

Here is something interesting. I ordered a 66" bucket for that machine. I used it until I got feed up with the small capacity and ordered a 73" I cant recall using that smaller bucket for the last couple years. Not that my work is the same as your work, but it opened my eyes.

[stuvecorp]

Stuve your looking for something under 60''?

I would love something closer to 54", 60" probably would be fine. There are alot of times I run in between tiers on retaining walls or around trees when grading and the tighter the better. I am thinking if I can be close to 60" that can be okay as if it gets tighter then just use the ASL which is 48" wide. I want to lessen the workload on that ASL, I refuse to pay that much for another one. I also have a theory that having a mini will cut the ASL's work load as the excavator will swing over and dump material or pick up stuff instead of getting the ASL in to haul it out. What I can't figure out right now is will an extra 6" make a difference? I know going and grading a tight city lot even with 66" will be okay where the 440 with VTS can't always fit.

You have my curiousity peaked. I thought they were different frames but I have never looked into it. MY 440 I ordered 66" wide. I would think the 410 would be more narrow, but maybe they are off the same chassis.

Here is something interesting. I ordered a 66" bucket for that machine. I used it until I got feed up with the small capacity and ordered a 73" I cant recall using that smaller bucket for the last couple years. Not that my work is the same as your work, but it opened my eyes.

The guy selling the 410/420/430 had said that the 410 and 420 are slightly smaller 'chassis' than the 430/440 but looking at the specs online I'm not so sure. If it is true on a smaller machine I would go for the 420 as having the two speed and much more horsepower would be nice. On the old 420S2 spec it came in at 5800 pounds, the new spec 420S3 they are listing it at 6600 pounds, that just doesn't make sense. The old 40XT used the 3.9 motor and now the 420S3 is using a 3.3 so I can't see there being a big weight gain there. I also do see any sense making one frame so to speak for the 410/420/430/440? I am totally confused on this?

[mrsops]

I would love something closer to 54", 60" probably would be fine. There are alot of times I run in between tiers on retaining walls or around trees when grading and the tighter the better. I am thinking if I can be close to 60" that can be okay as if it gets tighter then just use the ASL which is 48" wide. I want to lessen the workload on that ASL, I refuse to pay that much for another one. I also have a theory that having a mini will cut the ASL's work load as the excavator will swing over and dump material or pick up stuff instead of getting the ASL in to haul it out. What I can't figure out right now is will an extra 6" make a difference? I know going and grading a tight city lot even with 66" will be okay where the 440 with VTS can't always fit.



The guy selling the 410/420/430 had said that the 410 and 420 are slightly smaller 'chassis' than the 430/440 but looking at the specs online I'm not so sure. If it is true on a smaller machine I would go for the 420 as having the two speed and much more horsepower would be nice. On the old 420S2 spec it came in at 5800 pounds, the new spec 420S3 they are listing it at 6600 pounds, that just doesn't make sense. The old 40XT used the 3.9 motor and now the 420S3 is using a 3.3 so I can't see there being a big weight gain there. I also do see any sense making one frame so to speak for the 410/420/430/440? I am totally confused on this?

Stuve get a demo on a bobcat s205.. invert the rims like i did and it will be at 60''.. Cant beat a machine 5' with a roc of 2050. How much is a case 410 420 go for??// And yes 6'' makes a huge difference

[stuvecorp]

Stuve get a demo on a bobcat s205.. invert the rims like i did and it will be at 60''.. Cant beat a machine 5' with a roc of 2050. How much is a case 410 420 go for??// And yes 6'' makes a huge difference

If you look at the 420 - it has a ROC of 1850, can be down to 60" with 10/16.5's, has two speed, 69 net hp. If I put on any kind of track that would put me more at 66" wide, in theory I think a 12" set of VTS could be worked to fit and be very close to 60". The reason I am so locked on to the VTS is the lifting capacity I work get. Now I really like having the two speed as I would be shocked if I am not plowing next year. The bad is the price for a '10 420S3 with cab, two speed , hyd quick tach came in at 38,000. I about feel over at that price. The other bad is needing to sell the Mustang so I can do a small skid.

[stuvecorp]

Sops our Bobcat dealer here flamed out. The new dealer hasn't shown much life yet.