How well do these dig holes-footings/post holes etc..

[IHI]

I am seriously considering getting a mini to start doing all my post hole/footing digs for decks/porches, etc...these 1 and 2 man gas powered diggers are still hard on a guys back and roots kick your azz. I rented a tow behind auger/post hole digger and that in itself was a farse too. Unfortunaly nobody in my area rents out these mini's so I have no idea what to expect. I heard of a guy using it for the same thinig i want say it's the best thing since sliced bread for this purpose but looking to get some more useful insight befoe dropping this much jack on a small machine and attachments.

Does it dig well in typical soil like black dirt, sand? but more so in clay and hard pack? how does the machine react when hitting underground obstructions like old bricks/concrete let behind from original build of an older home? what abour tree roots? I guess I'm wondering if these things get bogged down easily, is there any effect on the machine if it does hit a tough object as far as wanting to move it out of position or buck the operator. How tough is it to keep a nice level hole going if the machine if in a situation to be off center/kilter.

Any info would sure be appreciated as I hav'net found any true testimonials from anybody in the feild using the mini's for this purpose.

thanks, Josh

[Dozerboy]

Nothing is a problem with the right teeth and enough weight as far a rock and concrete is concerned. I've run all kinds of drills on hoe's big and small. I once had to dig 4 holes ~24' deep with an 18" bit on a mini ex in solid limestone. Getting a good start is the key in going level a good eye is the best but if all else fails have a guy on the ground with a level in hand. Pressure on the bit is dependent in the soil, also do several clean offs. There’s nothing like running that bit 2' into the ground to find out you hit some sticky clay and don't have the power to pull it out of the ground.

[Squizzy246B]

There’s nothing like running that bit 2' into the ground to find out you hit some sticky clay and don't have the power to pull it out of the ground.

Not that anybody here has done that...we just heard about that happening right!:yup :yup

[Dozerboy]

Of course :thumbsup

[Squizzy246B]

Josh, We just bought a 301.8. When we were demoing we had a 302.5 and we ran a 18' auger just to get the feel. Very very handy piece of kit but as DB said it all depends on the soil type.

[IHI]

Schweet:thumbsup

Just waiting for biz to pick up and waiting to hear from local Bobcat dealer, sent him all my options and have'nt heard back yet.:mad: I may be taking my business out of town to the next dealer if this is all the customer service I can expect.

[CEwriter]

Construction Equipment took seven mini skid steers to the field and checked their abilities at a number of different tasks, including auger work. You might find the story about that Field Test interesting:

http://www.constructionequipment.com/article/CA6307059.html

Let me know what you think.

Thanks,

Larry

[Tigerotor77W]

Hey Larry, I have a question about that test... was the original intention ever to publish the individual results (eg a 7 mini-skd shootout), or was it always to average the results and publish them for mini-skids as a "whole"?

[IHI]

That was a great article, but going in I kinda of expected a "consumer reports" type format with table for each "test" and showing how each machine performed each task, and more importantly how the guys rated each machine with personal opinons/insight on actualy machine operations, ease of use, cost to function ratio, etc...

Was a nice "brochure" to highlight small mini skids, but other than them saying they performed better than expected kinda left me hungry for better answers than a general overview.

Oh well, nice to see the obvious comparisons between makers and control layouts, specs, etc...in one article. I'm sure they did'nt give a "clear favorite" answer to stay bias and get themselves into the car ranking market of the highest paying (gift) from a manufacturer wins with no real world actual answers like we are all looking for.

Josh

[drystack]

Funny you should ask:) I just got in from digging 20 sonotube holes for a builder in 26 degree weather in an open cab 302.5. I have found that the augers do not work well. You need at least an 18" bit, and if it hits any nasty fill, forget about it. That being said, a mini works great for these. We typically dig a trench rather than several small holes, swing the footers in, backfill with the bucket and blade and move to the next one. Easy money if you own the machine.

[badranman]

We do the same thing as Drystack most times. We find it easier to dig a trench for a row of sonotubes rather than do each one seperate. There's not much dirt between each tube when you one at a time and it usually caves in anyway.
And on the other topic, yeah I was a little dissapointed as well. :crying I flipped to the back of the article looking for the ultimate mini skid and never did get an answer. I really enjoy a good 'ol shootout with a clear winner.

[IHI]

And on the other topic, yeah I was a little dissapointed as well. :crying I flipped to the back of the article looking for the ultimate mini skid and never did get an answer. I really enjoy a good 'ol shootout with a clear winner.

LOL, glad I was'nt the only one looking for pages 2,3,4,5 etc...:laugh

[CEwriter]

Sorry to disappoint, folks.

We went into this project with the idea that we might do a straight-up comparison. Our experience proved, however, that managing all of the variables which affect the performance of any ground-engaging machine is terribly difficult.

All of the machines were checked to be sure they were running at rated operating speeds/pressures/flows, etc. But when the tests began it became clear that there were too many variations in individual operating styles soil conditions to get an apples-to-apples comparison.

Unfortunately, our business is nothing like auto reviewing. Most people drive, so there isn't huge variation in car-operating experience and skill. There are lots of equipment operators who haven't even been close to a mini skid steer, let alone who are adept at operating them.

And road conditions are pretty easy to evaluate and take into consideration when measuring car performance. Not so easy when digging a trench or augering a hole. Plus, road conditions don't usually have nearly as much influence on car performance as soil conditions affect earthmover productivity.

So there are a lot of factors making a "Consumer Reports" type of review of heavy equipment very difficult to do. Of course there are few difficulties that can't be overcome by money. We haven't given up on the idea of head-to-head comparision, but we do need to figure out how to pay for it.

So if we consider a business model like "Consumer Reports," the question becomes: "How much are you willing to pay to subscribe to something like a 'Construction Equipment Reports'?"

ConsumerReports.org has one million subscribers paying $26 per year just for access to online information. I don't know what their magazine circulation is, or how much a subscription costs. And I'm not sure how much Consumer Reports takes in donations (it's an non-profit organization). Just for the sake of argument, let's ballpark it and say those sources are worth an additional 50%. So the estimated annual budget is $39 million (with no profit built in).

We've identified about 80,000 qualified buyers of construction equipment in North America. Not much of a chance of getting ALL of them to subscribe (Consumer Reports only converts about 1/3 of 1% of the U.S. population), so let's say we get 50,000 subscribers.

Is $780 per year too much to ask for a subscription to 'Construction Equipment Reports'? Would you pay that, long-term, for objective, head-to-head comparisons on 40 or so types of construction equipment?

These are genuine questions. I'm in the business of trying to provide people like yourselves the information you need to run construction equipment cost effectively.

ADios,

Larry

[IHI]

Lerry, Kudos on the article and I understand what your saying-truely.

It's just for me a mini skid will be in the near future and like you said having zero experience on or around them I was hoping for an evaluation of the machines you tested to make a better purchase descion in the future. After reading I just took it as a "broshure" type format to expose the mini's in the sense of, "there is such a thing, and yes they do work well" when I guess for me personally I wanted the meat and gravey of the toro was better than the ditch witch so I could maybe limit my time shopping around.

Overall I got the jist and you hit a few key things for me that narrowed down the feild so I appreciate the fact at least spec information was available in one location instead of the website surfing I've been doing.

Josh

[CEwriter]

Josh,

Totally understand. I'd like to do it for you, and will do it, as soon as I can figure out how.

A great place to compare specifications, if you're interested, is at www.spec-check.com. You can look at current or non-current (replaced) models there. For mini skids, you'd select the "Earthmoving" category, "Loader" group, and "Mini Loader" type. Then you can find models to compare either by manufacturer or by rated operating capacity.

You can get a much-expanded number of specifications on each model (more detail), by buying the X-panded Specs. You'll find more details under the button, "Register for X-panded Specs"

Lots of machine types covered here.

ADios,

L

[Steve Frazier]

If you can figure a way to provide a "Consumer Reports", or "Car and Driver" type of review, I'd bet you'd have the most read trade magazine in the industry! I've gotten to the point where I just skim through the machine reviews (this is in all trade magazines in general) because they just seem to be a reprint of the manufacturer's press release. I'd much rather see a list of the machines strong points and shortcomings to narrow down which ones I should be looking at. I think I spend more time reading the advertisements in the magazines than the articles on machine reviews.

Larry, please don't take this as a hostile attack, it's not intended as such. I think if you guys can here from those of us who read your publications in what we're looking for, you can make your magazines a much more valuable asset to the industry.

[IHI]

If you can figure a way to provide a "Consumer Reports", or "Car and Driver" type of review, I'd bet you'd have the most read trade magazine in the industry! I've gotten to the point where I just skim through the machine reviews (this is in all trade magazines in general) because they just seem to be a reprint of the manufacturer's press release. I'd much rather see a list of the machines strong points and shortcomings to narrow down which ones I should be looking at. I think I spend more time reading the advertisements in the magazines than the articles on machine reviews.

Larry, please don't take this as a hostile attack, it's not intended as such. I think if you guys can here from those of us who read your publications in what we're looking for, you can make your magazines a much more valuable asset to the industry.

Steve is right on, I often skim through these trade magazines laying around here or there and have never once thought, hmm I should subscribe to this one..nothing really there of any substanence. It would definately take some investigation on the publications part to see how the other magazines with the "consumer reports format" initally got started and are staying in publication, but it's obvious manufacturers take advantage of them to highlight their products so i think after a few issues they would take note and be up on pitting their brand vs another. In the grand scheme of things it's probably a great avenue for advertisement that way to products sold nation wide since you hit a large audience wanting information for an informed purchase instead of little tiney ad spots here or there for name regonition. Not to mention I know there "has to be gifts" to make a product shine;)

There is no bad demeanor at all with this post of opinons, just suggestions from the audience for future input.

[CEwriter]

No offense taken at all, fellas. I appreciate the input.

As long as we're on the subject, I wonder what you guys think of the Hands-On Earthmoving stories that we do. It's where professional operators spend some time with a machine and give their reviews.

I know it's not head-to-head comparison, but I'd like to see if this has any additional value to you. Is it more informative than the standard trade-magazine fare?

Here's a link to a good example:

http://www.constructionequipment.com/article/CA457579.html

And here's a pretty interesting one, but I think the subject matter was a bit of a departure from what we usually do.

http://www.constructionequipment.com/article/CA631851.html

If you have the time, take a look. I'd like to know what you think. You don't have to pull any punches.

Larry

[IHI]

That's more along the lines of what I'd expect with machinery write ups. Personally I like pictures, and the reffering back to the track conversion article (even though I dont know the circumstances on site) it woudl've been cool to see the muddy hill and how well the tired version crawled up, or how far up the hill it could go before bogging down/stopping. Then doing another photo op with the track conversion showing the machine dominating the hill with no sweat. I understand it's hard in the feild to replicate identical conditions, but I think by and large most guys with common sense understnad that, but would still like to see/read about how things faired.

Or even showing, since the ground was soft, the typical foot print's of the tired version both with a loaded bucket/empty bucket and then another with the tracked system loaded/unloaded to show ground impact and highlight how much better the tracks work over convential for minimizing damage or to really help "sell" this item to consumers contemplating a track purchase.

I guess being a guy I like action shots, even if it does'nt mean much I like seeing equip. being used and abused, so get the must have shots of the product to show it, but then show it in action as well. Only reading these few articles I dont want to sound hipocritical as there are probably other's highlighted differently. Overall I liked the linked stories much better because it's "first hand" experience/information of what one could expect from a particular product in use. If the mini article could've given more feild info and user opinions it would've been a smash hit since they are gaining popularity and consumers like to see technical info, we like to hear real world info better.

Guess it's no different than reading a manufacturer broshure on a new truck, it gives all the specs you need to put yourself to sleep and you can compare specs to the other brands as well if your buying strictly off numbers only. But I think many consumers largely base purchases off information of how the product actually works in it's intended application. Give me a chevy and a ford broshure and to me it does'nt mean squat, I want to hear from owners the good and bad of each product to base my buying decsion off of. I would rather write a check for something even if it has short fallings here or there, if it means giving up that extra 50hp and losing realiability or lacking in another dept. based off actual user information.

Josh

[CEwriter]

I really appreciate your review and suggestions, Josh. Am passing them on to the rest of the CE staff.

There are lots more installments of the Hands-On Earthmoving stories that you can access from this index page.

http://www.constructionequipment.com/community/862/Hands-on%20Earthmoving/23399.html

We cover everything motorgraders, miniexcavators, compact wheel loaders, backhoe loaders, bulldozers, and more. Love to know what y'all think.

ADios,

L

[Tigerotor77W]

I like this thread... though I apologize for asking the question that kinda took things a bit awry... ;)

Disclaimer -- I'm just writing my opinions here, so don't get offended if they've already been tried or if I don't have enough experience to back up them with proof that they'll work.

Having subscribed to Construction Equipment Magazine for, what, seven or eight years, now, I still think it's the best magazine on the market. I like the stories, I like the style, and I like the layout of the magazine. It seems professional, current, and also looks crisp (unlike certain other excavating magazines). I also understand, Larry, why CE can't reasonably do competitive comparisons. I'm sure this has been debated ad naseum among the CE editors or executives; for that reason, it doesn't bother me (as much) that I can't take my five-top skid steers and have someone do an exhaustive competitive analysis on them. (A side question would be this: would any manufacturers ever be willing to compare their products? For instance, would Cat ever agree to a Deere "magazine challenge" of their product C versus Deere's D? If the manufacturers can pay for the costs of equipment and operators, would that be a possibility.)

As for your question about Hands-on Earthmoving, I like it -- IFF (if and only if) the stories tell the entire truth about a machine. If, for instance, in the Bobcat ZHS article you posted, if the operators felt a small nuisance was that the machines didn't [seem to] have power while turning but that comment was left out, I wouldn't appreciate the article as much. If I can't get into the seat of a machine, I'd rather hear as much weight placed on its negative aspects as its positive aspects. Although everyone's experience and opinions is different, it's easy enough to read about the positive things on a machine on manufacturers' web pages or literature. It's the almost "yellow journalism" that keeps readers wanting to know which machine to buy, in my opinion. (You don't need to reveal that some machine is completely and utterly incapable, as was the case a few months back, but if an operator has harsher comments, I'd like to hear them. Of course, there may be a publicity problem with touting all the disadvantages of a new machine, but the manufacturers should know that operators will have to be as objective as possible. This would be a matter of trust, I guess.

Finally (for now, until someone brings up a good point that I want to blather more about), the one aspect of CE that I truly miss is the Field-Tests -- the extensive old-versus-new comparisons of a particular machine. I know those take time, and again, money, but those were really interesting insights as to the capabilities of a new machine. I know the E-series article I posted earlier was similar, but it seemed a little short and low on actual details of the test (probably because it was really Cat's PPG testing, which is, erm, guarded very, very closely).

Thanks for watching this site (and all your other CE cohorts!), Larry... I think your magazine is phenomenal at worst and would consider an annual paid subscription if it came down to that.

[CEwriter]

Tigorotor,

First, no need to apologize, to me at least. I'm diggin' all the feedback.

Second, regarding:

. . . the one aspect of CE that I truly miss is the Field-Tests -- the extensive old-versus-new comparisons of a particular machine. I know those take time, and again, money, but those were really interesting insights as to the capabilities of a new machine.

There's been no intentional dropping of the Field Test format. Equipment manufacturers have been pinched between a Conexpo year (2005), which is always very distracting, and the steep demands of having to meet Tier 3 emissions regulations by the first of 2007. Tier 3 applies to everything over 100 hp, which is a very tall order for most of our usual Field Test subjects. They've just been very busy, making it hard for us to line up the Field Test resources.

There are Field Tests in the works, though. So look for them in future issues. You can find all of the Field Tests (evaluations where CE does the testing) and Field Reports (various other types of evaluations that do not typically include CE testing) on this index page

http://www.constructionequipment.com/community/862/Field%20Test/23400.html

ADios

[Tigerotor77W]

Just thought I'd bring this up (Larry, feel free to add information as you see fit). In last month's Construction Equipment magazine, there was a question to the editor about why the specific results of the mini-skid study weren't published -- one reader had his letter published, along with an editors' reply. The reply, paraphrased, basically went as Larry has already said: the conditions simply didn't warrant enough time to go out and really do a true apples-to-apples comparison.

Although the last line was to the effect of, "We will see what we can do in the future..."

Maybe one day, some companies will be blushing because of pure investigative construction equipment journalism. :notworthy

[KSSS]

I see nothing wrong with picking a machine an having 2-3 guys run it through a set series of excercises and see what the thought is from the three guys. It would prevent some of the issues with head to head competetion, yet still allow for the reader to gain some working knowledge about the equipment, rather the canned response from a press release. I think the excavation orientated publication that can become known for supplying unbiased, clear, concise information about new machines being released will dominate the others. No one at least that I get mags from does that consistantly.

Some keys to success as I see them.

Knowledgable operators in the equipment being evaluated. Getting a 25 year blade operator to run and evaluate a mini excavator will not mean much.

The reader should know the operators backround. I would even want to know what brand of equipment he normally runs. That way I can decide for myself what biases he may bring to the evaluation.

A set type of evaluations: If the evaluations were standardized, indirect comparisons could be made between past evaluations as well as simplifying the evaluation process. Example would be all TLB evaluations will involve a truck loading excercise both with loader and backhoe, followed by trenching, craning excersise or whatever. The important thing is that it is the same everytime.

Have an OEM representive present that is knowledgeable about the piece of equipment.

The OEM's if this were done right would be all over this. It would be similiar to doing an equipment demo except it would be to 100K readers who are interested in what your sellling. It would certainly expand circulation for the mag. and provide useful information to the reader.

[thejdman04]

I am seriously considering getting a mini to start doing all my post hole/footing digs for decks/porches, etc...these 1 and 2 man gas powered diggers are still hard on a guys back and roots kick your azz. I rented a tow behind auger/post hole digger and that in itself was a farse too. Unfortunaly nobody in my area rents out these mini's so I have no idea what to expect. I heard of a guy using it for the same thinig i want say it's the best thing since sliced bread for this purpose but looking to get some more useful insight befoe dropping this much jack on a small machine and attachments.

Does it dig well in typical soil like black dirt, sand? but more so in clay and hard pack? how does the machine react when hitting underground obstructions like old bricks/concrete let behind from original build of an older home? what abour tree roots? I guess I'm wondering if these things get bogged down easily, is there any effect on the machine if it does hit a tough object as far as wanting to move it out of position or buck the operator. How tough is it to keep a nice level hole going if the machine if in a situation to be off center/kilter.

Any info would sure be appreciated as I hav'net found any true testimonials from anybody in the feild using the mini's for this purpose.

thanks, Josh

Compared to a 2 man auger , or the 2 man head and hydro power unit these are the cats meow, they do really well. If you hit something a rock etc wont throw you. Its not as good as a skid steer if your going through super hard stuff, but w/good teeth on the bit they do well.

[IHI]

Last year my main rental place actually got a Toro tracked mini, and he says I'm his best customer for renting it LOL!! We used it ALOT last year, our soil conditions here vary but are forgiving compared to many other soils outside the midwest...mainly black dirt/sandy conditions/clay...not too much rock at all aside from old construction debris buried years ago when older homes were first built.

I've used it with 12"-36" augers and all go to our required 42" footing depth. The Toro unit has had some scarey moments since last year it was a literal walk behind...no platform for the operator, first job I had to tear out an old post/beam system and used the bucket that came with it....only way I could get the machine to work the old posts up and all the concrete stuck to them was to get the back of the machine 2' or so off the ground and jerk the bucket so the weight of the machine was "ratcheting" the posts up and out. A few times the bucket would slip off and down the machine would come with a bang...I expected and anticipated it, but I could see the common grunt/homeowner getting themselves into trouble and getting hurt since we all know common sense is'nt too common. With the bucket, I ws not impressed one bit...just not enough weight and digging force to move existing hardpack, it took alot of time to dig out a 12x14 area where we built another deck close to grade, would've been a 10 minute job with a full sized skidder..but we had the mini and it worked..just took a little longer and was far better than digging by hand:)

I was going to buy one, but after talking with some other contractors the market, at least in my area, just did'nt seem to be there so I gave up on buying a unit since every season is different project wise, and it's hard to justify the expense for a machine that will sit for months at a time not bringing in revenue. We can rent this unit and any size auger for a very reasonable rate that is figured into a job anyhow, so I'll continue this method for the time being. Here are some pictures of the unit I've been renting. This particular job required 31 post holes all 12" with 4 16". From the time I fired the machine up until I loaded it back on the trailer was 48 minutes and we were fresh as daisey's and were able to set all the sono-tubes and get inspected by lunch...

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-9/824085/miniskidder001.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-9/824085/miniskidder002.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-9/824085/miniskidder003.jpg

The one thing noticed when encountering debris under ground, just like the big skidders, it wants to re-position the auger and get it off track. Resetting it to go straight down again is tough if not impossible once the hole is eggshaped with junk hitting the auger, so I'd get it as close as possible and then finish up hand digging. I've actually stopped the auger on more than one occasion hitting roots or large concrete chunks and it want to buck the machine, so I'm anxious to try it now since he added the platforms to stand on, should make it a little safer and much better visablity IMO..but I wont know anytime soon since all we have is additions and attached garage additions line up this year...not a single deck.

[s185]

Hey

You should check out this web site. www.paumco.com and look at the quick spade combo. I picked one up last year and man is it nice. I can't believe how fast it is.

How much is a good price for an 18"