Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 100

Thread: The Ultimate Medium Dozer?

  1. #1
    Founder Steve Frazier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    LaGrangeville, N.Y.
    Posts
    5,530

    The Ultimate Medium Dozer?

    We're aware that we have several major equipment manufacturers watching our board, I thought it might be interesting to hear from the members what they feel the ultimate dozer would be.

    Let's consider a D5-7 sized machine, they are what I see most often around my area. If you were designing a dozer, what features would you add? It could be as simple as a seating position change or as crazy as some new electronic gizmo that would automatically perform some function. Put all your ideas here, who knows, maybe you'll see some of them incorporated in a future dozer.

    After this thread has run its course, we'll move on to another type of machine.

  2. #2
    Senior Member RollOver Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Indio, Ca
    Posts
    1,119
    I'd add weight.
    Not by making a dozer bigger,
    just making them heavier.
    The way I'd do this its by removing anything plastic.
    Sure they look nice with all of the hoses and wires neatly tucked away behind an aesthetically pleasing plastic panel...
    Kind of like in a car or motor home or a Freightliner that is driven every day off road.
    Everything plastic starts falling apart.

    But since everybody knows that will never happen,
    How about an option of a seat that can be positioned or moved off to the side in larger dozers.
    Rip Cats for example.
    Instead of having to turn your body in the seat to see your work area which is BEHIND you,
    how about a seat that swings around just enough to make ripping easier on your neck?
    RollOver Pete

    "Hello, I'm Pete and I'm a workaholic"

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Seattle, wa
    Posts
    274
    I'm with Pete, make it heavier by increasing all the material thickness, so it isn't so easy to bend if a branch hits it. If it were a D7 it would weigh about 80,000 lbs, and have the 4bbl ripper option with about 280 hp. I would retain the torque converter and powershift combo, with a manually operated clutch switch to apply the TCC for distance dozing. The only electronics would be engine control to meet the Tier3 or 4 or what ever the latest emission standards are. It would be offered in either differential steer like the big cats or older clutch brake set up. I have run all the different steering systems and still preffer the non linked cluctch brake system. Its faster, for what I do when clearing. Though it is alot more work and wears ya out more than the newer stuff. Its just one of those deals that is handy when you need it.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Akron, Ohio, USA.
    Posts
    201
    For me, the ultimate is: http://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/...2&postcount=29

    Only thing I would change is maybe to an H series, and a little bit more horsepower. For me, LPG tracks. It has the best of both worlds. We often bury equipment, and need a winch to drag it out. We will get some tough soils, and need a ripper. With that setup, you get both. Great for land clearing. Needs to be setup for GPS so it's capable of doing double duty as a finish dozer. I want one machine to do the job of 4.
    Adam Stone
    Akron Oh
    ASW Properties.

    I love the smell of diesel in the morning, it smells like....VICTORY!

  5. #5
    Senior Member euclid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    284
    This is a great thread idea; the last dozer I operated was an old D-5 with the clutch on the left side near the arm rest, so I am showing my age and the age of the equipment. But like Pete said removing the cheap components would be a start but in doing so the cost would rise so that ain't gonna happen. Now if the R&D group would look at the vibration effects of these lighter parts and work toward better reliability per operating hour instead of engineering failures for profit that would make a lot of operator and companies really happy. In our world not the best business sense but I can assure you that CAT would get a lot of business due to reliability and up time on the job. And about ergonomics with regards to the operator I believe they have come around close to full circle since I ran that old D-5. But seat position would be a huge plus when ripping and doing rear looking on a site. Doing R&D on crash load analysis it might not be safe and thus the reason for not doing more in that area? I would really be interested in hearing from the engineering groups from different manufactures in plain English about the different analysis done on equipment.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    1,533

    Dozer575's ultimate dozer

    Hello, Dozer575.
    Did you bother to check the specs of existing Cat models before you posted the above post?

    If you want an 80,000# machine, why not buy a D8R or D8T, both around that weight or slightly above and with around 25 more horsepower than you specified.

    The current D7R series 2 is a roughly 60,000# machine with around 240 horsepower. You want to add another 20,000# and only another 40 horsepower. That's the power of ONE D2 and the weight of about 3 1/2 D2's. Or, to put it another way, you want a D7 with the weight of a D8R and 20 less hp. That doesn't quite make sense to this little black duck.

    OOOOPPPSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I forgot - you don't like hi-sprocket drives, do you?

    The current D7G series 2 is around 45,000# and about 200 hp. Would you REALLY want to add 35,000# and only another 80 hp?

    Quote: "I'm with Pete, make it heavier by increasing all the material thickness, so it isn't so easy to bend if a branch hits it." Unquote.

    Firstly, ROP didn't say, "Increase all the metal thicknesses." He said that he'd like to do away with all the plastic and replace it with metal to increase weight. And if anything gets bent by a tree branch, what was the operator doing at the time, catching 40 winks, or 'fiddling' while the tree attacked?

    It is very difficult to design a dozer, or indeed any machine, so that it is all things to all users. For heavy bulk pushing, a dozer needs more weight up front than does one used mainly for trimmimg. Ditto with a dozer used mainly for ripping as the weight transfer that occurs as the load comes on the tracks greatly increases the machine's ability to put its grunt on the ground.

    I have run the D7G series 1 and found it a good machine to run, a good pusher, stable and manoeverable, easy to control and dependable. I have not run the D7H or R so am unable to comment.

    I spent 2 1/2 years on a wide Cat D5B with straight blade and ripper and found it to be a VERY good all-round machine, good at bulk pushing and great for trimming. That particular machine did have a somewhat heavier than standard ripper fitted which I have no doubt added to its performance. Maybe putting a Tier 3 or 4 engine into that machine would come close to the ultimate for me, at least in that size/weight range and for the work that I was doing with that machine, a mix of bulk pushing and fine trimming.

    ROP's swivelling seat wouldn't go astray either and possibly hydrostatic drive as well. More replaceable bushes in blade push arms, etc., wouldn't be a bad idea either 'cos they DO wear out and get slack.

    If the manufacturers are going to stay with inter-connected steering clutches and brakes, at least get them up to the sensitivity and controllability of the older separated clutch and brake systems. The inter-connected systems are easier on the operator over a day's work but I have yet to run one that was as easy to control or as accurate as the earlier separated systems. (Hey Bob, how about that? We agree twice in 24 hours.)

    I'd probably think up some more if I didn't need to go to bed. Yes, Angela, even I need to sleep at least a little occasionally.
    You have a wonderful day.
    Best wishes.
    Deas Plant.

  7. #7
    Senior Member euclid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    284
    ole catskinner can give some discriptive things to ponder.
    Cheers.

  8. #8
    Senior Member tonka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    1,555
    Rotating seat for ripping would be nice! Yea remove the plastic, make the windows open easyer, bigger fuel tanks... thats all i got for now

  9. #9
    Senior Member stumpjumper83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Port Allegany, pa
    Posts
    1,958
    Rotating seat would be nice. So would an instructor's seat. I tend to forget that i even have windows if I have ac / heat, with the exception of diggin with a deere 310sg. How about better sound reduction in the cabs, they have come a long way, but since this is the ultimate dozer...

    Finish dozers - we can always use a bigger and better view of the blade. Sometime I have to get soem seat time on the new komatsu finish machine as well as a deere high speed deal.

    Big dozers - lets remove the nasty bumps that you find when on rock jobs, without loosing the ability to feel the dozer. -- After all this is the ultimate dozer.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    10
    Yay, first post.

    Why not the smaller dozer sizes? My biggest gripe is not enough weight on the front end of the D3/D4, I'd like to see an equalizer bar option like the big boys have and a hydraulic cylinder on top of the blade to adjust the angle rather than that rotten turn buckle, sometimes, it's nice just to tweak that angle while your dozing to carry or get better penetration. Another option is bogie rollers, or a system similar to Bobcat's roller set up.
    I'd also like to see some extra sets of hydraulic lines in the rear so us little guys can hook up to the local farmer's discs after a major land leveling project.

  11. #11
    Super Moderator CM1995's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    7,910
    Welcome to the Forums Leadfoot!

  12. #12
    Senior Member Burnout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton AB
    Posts
    1,442
    I say start making cabs a little more user friendly especially Caterpillar. Their cabs have come a long way, but I still find the cabs cheap in our new machines. Also windows that are functional, especially in track loaders (mines used as a dozer). I don't know how it is in some other dozers, but moving the stereo would be a nice touch as well. Why is it still above the operators head in most machines? Put it in the side console where its easy to get to. But please for pete's sake don't do it like they do in an excavator and put it under an armrest

    I have also noticed companies getting awful cheap on the paintjobs their putting on our 200 000$ and up machines. We have a brand new 8T and the paint doesn't look as good as the 8N we got at Ritchie Brothers 2 years ago. And as others have said, more visibility, better feel of the blade and here is a shocker of an idea once again... operator comfort... Isolate the cabs from the chassis.

    And once again if anyone from Cat is reading... I have a plea from every mechanic on earth who's ever worked on a C series track loader.... make the cab tilt again. No tilt really sucks,

  13. #13
    Senior Member stumpjumper83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Port Allegany, pa
    Posts
    1,958
    In response to leadfoot, back 30 -50 years ago dozers with rear outlets, p.t.o.'s and drawbars were common. But that was when they were more common in agriculture. Also the sizes were alot smaller like 35 - 60 hp. One that grandpa had in the shed was a j.d. 40. Later model was a 420, two way blade, and a three speed trans. When I ran it, mind you it had 40 years of work in a stone quarry and it was about the right size for grading anthills...

  14. #14
    Senior Member Vantage_TeS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    495
    Well most of the asthetic stuff you guys mentioned is coming in the new dozers already. We had an 8T on a golf course which had the sideways seat (easily look to your right for ripping) and the computer console on your right as well.

    I also ran a new 6R with a sideways seat and a sixway. I have to say with the sixway blade you can see the majority of your cutting edge the whole time (and I'm a tall guy so I'm up higher than normal too).

    I'll agree with burnout, the quality of plastic in the 6R was shameful. I stuck my lunchpail behind the seat on the plastic and by the end of the day there were scratches all over it (the plastic not the pail). The 8T seemed to look really good inside but I was only in it for about 15 minutes showing the guy how to use the computer to change his default starting gear etc.

  15. #15
    Senior Member biggixxerjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    New Jerz
    Posts
    446
    I cant think of many ways to improve the dozer category. Some real great machines out there right now. But excavators...

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •