digger242j
Administrator
The home builder I often work for has recently decided to retire their crane, in favor of a telehandler. They've owned one crane or another for probably 20 years now, but apparently the cost of liability insurance is more than they're willing to pay. I've said, for the record, that there are things the crane does for them that the telehandler never will, but the decision has been made.
The main role of the crane has been to lift material, (studs, decking, shingles, etc.) to the framing crews, so they don't have to pick it up and carry it upstairs. It also sets roof trusses and steel beams, moves cubes of brick and block, and occasionally pours concrete in places that are otherwise out of reach. Some of that, the telehandler will be ideal for, and some, not so ideal.
On the job, there are usually two skidloaders as well, and at least half of what they do is material handling, with forks.
Yesterday, independent of each other, both the job super and one of the operators complained that they'd been told by the powers that be not to use the telehandler for "small stuff". I presume that means anything that one of the skidders can handle, with respect to both weight, and reach. I suspect that's because those powers that be figure the skidder will be the substantially cheaper of the two machines in terms of overall costs.
Which leads me to the question--For any given material handling operation (that could be accomplished with a fork equipped skidsteer), is the cost involved substantially more or less than doing the same thing with a telehandler?
I have no handle on the life expectancy, maintenance costs, fuel efficiency, etc. involved in ownership of a telehandler. Is it possible that the telehandler might be, over the long run, the cheaper machine for the tasks at hand ?
The operator's wages would be the same, whichever machine it was. The site is a new subdivision, so some moves would be a matter of only a few yards, but others might involve moving material a distance of several blocks.
Is this a legitimate concern for the big boss, or is he just being "penny wise and pound foolish"?
The main role of the crane has been to lift material, (studs, decking, shingles, etc.) to the framing crews, so they don't have to pick it up and carry it upstairs. It also sets roof trusses and steel beams, moves cubes of brick and block, and occasionally pours concrete in places that are otherwise out of reach. Some of that, the telehandler will be ideal for, and some, not so ideal.
On the job, there are usually two skidloaders as well, and at least half of what they do is material handling, with forks.
Yesterday, independent of each other, both the job super and one of the operators complained that they'd been told by the powers that be not to use the telehandler for "small stuff". I presume that means anything that one of the skidders can handle, with respect to both weight, and reach. I suspect that's because those powers that be figure the skidder will be the substantially cheaper of the two machines in terms of overall costs.
Which leads me to the question--For any given material handling operation (that could be accomplished with a fork equipped skidsteer), is the cost involved substantially more or less than doing the same thing with a telehandler?
I have no handle on the life expectancy, maintenance costs, fuel efficiency, etc. involved in ownership of a telehandler. Is it possible that the telehandler might be, over the long run, the cheaper machine for the tasks at hand ?
The operator's wages would be the same, whichever machine it was. The site is a new subdivision, so some moves would be a matter of only a few yards, but others might involve moving material a distance of several blocks.
Is this a legitimate concern for the big boss, or is he just being "penny wise and pound foolish"?