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. 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 Earthmoving/23399.html

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

ADios,

L