Zero Tail swing

[special tool]

thank-you so much " special tool" , someone here lead me to believe that both machines were equally capable of duty! and i just couldnt buy it!i thank you again to help me with that matter! im not an operator, my dad was ,from the 50's till the 90's!, i did auto collision repair and refinishing for 31 years! but i still love hwavy equipment!!!!

I don't know how to make myself more clear..

Both machines ARE equally capable of duty, but under different circumstances.

What you DON'T want to do is take the advice of someone who has experienced only ONE side of the coin.

 

[john1066]

Like special tool said they have their place.

 

[counter]

thank you all for filling me in!! you guys are a great bunch!!!!!!!!!

 

[Clayton M]

I personally don't like the things because hardly do any cramped area work. They could make the things stick out just a little bit more and that would help a lot.

 

[AtlasRob]

I They could make the things stick out just a little bit more and that would help a lot.

Help a lot with what ?

If you dont work in confined spaces ( you say you dont ) then stick with the normal machine you will find it fit for purpose.

If they made the zero or reduced swing models stick out just a little bit more that would defeat the whole purpose of making them. :drinkup

It should be noted that some manufacturers actually widen the undercarriage or fit wider pads to keep the *ss within the width when crosscarriage.

 

[Clayton M]

Help a lot with what ?

If you dont work in confined spaces ( you say you dont ) then stick with the normal machine you will find it fit for purpose.

If they made the zero or reduced swing models stick out just a little bit more that would defeat the whole purpose of making them. :drinkup

It should be noted that some manufacturers actually widen the undercarriage or fit wider pads to keep the *ss within the width when crosscarriage.

Not make them stick out more than 6 or 8'' 's!

 

[Squizzy246B]

thank-you so much " special tool" , someone here lead me to believe that both machines were equally capable of duty! and i just couldnt buy it!i !!!!

You are looking at Compact Radius and Zero Tail Swing excavators. While people have their opinions on this subject it is very very simple physics....levers really. The Zero Tail machine on a pound for pound basis is rarely at a significant "disadvantage". An examination of load ratings will show the zero tail is at a slight disadvantage over the side at extreme extension. However, when it comes to the feel of the machine thats different, but it is normally just a lack of experience with the ZTS machine that makes people think the machine is unstable. You will find the ZTS generally has a smaller footprint so of course its not going to feel as stable.

The ZTS machine will operate in places the tail swing machine will not.

You call them "non-counterweighted"...in actual fact the counterweight is designed into the house and is kept lower than in a conventional machine. The ZTS is more of a pain to service and repair because there is no space anywhere!

If your out in the open go conventional....if you work alongside walls all day, get a ZTS......horses for courses

I'm wondering where you got that impression from. Particularly in terms of duty?

 

[qball]

i have run many excavators, and was really impressed with the capabilities and feel of both cat and deere zts hoes. i would hate to have to wrench on one, though.

 

[Reuben]

i will get some stats.............

 

[Reuben]

The hard facts

if you read the stats on the 135 size zero tail swing machines they will actually lift more weight "with" the tracks then there standard tail brothers...but over the side it is only a few pounds less then the standard tail swing. for example,,, at 15 feet a hitachi 120 will lift 9,013 pounds over the front while the hitachi 135 zero tail swing will lift 9,286 pounds over the front...clearly the zero tail swing will lift more... Now over the side at 15 feet the hitachi 120 will lift 5,750 pounds while the hitachi 135 zero tail swing will lift 5,747 pounds!!!!!!!!!!!!!That means you would loose THREE POUNDS!!! of lifting capacity. THAT is a Tremendous sacrifice :falldownlaugh:falldownlaugh. If you dont believe me look it up......THATS WHY WE BUY ZERO TAIL SWING MACHINES!!!Dont let any one tell you otherwise.we also have the extra counter weight on one of our kobelco 135's.. it is very very stable and the counter weight only sticks out another 3-4 inchs

 

[special tool]

if you read the stats on the 135 size zero tail swing machines they will actually lift more weight "with" the tracks then there standard tail brothers...but over the side it is only a few pounds less then the standard tail swing. for example,,, at 15 feet a hitachi 120 will lift 9,013 pounds over the front while the hitachi 135 zero tail swing will lift 9,286 pounds over the front...clearly the zero tail swing will lift more... Now over the side at 15 feet the hitachi 120 will lift 5,750 pounds while the hitachi 135 zero tail swing will lift 5,747 pounds!!!!!!!!!!!!!That means you would loose THREE POUNDS!!! of lifting capacity. THAT is a Tremendous sacrifice :falldownlaugh:falldownlaugh. If you dont believe me look it up......THATS WHY WE BUY ZERO TAIL SWING MACHINES!!!Dont let any one tell you otherwise.we also have the extra counter weight on one of our kobelco 135's.. it is very very stable and the counter weight only sticks out another 3-4 inchs

Good info Rueben, but isn't the 135 a little heavier machine than the 120?
Do you have the specs on a 312 and the pc128uu- these are both true 120's.

 

[Reuben]

Good info Rueben, but isn't the 135 a little heavier machine than the 120?
Do you have the specs on a 312 and the pc128uu- these are both true 120's.

ya i will have to look those up those up...as far as weight goes your right.....
135=13.5 metric tons
120+12.0 metric tons
128=12.8 mwetric tons
312= series three 12 metric tons
314=series three 14 metric tons
etc
etc

 

[roddyo]

135 heavier than a 312

Good info Rueben, but isn't the 135 a little heavier machine than the 120?
Do you have the specs on a 312 and the pc128uu- these are both true 120's.

Thats what i meant when I posted this:

I think the Zero Turn Machines weight more than a regular machine to make up the difference in the length of the counter weight. BTW, I've been wrong before.

I bought a 135 for a friend of mine to unload tin in his scrape yard. That way he don't have to worry about someone knocking the frontend off of a new pickup:Banghead I pulled a burned D7H off a lowboy with the 135 and it handled that OK. If I didn't do so much clearing I would have one in a Heartbeat. A 135 just isn't big enough for what I do.

 

[Squizzy246B]

Its important when discussing this issue to get the context right. I worked on a city site a few years back that had an older cat 307 (tail swing) and a late model 308CR. There was nothing between these machines in digging ability,

When you look at a hydraulic excavator in a trenching situation the work is done below a horizontal line through the Fulcrum. In other words the bucket is being pulled up from below the tracks and the angle of your lever is called a reflex angle (greater than 180). Surface area (track area), machine mass and grip/holding are going to be the factors that allow a machine to apply work to the bucket.

If, when the bucket is down in the trench, you drew a line from bucket up through the centre of the turntable (the fulcrum) and on up into the sky....as the line extends up past the turntable you could place the counterweight anywhere along that line and it wont make the slightest difference to the digging effort. It could be 1000 ft away, so long as the angle is reflex it wont make any difference.

However, when the operator lifts the bucket up above the fulcrum the angle becomes obtuse and the amount or work (weight) the machine can do whilst staying its tracks is proportional to the effort (counterweight) and its location in relation to the fulcrum. The hydraulic excavator complicates this simplification by not being a rigid lever and it applys effort from other angles.

At maximum extension over the side in the horizontal plane a tail swing excavator will generally be more stable than a ZTS. However, depending on the angle of stick the ZTS can sometimes lift more than a tail swing in closer because the weight is physically mounted lower and this makes the angle closer to a reflex than an obtuse or acute angle.

All this in theory, hydraulics aside, I have yet to operate a CR or ZTS machine that "felt" as stable as a tail swing machine.

And after that you come into manufacturer's specifications for bucket size/capacity, as well as stick lengths etc etc and a whole lot of other variables including track width, mass and so on.

When it comes to duty both the machines will dig and swing all day pretty much on par. If I was loading trucks all day on an open site I can't think for one reason why I would bother with a ZTS machine. If I was trenching all day I wouldn't give a toss what it was, unless I was next to a building. ...and if I was a mechanic........

 

[special tool]

Its important when discussing this issue to get the context right. I worked on a city site a few years back that had an older cat 307 (tail swing) and a late model 308CR. There was nothing between these machines in digging ability,

When you look at a hydraulic excavator in a trenching situation the work is done below a horizontal line through the Fulcrum. In other words the bucket is being pulled up from below the tracks and the angle of your lever is called a reflex angle (greater than 180). Surface area (track area), machine mass and grip/holding are going to be the factors that allow a machine to apply work to the bucket.

If, when the bucket is down in the trench, you drew a line from bucket up through the centre of the turntable (the fulcrum) and on up into the sky....as the line extends up past the turntable you could place the counterweight anywhere along that line and it wont make the slightest difference to the digging effort. It could be 1000 ft away, so long as the angle is reflex it wont make any difference.

However, when the operator lifts the bucket up above the fulcrum the angle becomes obtuse and the amount or work (weight) the machine can do whilst staying its tracks is proportional to the effort (counterweight) and its location in relation to the fulcrum. The hydraulic excavator complicates this simplification by not being a rigid lever and it applys effort from other angles.

At maximum extension over the side in the horizontal plane a tail swing excavator will generally be more stable than a ZTS. However, depending on the angle of stick the ZTS can sometimes lift more than a tail swing in closer because the weight is physically mounted lower and this makes the angle closer to a reflex than an obtuse or acute angle.

All this in theory, hydraulics aside, I have yet to operate a CR or ZTS machine that "felt" as stable as a tail swing machine.

And after that you come into manufacturer's specifications for bucket size/capacity, as well as stick lengths etc etc and a whole lot of other variables including track width, mass and so on.

When it comes to duty both the machines will dig and swing all day pretty much on par. If I was loading trucks all day on an open site I can't think for one reason why I would bother with a ZTS machine. If I was trenching all day I wouldn't give a toss what it was, unless I was next to a building. ...and if I was a mechanic........

Good points!

Let's not forget with reguard to zero-turn..
You don't encroach upon the remaining lane when you swing to load the truck in an URBAN setting.

 

[tootalltimmy]

What is the spec on the bottom?

Probably not too bad - mine is tippy over the side for sure because I have a thumb, artic boom (very heavy), and a small bottom with the rubber shoes.
Everyone who runs it knows this, and we do not load high over the side more than 10 feet out.

1066's machine will be more stable than mine because that bottom is bigger than mine.

I measured my Case CX135 today when it arrived.

The pads are 28" wide.
Tracks are 8' 9" wide and 11' 9" long.