Bad day for 175

One of my friends helper was raking hay when this happened. Has oil on the ground also so not sure what all got damaged.

Edited by Charlie175 - 10 Sep 2012 at 3:05pm

If that happened to me...I would need a change in underwear.

Oh boy.  Glad no one was hurt.  Bump on the ground or on top of the front end may have punched a hole in the pan. 

Ouch!  I was bushhogging with my 170 gas with the front pump one time and had the big pin slide out half way.  Fortunately I noticed the front end moving around before it came all the way out....I was doing some steep hills at the time, so it could have been bad.

Every other year, I bust a spindle out of the D-12, cutting hay with the big bastard drum mower!  I have to keep the front end weighted down, and when I hit a groundhog hole, while turning, that generally does it!  Last year, I turned right, and saw the left wheel sag out at the top of the spindle.  Gave Brenda a call, said send me the usual!  Got the repair down to about 20 minutes.  If I am in a hurry, I steal a spindle off'n the D-10.  I'm thinkin of mounting the drum mower to a D-14 NF, that I have doing nothing, right now!

Glad no one was hurt. I know someone who was killed raking hay on the same tractor that the same exact thing happened. It must be something that happens occassionally with these. Good time for everyone to go out and check their tractors.

Can you lift yourself up with the loader and get a quick look without hurting the motor?

wheatbreeder wrote: I have never seen that before we have had two 170's currently have 175 just lucky. I have seen that of a K2 the back axle broke on ours and one at work design flaw. Glad no one was hurt Morley

David Maddux wrote: Can you lift yourself up with the loader and get a quick look without hurting the motor?

Or pull another tractor close and hook up hydraulic lines to push loader down to lift tractor.
On another look those may not be two way cylinders?

Edited by Pat the Plumber CIL - 10 Sep 2012 at 11:21pm

They used a backhoe to lift it up and drag it to a trailer. Back in the shop now. I will check with him to see what the damage was.

AllisUpstate wrote: I looked over my D17 IV front.  The pivot on the rear bracket is a large 1" or so bolt with castellated nut.  The front pivots on a rod into the steering assembly casting.  Where does the problem typically come from on these front ends?  Does the rear bolt let loose, or is it in the front pin?  After looking at the 175 pictures, now I'm nervous and trying to figure out where mine could possibly give way.  It looks to me like the rear pivot bolt is the one to watch out for - is that correct?  Also, I'm not sure how the D17 IV setup is different from a 175.

Results:

I hate to rain on anyones parade, but why are you using a tractor with a loader on it to rake hay?  The newer style front axle assemblies, with a roll pin are not actually engineered to withstand the rigors of supporting a loader( no grease fittings) and neither are the front axles/spindles... in a field environment. In case anyone wants to argue the point, I bought a new 175 in 1980 and have had actual experience in a intensive agricultural environment. I have had the bushings replaced along with the roll-pin, et al.. a number of times and replaced spindles, etc. ..finally resorting to adding gussets to reinforce the front axle assemblies, I keep my 175 close to the barn... nice loader tractor, but I take the loader (Bush Hog 2426QT now) off for any extended field work....forcing grease in using a needle tip and replacing worn bushings when the front end gets too slpppy. Raking hay in 3rd high range , with a loader on, is just about the worst front end abuse I can iimagine. 

Longmeadow Farm wrote: I hate to rain on anyones parade, but why are you using a tractor with a loader on it to rake hay?  The newer style front axle assemblies, with a roll pin are not actually engineered to withstand the rigors of supporting a loader( no grease fittings) and neither are the front axles/spindles... in a field environment.

That's a wonderful demonstration of armchair sportsmanship.

You may be correct in your analysis of the machine's durability record, but would it be appropriate, under the same auspice, to declare it unfit for operation with a 2500lb stack of suitcase weights hanging off the front? Would it be appropriate, under the same auspice, to declare it unsuitable for being fitted with a 500-gallon sprayer tank up front, and a 40' boom in back? How about a mounted corn picker, or a 7' tall V-blade?

Fact is, it's a FARM TRACTOR, and someone who's engaging in agricultural practice will employ the tools they have, to do what they do.

A condition of failure occurred, and while it may have been clearly obvious to you, there's a much higher likelyhood that the operator never had, nor heard of the prior experience. Furthermore, it sounds by your, and others' descriptions, that the failure isn't relegated to use of any particular implement in any particular environment, but rather a condition that the machine's design and manufacture exhibits, and apparently goes unnoticed.

As for use in haymaking, if I had a loader, I'd have extension forks and'or a grapple, or mebbie even a bale-spike in it, and use it to load round bales onto a hay rack. If you had a tractor with a loader, wouldn't you?

There's several facets to issues like this. Many of us have engineering backgrounds, some of us formally, but many through the life experience and self-education. The engineers that designed our machines were educated both scholastically, and through experience, and when looking at the long-term performance of a product, and the product's redevelopment over long term production, frequently illustrates the focus and skill level of the engineering and design staff. Furthermore, it illustrates how attentive they are toward reviewing not only the products' performance in it's intended environment and use, but also whether the product is being utilized in an application or manner OUTSIDE of it's design intention.

In most ANY environment, a product which is truely successful over long-term production, is one which is closely observed by the staff, and 'jealously' watched-over... partially for reliability and durability, but also for reason of expanding the product's functionality and flexibility. A durable and reliable product is paramount to long-term success, because the customer base will not invest in something that will not provide expected lifespan, but being functional and flexible assures that the customer base will find more ways in which their investment can be employed. If I were to ever be employed as a working design engineer, I would only be satisfied to be IN the field, checking machines, seeing how they are being employed, finding problems, and correcting the design and manufacturing to further the product... I simply could NOT be satisfied to sit behind a computer and design something to production, and then move on to another product. Alas, the latter seems to happen even more today.

In the case of the 175's axle pivot, it's clear that failures occured, and that circumstances of use affected the rate and nature of failure. On a smaller scale, enthusiasts have found that IH Cub Cadet garden tractors suffer a similar failure... and for very similar reasons. Paying close attention to the pivot, and addressing issues early prevents catastrophic failures from occuring, while simple modifications can provide an essentially 'permanent' resolution for MOST uses.

From the perspective of a consumer, the presence of an option or feature, particularly one designed BY the manufacturer and/or sold THROUGH the dealer network specifically FOR the machine, should NOT require any change in daily use or operational philosophy by the consumer, with exception of those basic concepts of the added item's presence... an example being center-of-gravity of a lifted load... one would not operate a loader with an elevated load, and expect the machine to perform with the same stability as with no loader, and no elevated load. The consumer would not, however, be immediately aware that the presence of the loader, even without it's load, to result in accelerated wear-and-tear on the main unit, simply because they're driving across a bumpy field.

Wether or not the loader was actually original to the 175's design, I think, and I suspect you concur, that the real failure here is in the 175's pin and pivot design philosophy... if it fails from being slapped around under the presence of an FEL, or any OTHER implement or attachment, then it's not stout enough in an overall sense.

The unfortunate situation, is that most of these agricultural machines are so durable, and so easy to use. My grandfather could send his teenage daughters out to the fields with WCs, WDs, and WD45s to cultivate using machines that six decades later, both the machines, and my mom, are still alive and running well... and for all practical purposes, while relatively 'retired', they're both a LONG way from being 'worn out'. Nowdays, a kid (and when standing alongside a machine that my grandfather would have bought new, I consider myself to be a 'kid') would hop on a machine equal to their age, or even older, and expect it to be totally safe and dependable under anything but idiotic operation... only to have an incident like that shown above. I'm sure the poor fellow got quite a surprise out of this. As an aside note, the original post identified that a 'helper' was involved. I'm kinda thinking the 'helper' may have been the operator. If I was an energetic and enthusiastic helper, and I was asked to operate a machine, I'd probably trust the machine a bit more than I should... (because I've been in that situation once or twice).

I always try to find something positive in light of an unfortunate situation. In this case, lessons were learned the hard way. The blessings:

1) Nobody hurt

2) Damage minimal, and quickly repairable.

It could have been much worse. Going downhill, with a triple-tow of loaded hayracks behind... crossing a ditch... and a funeral.

Finally, it has been illustrated here... and we can thank the presence of internet forums- we can take it upon ourselves to remember this lesson, and share it with everyone who MAY NOT already be aware that conditions like this, can result in this, and even worse incidents. When we see these old girls being worked, to take a look for ourselves, and if we see something awry, to act upon it immediately- to let the operator know that there's a problem, and head-off accidents BEFORE they happen... and not just for 175s... but for EVERYTHING.


In reality, there is no device or law, no seatbelt, air-bag, or warning message that will keep anyone, or anything safe... with exception of just ONE thing:

Your brain. Use it, or lose it.       Always better to share it with others on your OWN terms, rather than having them mop it up off the ground after you've been squoooshed.

Edited by DaveKamp - 16 Sep 2012 at 1:34pm