Kommentarer |
Remote controlled rope pullout, as many of you may know, the drum winsj is kind of hard to drag out: I can imagine this is a welcome add on. working well? | Kommentert av: Espen Børresen Dato: 11.12.2008 19.06.44 |
|
yes it's very good and very easy for pullout | Kommentert av: Viallet Sylvain Dato: 11.12.2008 19.56.51 |
|
vaiting eagerly to se the same system on a Everest-vinsj. | Kommentert av: Espen Børresen Dato: 11.12.2008 20.11.36 |
|
well... i cant se the problem... dont need any remote controlled system on my kässbohrer winch :) hehe..... cheers | Kommentert av: Ole Kristoffer Hole Olsen Dato: 11.12.2008 20.25.42 |
|
nice solution i think :) no more cable-draging, just an easy walk :) | Kommentert av: Espen Børresen Dato: 11.12.2008 23.32.15 |
|
yes... the everest winch-cable-dragging is hopeless in 2007 was something like what i said!.... But.... you dont have to pull anything out of the PB 300, 600 and 400 generation.... just give it a slight pull to indicate that you want the cable to be unwinded, and the cable unwinds itself..... why cant prinoth do it exactly that way?? Why add some components who give the machine and winchboom more weight, and not at least more items who can break down and cause workshop hours......... The remote controll itself can be faulty, the three hydraulic pipelines for the hydraulic motor can leak, the hydraulic motor itself can go faulty, and the electronic controlling the unwinding process can go faulty and corrupt...... 4 reasons why I cant understand the prinoth-way-of-trying-to-do our life simplier!..... I will actually go as far as to say it is an unneccesary weight-addon on a vehicle who need as little weight as possible! It should actually be as easy as just to push a unwind-button in the driverscabin, and the cable drum should release most of its pressure, and just give it a slight resistance to prevent the possibility for the cable to go wild, and just pull as much cable you need!! 1..2...3... hooked up.... go! .... voila! Thats the solution! | Kommentert av: Ole Kristoffer Hole Olsen Dato: 12.12.2008 00.21.33 |
|
Probably they got a reason for doing it this way and not like Pisten Bully. The remote is tryed, tested and used for cranes over many years, and they dont break down often. Lets give it a go and after a few winters we know if its a reliable system :). I still think its a smart and cleaver idea. Waiting to see pictures of the Prinoth automatic winch-hookup :) | Kommentert av: Espen Børresen Dato: 12.12.2008 11.13.11 |
|
Anyway you twist your way of liking the solution, it gives the machine more weight..... not favourable..... i dont like it :) Not because it is a Prinoth solution, but because its not a smart solution! | Kommentert av: Ole Kristoffer Hole Olsen Dato: 12.12.2008 12.13.24 |
|
this dont add many kilos! other solutions also add some weight... Generally I agree with keeping the weigth as low as possilble, but this is like peeing against the wind... It's a 10 ton machine, 5 kilos less or moore are peanuts, as long as it's down to one and not ten solutions like this... Maybe there is a new winch in the developmentworks at prinoth also :) | Kommentert av: Espen Børresen Dato: 12.12.2008 12.52.14 |
|
In an ideal world where you dont have to mind about balance in the machine, and the weight doesnt matter, but compare the groomer with an airplane in the real world.... You have some of the same needs of balance in a groomer as in an airplane.... If you put f.ex. 50 kgs in the front of the machine, you will have to add 50 kgs at the back to maintain the same neutral balance.... If you dont put extra weight in the back of the machine, the 50 kgs in front will not be 50 kgs, but 100 kgs in the adjusted balance! You certain have a lot of kilos to adjust on, but if you do that adjusting task a numerous time, you will get a machine out of balance!! And a machine out of balance is a hell to work with! Thats the reason why leitner and leitwolf used to be prefered when there is difficult climbing conditions... Basically because the Leitner used to have a better balance in their machines! 100 kgs probably doesnt make any big difference, but it certainly decrease the climbeability with a few percent! Guaranteed! The hookup solution for Pisten Bully is useless as well.... imaginge how much that piece of steel all in front of the winchboom weights? Put that value into my balance lever.... lets say that equipment in front of the machine weights about 100 kgs.... that means that they have to put 100 kgs at the back of the machine to keep the balance neutral or else the machine will be 200 kgs heavier in the front! The idea is good, but that solution is not good at all! Well.... But I will probably never be in that situation that i will buy a leitwolf winch.... if I need a winch I will buy a PB winch, and if a need a climbing machine i will probably assess a leitwolf up against a 600 who has much better balance than the previous 300 generation!.... Spoken on basis from experience, the balance in the machine is very important! Its not without reason the 200D is a extreme climbing machine.... perfect balance and similar or less weight than todays 100 machine!! | Kommentert av: Ole Kristoffer Hole Olsen Dato: 12.12.2008 14.08.55 |
|
And remember that if you try to adjust out added weight in either the front or the back of the machine, you will in any way increase the gravity force on the machine! In general you can say - neutral machine gives the best balance, and less gravity force gives you more climbing ability. I'm not sure that the manufacturers perform real balance tests of their machine, but it would certainly have been interesting to see where the balance point of different machine is..... | Kommentert av: Ole Kristoffer Hole Olsen Dato: 12.12.2008 14.15.01 |
|
And just to have certain things in order: Im not out after either Prinoth or Pisten Bully in this case, but some solutions could have been done even better! Both from Pisten Bully and Prinoth :) We are allways hunting the best solutions aint we? :) Cheers | Kommentert av: Ole Kristoffer Hole Olsen Dato: 12.12.2008 15.10.55 |
|