![]() I've copied and pasted some of the discussion here. ![]() There's actually a huge (well, rather large) thread on another forum that is based on D475 vs. My understanding is that the high-drive will out-push, not out-rip, an oval-track machine. I simply feel that Caterpillar is too far down the road of the "signature" high drive to admit that it isn't the best solution in order to turn back. I am sure that there are just as many "+" things someone can think up as I can "-" things. The biggest testiment to that is the new D6K low drive hydrostatic machine that replaces a high drive T/C powershift D5N.Īs you can tell.I am not a high drive fan. IMO Caterpillar has realized that the high drive is not the end all be all for a track configuration. These other manufacturers also found that you can protect the final drive seals from debris without physically raising the entire housing out of the way. Other manufacturers accomplished the same thing by mounting the push beams to the track frame instead of the final drive housing without the negative impact of the high drive set up. While doing this did isolate the final drive it created other negative issues that are inherent to a high drive set up. Cat opted to radically change their machine and relocate the final drive up high. ![]() This was true at the time in that most manufacturers mounted the push beams to the final drive. They also claimed that it moved the final drive up and out of the mud and muck and protects the final drive seals. MARKETINGīack in the day when Cat introduced the high drive it was perported that it isolated the final drive from the shock loads from the push beams, thus increasing the final drive reliability. This article was originally published by the Components Only team in the June 2020 issue of The Coal Face" magazine.One word as to why Caterpillar uses a high drive set up. To find out more about this move and gain an appreciation of the sheer size of this Super dozer visit In 1991 working with Drake Trailers, Bowers Heavy Haulage created a semi-modular widening low loader with 80 – 300 tonne capacity shifting this machine with blade and ROPS on, an incredible feat for its time completed by a Hunter Valley local. ![]() Incorporating extensive changes to its frame, powertrain, undercarriage and blade, it sported a significantly re-designed operator cabin and powertrain electronic control system making it substantially different from its predecessor. The D575's evolution included four main models and in 2001 was introduced as the D575A-3 SD aka Super dozer. First introduced into operation at a West Virginia coal mine, the D575A assisted the mine in doubling its average meters per operating hour. Marketed in Super ripper (SR) or Super dozer (SD) configuration, the SR's single shank ripper provided miner's a maximum digging depth of 2.06m and was often used to rip rock in areas where blasting was not permitted and ripping the only alternative. Offering blade capacities of 69m3 and 96 m3 (compared with Cat's 27.2 m3 to 75 m3 range), the D575 was 11.7m long and 7.39m wide when fitted with a ‘standard blade' and powered by a stonking 12 cylinder, four stroke, water cooled, direct injected, turbocharged, intercooled 1,150 horsepower engine. Weighing in at whopping 152.6t, the D575 was close to 50t heavier than today's D11. As the dozer's closest and most successful rival, the D11 offers the most significant perspective to the Komatsu's overall size and blade capacity. Primarily used as a coal mining dozer in strip mining pits in North America, Australia and New Zealand, the D575's primary competitor has always been the Cat's D11. Despite celebrating 21 years of production, in 2012 it was deemed no longer viable with its smaller 475 sibling securing order volumes circa 20:1. Such was the case for the Komatsu D575 introduced in 1991 out of Osaka Japan. Sadly, through poor timing or a misjudgement of market opportunities, these ‘failures' relate to a lack of market breadth rather than the machine itself. Revered for their size and technology, these outliers often fail to achieve commercial breakeven points when manufactured on an industrial scale. The history of equipment is littered with engineering marvels. Este artículo fue publicado por Ben Hailes en 11 June, 2020
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |