RESEARCH REPORT 251 - Health and Safety Executive · 2019-12-05 · manufactured in the 1981-1985 period, followed by those built in 1976-1980. Tractors manufactured before this time

HSE Health & Safety

Executive

Structural deterioration of tractor safety cabs with age

Prepared by Silsoe Research Institute for the Health and Safety Executive 2004

RESEARCH REPORT 251

HSE Health & Safety

Executive

Structural deterioration of tractor safety cabs with age

A J Scarlett BSc PhD MIAgrE A D Stockton HTC

J S Price HND AMIAgrE J M Bacon BEng

Silsoe Research Institute Wrest Park

Silsoe Bedford

MK45 4HS

An investigation was undertaken to determine the prevalence, structural severity and practical implications of tractor safety cab / roll-over protective structure (ROPS) structural deterioration with age within the UK.

A detailed survey of levels of cab deterioration present upon approximately 400 used tractors, manufactured in the period 1970-1990, was conducted at major UK vehicle auctions. The cabs of seven example used tractors, exhibiting representative levels of deterioration, were partially dismantled to enable detailed visual inspection of deterioration / corrosion present. Five of these vehicles were subsequently subjected to a recognised safety cab / ROPS structural testing procedure, to determine if the structures were capable of providing adequate roll-over protection.

Given comparable operating environments and in-service care, initial susceptibility to deterioration (corrosion), subsequent rate of deterioration development, and ability to continue to provide effective roll-over protection despite deterioration, were found to be extremely dependent upon safety cab / ROPS design and method of construction. Trends encountered in, and potential reasons for, the levels of cab deterioration found are discussed, together with the practical implications for vehicle users, manufacturers and enforcement agencies.

This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.

HSE BOOKS

© Crown copyright 2004

First published 2004

ISBN 0 7176 2873 6

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted inany form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the priorwritten permission of the copyright owner.

Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:Licensing Division, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ or by e-mail to [email protected]

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Silsoe Research Institute gratefully acknowledges the assistance provided by Cheffins Auctioneers, Cambridge; CNH (UK) Ltd and the DLG Tractor Testing Station, Gross-Umstadt, Germany, during the course of this investigation.

iii

iv

CONTENTS

Page No.

Acknowledgements iiiContents v

Executive Summary vii

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. ASSESSMENT OF PROBLEM 5

2.1 Methodology 5

2.2 Results 6

3. TEST TRACTOR SELECTION AND PROCUREMENT 11

4. TRACTOR CAB INSPECTION AND STRUCTURAL TESTING 15

4.1 Ford 5000 16

4.1.1 Visual inspection 16

4.1.2 Structural test 18

4.1.3 Summary 20

4.2. Massey Ferguson 690 22



4.2.3 Summary 26

4.3 John Deere 2040S ‘XE’ 28


4.4 John Deere 2140 31



4.4.3 Summary 34

4.5 Ford 4610 AP 36



4.5.3 Summary 43

4.6 Massey Ferguson 3080 44


4.6.2 Summary 47

4.7 Case-IH 956 XL 48


v


4.7.3 Summary 53

5. DISCUSSION 57

5.1 Extent of the Perceived Problem 57

5.2 Deteriorated Cab Inspection & Testing 58

5.3 Current and Future Implications 59

6. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 63

7. REFERENCES 67

APPENDICES 69Appendix 1 Preliminary Survey of Tractor Safety Cab Deterioration 69

Appendix 2 Tractor Cab Condition Evaluation Form 75

Appendix 3 Tractor Cab Condition Survey Data 76

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The objectives of this investigation were to determine the prevalence, structural severity and practical implications of tractor safety cab / roll-over protective structure (ROPS) structural deterioration with age within the UK.

A detailed survey of levels of cab deterioration present upon approximately 400 used tractors, manufactured in the period 1970-1990, was conducted at major UK vehicle auctions. Following purchase at auction, the cabs of seven example tractors, exhibiting representative levels of deterioration, were partially dismantled to enable detailed visual inspection of deterioration / corrosion present. Five of these vehicles were subsequently subjected to a recognised (OECD Code 4) safety cab / ROPS structural testing procedure, to determine if the structures were still capable of providing adequate roll-over protection.

Given comparable operating environments and in-service care, initial susceptibility to deterioration (corrosion), subsequent rate of deterioration development, and ability to continue to provide effective roll-over protection despite deterioration, were found to be extremely dependent upon safety cab / ROPS design and method of construction.

13% of the tractors surveyed exhibited sufficient levels of deterioration (corrosion) upon safety cab / ROPS structural members to be graded in “poor” condition and cause their ability to protect the operator during a roll-over incident to be questioned. The deterioration level of nonstructural cab components (mudguards / fenders) was found to increase with vehicle age, the sheet metalwork of older tractors being (predictably) in poorer condition. However, the deterioration of cab structural components (cab vertical members & mountings to the tractor chassis) did not follow this trend, indicating that factors in addition to cab age influence rate of deterioration. Structural deterioration was found to be most prevalent upon tractors manufactured in the 1981-1985 period, followed by those built in 1976-1980. Tractors manufactured before this time (1970-1975) and fitted with cabs or ROPS of more simplistic construction, remained in better condition, as did the cabs of post-1985 vehicles.

Advances in cab design and manufacturing techniques over the 1970-1985 period resulted in a transition from simplistic, thick-walled structural members, supplemented by non-structural sheet metalwork, to designs where role demarcation between thick-walled structural members and thin-wall non-structural members became less distinct, the latter being required to make a contribution to overall cab strength / energy absorption. The latter designs are more sensitive to corrosion-related deterioration, particularly if embodying dirt / water traps and/or ineffective cab sealing, structural member internal drainage and anti-corrosion treatments. Such ‘advanced’ cab designs entered the UK market during the late 1970’s – early 1980’s, and have proved (with certain exceptions) to be susceptible to structural deterioration.

Even if exhibiting significant levels of structural deterioration, tractor safety cabs / ROPS may still perform adequately, in terms of structural strength and energy absorption capability, as determined by recognised (new cab) testing procedures (4 of the 5 example deteriorated cabs passed the structural re-test). However, in many instances the degree of deterioration and/or the failure mode during testing compromised cab integrity to the extent that the structure may not have prevented driver ejection and injury during a roll-over event, unless a seat restraint (belt) had been worn. Whilst not necessarily equating to inadequate operator protection in the event of an overturn, such ROPS behaviour will greatly increase this risk. Additionally, instances of missing cab mounting bolts, incorrect re-installation (following removal for major servicing of the vehicle) or substitution of inferior quality examples, were found to be common. The vital role played by these components in the overall performance of any ROPS, new or old, and the consequent need for regular checking, may not be adequately appreciated.

vii

Current cab design and construction reflects a desire for cost effectiveness and ease of manufacture, frequently resulting in clean, minimalist designs incorporating rolled tubular steel structural members of greater wall thickness. Given the absence of dirt / water traps & water ingress, and adequate anti-corrosion treatment(s), such designs will probably be less susceptible to age-related deterioration, but in reality only the passage of time will tell.

Increased annual utilisation of modern tractors during the last 15 years means that, unless fitted with a cab of flawed design, it is likely that mechanical component failure will limit vehicle service life before cab deterioration reaches undesirable levels. Where possible, lowintensity users of older, cheaper tractors are likely to select used vehicles of good cosmetic appearance, if only to maximise the useful working life and minimise the need for relatively expensive ‘cosmetic’ maintenance. Additionally, the current UK demand for used replacement components for older (~ pre-1985) tractors, maintains a market requirement for tractors (frequently fitted with deteriorated cabs) to be ‘broken’ for spares. By these means the problem of tractor cab deterioration in the UK is probably self-policing to a large extent.

A proportion of the tractors on UK farms are undoubtedly fitted with structurally-deteriorated safety cabs or ROPS. Regular third-party (HSE) inspections of on-farm equipment would be an effective method by which to control the problem, but adequate publicity regarding the dangers of using structurally-deteriorated cabs / ROPS would probably be more costeffective. Periodic technical inspections of road-registered vehicles may have a role to play in the future, but the potential effectiveness of this technique, in terms of its ability to target the appropriate sectors of the UK tractor fleet, is open to debate.

Physical indicators of cab structural deterioration and/or potentially inadequate ROPS performance include:-

� Holes or splits in, or significant corrosion upon, structural components;� Missing, loose or incorrect quality cab mounting bolts;� Incorrect cab mounting (e.g. bolt installation) following major vehicle

maintenance; � Repairs to cabs members, whether structural or non-structural. The former

invalidates the ROPS’s approval for use, rendering the vehicle illegal if used in agriculture: the latter could indicate the development of deterioration elsewhere in the cab structure.

Recommendations for tractor users, to improve safety cab / ROPS longevity and (ultimate) performance include:-

� Regularly check cab (& cab bracket) mounting bolt torque and condition, especially after instances of cab removal. Remember that most Q-cab mounting brackets bolt both to the cab and to the tractor chassis: all bolts require attention;

� Rectify poor cab sealing & water leaks, from doors, windows & the roof hatch. Also drainage from the roof and air conditioning system. If moisture gets in, it may not be able to get out!;

� Keep the cab as clean as possible, especially the interior. Granular fertilisers, slurry or farmyard manure will combine with moisture and cause accelerated corrosion;

� Remove mud and other moisture-retaining debris from external traps & ledges on the cab;

� If surface corrosion does develop on the cab, treat it sooner rather than later. It may be hidden from view by cab cladding or floor mats.

viii

1. INTRODUCTION

The potential risk of severe bodily injury posed to agricultural tractor drivers by overturning incidents has been widely recognised for over 40 years. In an attempt to protect tractor operators in the event of an overturn, legislation was introduced in the UK (Statutory Instruments, 1967) requiring all new agricultural tractors sold in the UK after 1st September 1970 to be fitted with a roll-over protective structure (ROPS): an ‘approved’ structural steel framework attached to the tractor chassis, to protect the operator from being crushed in the event of an overturn. The ROPS was frequently incorporated as part of the vehicle cab, thereby forming a “safety” cab. Vehicles in use before September 1970 (and operated by employees) were required to comply with the Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) Regulations (1967) from 1st September 1977 onwards.

This legislation has, in general, been accepted and embraced by the UK agricultural industry: few tractors in regular use today are not fitted with some form of operator roll-over protective structure. Since 1970 the legislative position has been further strengthened by Regulation 26 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER 98) (HSE, 1998). This requires any type of mobile equipment that can potentially overturn in use, be fitted with a ROPS (or an acceptable alternative) to protect the operator (and people being carried) from being crushed, should roll-over occur. Operator (and passenger) seat restraints are also required where there is a risk of being crushed between any part of the machine and the ground during roll-over (HSE, 2000).

PUWER 98 applies to all new work equipment taken into use from 5th December 1998 and, retrospectively, to all existing work equipment from 5th December 2002. The Regulations apply equally to employers, employees and the self-employed.

The practical implications of the above legislation upon tractor operator roll-over protection in the UK are as follows:-

x Virtually all agricultural tractors sold in the UK during the last 33 years will incorporate some form of ‘approved’ ROPS, installed as original equipment;

x Most pre-1970 tractors used by farm employees are likely to have been retro-fitted with ROPS over 25 years ago;

x Today (2003) all agricultural tractors used for farm or other work (i.e. for business purposes and thereby eligible for classification as ‘work equipment’) require ROPS to be fitted where there is a risk of overturning in use. (Both historic and current UK accident statistics confirm tractor overturning to be an ongoing risk).

The only exceptions to the above are instances where:-

i) It would not be reasonably practicable to operate the tractor with a ROPS fitted, e.g. in or around low buildings, in orchards or hop gardens, and going to and from such uses, where no safer machine or operating method can be found;

ii) It is not reasonably practicable to fit a ROPS on a particular tractor (usually for reasons of chassis structural strength) and that the machine was purchased for use in the business before 5th December 1998;

iii) Fitting a ROPS to the vehicle would increase the overall risk to operator safety (in the view of a specific risk assessment).

1

The circumstances described in (i) are common in the UK, but such vehicles represent a very small proportion of the current UK tractor fleet. Consequently, if in business use, some form of serviceable ROPS should almost certainly be fitted to a tractor.

Given the legislative position in the UK and the perceived degree of Industry compliance with it, the reader may be forgiven for questioning the existence of a problem in this sector. As mentioned previously, the Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) Regulations (1967) required the fitting of ‘approved’ ROPS to tractors. The term ‘approved’ refers to the fact that the ROPS has passed an independent test / verification process designed to assess its ability to protect the operator, when fitted to the make / model of tractor for which it was designed.

Initial recognition of the need for ROPS upon off-road vehicles, and hence the development of appropriate testing standards, took place virtually independently, for earthmoving machinery in the USA and for agricultural tractors in Scandinavia, during the late 1950’s. Consequently in Europe the agricultural sector dominated development of safety-orientated ROPS testing procedures / standards, based primarily upon agricultural engineering research undertaken in Sweden, Norway, New Zealand and the UK (Stockton et al., 2002). The first OEEC (now OECD – Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) ROPS test code (standard) was developed and adopted by Sweden in 1959. By the early 1970’s most European countries had introduced legislation requiring ROPS upon new tractors and specifying the testing procedures necessary for their approval. These test procedures have subsequently been standardised to a large extent, both worldwide (by the OECD and ISO – International Standards Organisation) and within Europe (by the EEC). Essentially the objective of any test procedure is to determine the ability of the ROPS (when fitted to a designated tractor make / model) to absorb a given quantity of strain energy (applied force x deflection of structure) and maintain structural integrity, whilst not permitting itself or the ground surface to enter a ‘clearance zone’ or ‘deflection limiting volume’ potentially occupied by the operator.

The nature and location(s) of ROPS attachment points to the tractor chassis, and the position of the operator seat relative to the ROPS framework, have a strong influence upon the ROPS behaviour and the consequent level of operator protection provided in the event of an overturn. Also, the absorbed energy levels required during testing are directly related to the (target) tractor mass and hence the energy levels likely to be experienced during an overturn. For these reasons it is essential that ROPS are ‘approved’ for fitment to given tractor models, and that the condition / integrity of the ROPS and its means of attachment to the tractor is maintained in a condition similar to that when it was originally ‘approved’.

It is well-recognised that agricultural tractors are likely to operate in conditions which encourage structural deterioration of ferrous components. The corrosive nature of artificial fertilisers, some agrochemicals and, particularly, farmyard manures and slurry, often lead to the deterioration of tractor sheet metalwork; especially if frequently washing-down and occasional rust-prevention maintenance is not undertaken. The lengthy working lives of agricultural tractors (25 – 30 years being common) and the frequent consignment of older vehicles to ‘farmyard’ duties on livestock / mixed farms, potentially predisposes the most susceptible section of the tractor fleet to end their working lives in one of the most corrosive operating environments.

In recent years the agricultural safety inspectorate has expressed concerns regarding the structural deterioration of tractor ROPS with age. These concerns, which relate primarily to tractor safety cabs as opposed to roll bars, resulted from operational farm tractors being found exhibiting such degrees of corrosion-related deterioration that the ability of the cab to protect

2

the operator in the event of an overturn was questioned. The concept of tractor ROPS deterioration in use / with age is by no means new. A brief study of tractor safety cab durability (Chisholm, 1978), undertaken eight years after safety cabs became a compulsory fitment on new tractors in the UK, concluded that the structural integrity of the then current safety cab designs was unlikely to be affected adversely by ageing. However, the author did highlight that an increasing trend towards monocoque cab construction, incorporating thin, pressed sheet steel panels and spot-welded joints, could potentially encourage moisture ingress and resultant corrosion. Also, at that time it was not possible to predict what proportion of the then new vehicles would be in regular use some 25 years later.

A rudimentary, preliminary survey of used tractors submitted for sale at Cheffins’ Sutton (Cambridge) agricultural machinery auction in December 2001, indicated that tractor safety cab deterioration with age possibly was a problem in the UK (see Appendix 1). The safety cabs of a number of operational tractors exhibited levels of visible corrosion which, in the view of SRI engineers, could potentially affect their ability to protect the operator in the event of a roll-over incident. However, this could not be confirmed without subjecting the cabs concerned to recognised ROPS testing procedures, which are by nature destructive. Nonetheless, the consequences of premature ROPS failure during an overturn do not bear contemplation.

This study was therefore commissioned in response to the perceived problem abovementioned, the objectives of the investigation being:-

i) To assess the extent of the perceived problem; in terms of the proportion of used tractors being offered for sale in the UK, fitted with deteriorated safety cabs or ROPS;

ii) To determine if example (tractor) safety cabs, purchased upon the UK secondhand market, have deteriorated to an extent whereby they no longer provide adequate ROPS protection;

iii) To identify trends in, and propose reasons for, the deterioration found;

iv) To discuss the practical implications of the problem for vehicle users, manufacturers and enforcement agencies.

3

4

2. ASSESSMENT OF PROBLEM

2.1 METHODOLOGY

Following experience gained during the preliminary survey of tractor cab deterioration (see Appendix 1), the condition of cabs fitted to second-hand tractors offered for sale at Cheffins’ Sutton (Cambridge) monthly machinery auction was surveyed on three successive occasions (October, November & December 2002). The purpose of this exercise was to visually inspect the safety cabs or frames of a range of agricultural tractors deemed representative of those in use within the UK (albeit only those greater than 12 years old), and note the apparent condition and integrity of the safety structures encountered. The Cambridge machinery auction was chosen as a suitable venue because it is the largest and most frequent sale of its type in the UK and presents a comprehensive and representative “shop window” of second-hand tractors on sale in the UK today. Trade from this auction is not limited to Eastern England, but rather extends throughout the UK and Europe and even, via third parties, to the USA.

On each survey occasion tractors were selected to fall within one of four age ranges, as defined during the preliminary survey and detailed below, these ranges being chosen to reflect advances in tractor cab design and/or methods of construction (see Section 3).

x 1970 – 1975x 1976 – 1980x 1981 – 1985x 1986 – 1990

The levels of visible deterioration present upon the tractors offered for sale were assessed visually by a method broadly comparable to that used during the preliminary survey (see Appendix 1). A standard evaluation questionnaire was produced (see Appendix 2) to ensure all vehicles were assessed by the following, common criteria:-

1) General vehicle information:- Tractor make, model, age and registration number; Cab make & model, serial number (if present) and OECD approval number (if displayed).

2) Cab / ROPS structural condition:- Condition of cab mounts and cab vertical structural members (A, B & C-pillars (see Figure 2.1)) at their extremities (top & bottom).

3) Cab non-structural condition:- Condition of cab mudguards / fenders.

The condition of cab components designated within (2) and (3) above, were graded on a scale of 1 to 3 where:-

1 = good condition with no (or only very light) surface corrosion; 2 = advanced surface corrosion and/or widespread paint blistering; 3 = significant corrosion including weakening and/or perforation.

A total of 393 tractors were surveyed during the study (see Table 2.1 & Appendix 3), this number reflecting the fact that many of the vehicles offered for sale at Cambridge were in fact manufactured after 1990 and therefore not deemed appropriate for inclusion in the exercise.

5

Figure 2.1 Structural arrangement of a generic tractor cab

2.2 RESULTS

The age distribution of tractors surveyed during the investigation is depicted numerically and graphically in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.2 respectively. Adequate numbers of vehicles were encountered within each age range, these values simply reflecting the age distribution of vehicles offered for sale during the survey period.

Simplistic analysis criteria were developed to assist ready classification of cab / ROPS component condition into three categories, namely “Very Good”, “Acceptable” & “Poor”. These categories were defined as follows:-

“Very Good” = scored “1” in each (component) category under consideration “Acceptable” = scored “2” or better in each category under consideration, but did

not achieve “1” in all categories “Poor” = scored “3” in any category under consideration

Given that determination of cab / ROPS structural condition was the primary objective of this part of the investigation, the above criteria were selected upon the following premise.

x If all the structural components (as defined in Section 2.1) of a given cab / ROPS achieved scores of “1”, the structure must be in “very good” condition;

x If any of the cab structural components had scored “3”, this indicated concern regarding the potential performance of the entire structure in use: hence “poor” condition;

x Any surveyed vehicles falling between the above two categories could be deemed serviceable, i.e. sufficient deterioration being present to prevent classification as “very good”, but this being insufficiently developed to warrant membership of the “poor” category.

The results of the analysis of the survey data by this method are depicted in Figures 2.3 – 2.7.

6

Table 2.1 Age distribution of tractors surveyed during the investigation

Age Range No. of Vehicles Percentage of Total

1970 – 75 49 12

1976 – 80 69 18

1981 – 85 118 30

1986 - 90 157 40

Total 393 100

1970 - 75 12%

18% 1976 - 80

1981 - 85

1986 - 90 40%

30%

Figure 2.2 Age distribution of tractors surveyed

Cab / ROPS structural components

As previously defined in Section 2.1, for the purposes of the survey, cab / ROPS structural components were considered to be the A, B & C-pillars (where present) and the cab mountings to the tractor chassis: all these components being deemed to play an important role in operator protection in the event of vehicle roll-over. The condition of these (grouped) components, across the entire tractor population surveyed, irrespective of vehicle age, is depicted by Figure 2.3. Whilst 28% of the cabs / ROPS were in “very good” condition and a further 59% were “acceptable”: the remaining 13% were considered to be in “poor” condition.

Further breakdown of this cab structural component condition data into the defined tractor age ranges (see Figure 2.4) indicates, somewhat predictably, that the percentage of cabs / ROPS in “very good” condition increases progressively (from below 5% to 9%) as tractor age reduces over the 20-year period in question. However, of greater interest is the distribution of “poor” condition cabs across the defined age ranges; the greatest proportion occurring in the 1981–85 range (~6% of surveyed vehicles), followed by 1976–80 machines (~4 % of total).

7

Poor

28%

13%

Very Good

Acceptable

Prop

ortio

n of

Tot

al T

ract

ors

Surv

eyed

(%)

59%

Figure 2.3 Tractor cab condition: all structural components (A, B & C-pillars + cab mounts)

This compared with only 2% of total vehicles within the 1986-90 “poor” category and less than 1% of total within the 1970-75 “poor” band. A small proportion of newer machines in “poor” condition is to be expected, but the results suggest that the structural components of cabs fitted to 1981-85 vehicles have deteriorated more rapidly than their forebears (see Figure 2.4). This is a potential cause for concern.

Cab Structural Component Condition

25

20

15

10

5

0 1970 - 75 1976 - 80 1981 - 85 1986 - 90

Tractor Age

leVery Good Acceptab Poor

Figure 2.4 Breakdown of cab structural component condition with tractor age (A, B & C-pillars + cab mounts)

8

A, B & C - Pillars: Bottoms only A, B & C - Pillars:- Tops only

Poor Poor 11% 2%

Very Good 32%

Acceptable 45% Very Good

53%

Acceptable 57%

Figure 2.5 Breakdown of cab vertical structural member condition: A, B & C-pillar bottoms (left) and tops (right):

Previous experience suggested that a greater degree of deterioration can usually be found upon the lower sections of tractor cabs, e.g. at the bases of vertical structural members as opposed to their upper extremities. To determine if this trend was apparent from the tractor survey, and to identify the broad locations of deterioration found upon the vehicles surveyed (and confirm the reliability of the survey data), the data was re-analysed to compare deterioration levels found at the bases and the tops of the cab vertical structural members (A, B and C-pillars) (see Figure 2.5).

The distribution of deterioration levels recorded at the A, B and C-pillar bottoms (see Figure 2.5 (left)) was very similar to that found when all structural components were taken into consideration (see Figure 2.3). However, (as expected) significantly less deterioration was recorded at the tops of the A, B and C-pillars (see Figure 2.5 (right)). This suggests that the pillar bottoms are (possibly together with the cab mounts) the major locations for deterioration upon cab structures, whereas the upper extremities of the members, being out of the mud and dirt, suffer to a significantly lesser extent. Admittedly a predictable situation, but nonetheless reassuringly confirmed by analysis of the survey data.

Cab / ROPS non-structural components

Comparison of levels of deterioration present upon structural and non-structural components (i.e. A, B & C-pillars + cab mounts compared with cab mudguards / fenders) (see Figures 2.3 & 2.6 respectively) indicated that a greater proportion of non-structural components were either in “very good” or “poor” condition, significantly fewer being deemed “acceptable”. The evidence to support this trend is displayed within Figure 2.7, which indicates that whilst the proportion of vehicles with fenders in “very good” condition increases as vehicle age reduces, the proportion in “poor” condition increases in direct proportion with vehicle age. This would seem an explicable trend for any component which was likely to suffer from age-related deterioration. However, as shown by Figure 2.4, this (“poor” condition) trend was not reflected by the cab structural components, suggesting that other factors are contributing to the rate of cab deterioration development. From the authors’ experience, gained both before and during the survey, these additional factors include cab design and method of construction.

9

Poor

Prop

ortio

n of

Tot

al T

ract

ors

Surv

eyed

(%)

17%

Very Good 39%

Acceptable44%

Figure 2.6 Tractor cab condition: non-structural components (mudguards / fenders)

Cab Fender Condition

25

20

15

10

5

0

1970 - 75 1976 - 80 1981 - 85 1986 - 90

Tractor Age

leVery Good Acceptab Poor

Figure 2.7 Breakdown of non-structural component condition with tractor age (mudguards / fenders)

10

3. TEST TRACTOR SELECTION AND PROCUREMENT

In order to satisfy the objectives of the investigation, a small number of second-hand tractors were purchased at auction, prior to their cabs being partially dismantled to enable detailed visual inspection and documentation of any deterioration / corrosion present. A subset of the group (specifically those exhibiting the most severe structural deterioration) was subsequently subjected to a recognised agricultural tractor ROPS testing procedure (OECD Code 4 (Static) test) (OECD, 2002), to determine whether age-related deterioration had compromised the performance of the protective structure.

Prior to procurement of test tractors for this investigation, careful consideration was given to identify criteria which should influence the vehicle / cab selection process. The criteria chosen were:-

i) Tractor & cab age (not necessarily the same for pre-1976 tractors);ii) Cab / ROPS design & method of construction;iii) Cab / ROPS physical condition;iv) Tractor UK market popularity & likely population still in use.

Following experience gained during the preliminary survey (see Appendix 1), four tractor age ranges were defined, these being :-

x 1970 – 1975x 1976 – 1980x 1981 – 1985x 1986 – 1990

To appreciate the significance of these apparently arbitrary age ranges, it is necessary to be aware of the advances made in the design and/or methods construction of safety cabs & ROPS fitted to tractors (and sold as new in the UK) during the periods in question. These issues are discussed below:-

1970 - 1975

Tractors within this age range were fitted with safety cabs (i.e. not ‘quiet’ (‘Q’) cabs) or roll bars, supplied as original equipment by the tractor manufacturer (post-September 1st 1970). Large numbers of aftermarket ‘approved’ safety cabs and roll bars were produced during this period by a number of manufacturers (e.g. Lambourn, Victor, Sekura, Sta-Dri, Cabcraft, Alexander Duncan, Flatford, Sirocco, Lawrence Edwards) for retro-fitting to pre-September 1970 tractors, to enable compliance with tractor safety cab legislation (Statutory Instruments, 1967). Whilst vehicles fitted with the latter structures are not strictly within the defined age range, 1965 -1970 tractors are still regularly encountered both on the second-hand market (see Section 4.1) and in use on farms, albeit perhaps as ‘yard’ tractors. Many more have been exported to overseas markets. Irrespective of their ‘original equipment’ or ‘retro-fit’ origins, safety cabs & ROPS from this era were typically constructed from rectangular hollow section (RHS) steel, with sheet steel / glass infill panels supplemented by plastic cladding to a greater or lesser degree. Roll bars were constructed from either tubular or RHS steel, but are extremely resistant to age-related deterioration by virtue of their typically heavyweight design / construction.

11

1976 - 1980

Whilst the provision of ‘safety’ cabs protected tractor operators in the event of an overturn, the design / methods of construction of most cabs caused high in-cab noise levels, to the point where operator hearing loss was a significant risk. In response to this problem, from June 1976 onwards, legislation required all new agricultural tractors sold in the UK to have a maximum (independently-verified) in-cab noise level of less than 90 dB(A) (Statutory Instruments, 1974). To meet these requirements, tractor ‘safety’ cabs were redesigned as ‘Quiet’ or ‘Q’-cabs: typically a sealed, modular unit, the floor, roof and lower sections of which were lined with sound deadening materials. The Q-cab structure, which was required to fulfil ROPS requirements, was usually attached to the tractor chassis via rubber vibration isolation mountings, thereby minimising vibration (and consequent noise) transmission from the chassis to the cab structure. Many Q-cabs of this period were modifications of earlier cab designs and as such incorporated compromises but, in the main, the operator’s environment improved significantly.

Few tractors were able to comply with the noise level requirements without installation of a Q-cab. Consequently tractor manufacturers supplied Q-cabs as original equipment on new vehicles, although the majority of cabs were produced by dedicated manufacturers (e.g. GKN, Sekura, Victor (Airflow Streamline)). Demand for aftermarket retro-fit cabs dwindled. Qcab construction still relied primarily upon RHS steel structural members, but frequently these were encased in, or supplemented by, non-structural sheet steel or glass-reinforced plastic panels & cladding. A large number of tractors from this era are still in use within the UK, albeit not in frontline applications; typical examples being the Ford 600-series, Massey Ferguson 500-series, John Deere 30 & 40-series and International 84-series. A strong export market also exists, albeit probably following removal of the Q-cabs.

1981 - 1985

By this period Q-cabs had become an accepted component of agricultural tractors in the UK. Advances in external implement controls and cab forced ventilation systems encouraged tractor operation with all windows closed; finally a true operator’s module. Emphasis was placed upon improving cab ergonomics, increasing cab glass area / improving operator visibility and reducing in-cab noise levels, e.g. International Harvester (IH) ‘XL’ cab & John Deere SG2 (a development of the earlier, groundbreaking John Deere ‘Sound Gard’ (SG) design). Errors made in early designs were corrected and early examples of second generation Q-cabs came to the market. Many of the latter incorporated alternative forms of construction, for instance pressed sheet steel members and panels, spot-welded together to produce structural members, as typified by the (Pinifarina-designed) cabs of the Fiat 80-series and those of the Massey Ferguson 600-series. RHS steel continued to form the structural members of many cabs, albeit frequently in curved form (e.g. Sekura ‘Explorer’ cabs upon the Leyland / Marshall 02-series and David Brown 90-series / Case-IH 94-series). Despite these developments, many Q-cabs still utilised designs & methods of construction of the former (1976 – 80) period, e.g. Ford ‘Super-Q’ and ‘AP’.

1986 - 1990

This period witnessed further evolutionary developments in the design & construction of tractor cabs & ROPS, particularly regarding the use of curved, profiled cross-section steel tube as structural members, with windows attached directly to the cab structure by adhesive or

12

by direct-mounted hinges, dispensing with window frames and many other sheet metalwork components & cladding, thereby reducing cab complexity and production costs. In many cases the remaining sheet metalwork parts of the cab became structural components, each contributing to the overall strength of the structure and influencing its method of failure in a precise way during loading. By this method the overall structure became more effective in operation (roll-over protection) and cost effective in manufacture. However, this relied, of course, upon all components, ‘thick’ or ‘thin’, maintaining their structural effectiveness throughout the working life of the host tractor.

Given the developments in tractor cab design over the 20-year period in question (1970 – 1990), and assuming post-1990 vehicle cabs were unlikely to have suffered from age-related deterioration, efforts were made to select / procure example test tractors / cabs, ideally from each of these defined age ranges, but most certainly representing the generic types of cab design / construction discussed above. Vehicles were selected upon the basis that:-

i) Their cabs / ROPS exhibited some degree of age-related deterioration; ii) They were capable of performing on-farm work, though perhaps would benefit

from some degree of refurbishment within the capabilities of a typical farm workshop;

iii) The make / model was (and still is) popular upon UK farms.

All tractors were purchased from Cheffins’ Sutton (Cambridge) monthly machinery auction, this having been previously identified as capable of providing very wide range of potential vehicles from which suitable examples could be selected. In certain instances the machines purchased could not meet criteria (ii), due to mechanical problems. However, in such cases the cab condition was chosen to closely reflect that of similar-aged vehicles that would have satisfied all the criteria outlined. Those purchased for inspection and (possible) testing are depicted in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Tractors purchased for the purposes of the investigation

Tractor Cab / ROPS

Make Model Age Make Model Age Condition Inspect/ Test

Ford 5000 2wd 1970 Lambourn Mk 6 1973-74 Acceptable I & T

MF 690 4wd 1983 MF 600-series 1983 Poor I & T

John Deere 2040S 2wd 1983 John Deere SG2 1983 Very Good I

John Deere 2140 2wd 1985 John Deere SG2 1985 Poor I & T

Ford 4610 2wd 1985 Sekura (Ford) AP 1985 Acceptable I & T

MF 3080 2wd 1987 MF 3000-series 1987 Acceptable I

Case-IH 956 XL 4wd 1990 Case-IH XL-C85 1990 Poor I & T

“2wd.” = two wheel drive: “4wd” = four wheel drive: “I” = inspect: “T” = test

13

14

4. TRACTOR CAB INSPECTION AND STRUCTURAL TESTING

As discussed earlier in Section 1, the agricultural sector dominated development of ROPS test procedures / standards in Europe, primarily for tractors. The first OECD test code (standard) for agricultural tractor ROPS was defined in 1959, following research in Sweden and Norway. Thereafter this formed the basis of the OECD Code 3 (Dynamic) test standard for protective structures on agricultural and forestry tractors (OECD, 2002): a laboratory-based ‘dynamic’ procedure for ROPS testing, comprising sequential, perpendicular pendulum-type impacts and slow rate vertical loading. The UK subsequently introduced the largely identical BS 4063:1966 (BSI, 1966), this test procedure and its subsequent revisions (BS 4063:1973 (BSI, 1973)) forming the basis of the UK Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) Regulations 1967 & 1974. By 1970 several other European countries had introduced legislation requiring ROPS tested in accordance with OECD Code 3 (or equivalent), to be present upon new agricultural tractors.

During the late-1960’s & early-1970’s an upward trend in tractor size (mass) became evident, calling into question the suitability of dynamic ROPS testing procedures for all types (sizes) of agricultural tractor in the longer term. On the basis of research performed in the UK and Germany, the OECD Code 4 (Static) test standard for agricultural and forestry tractor ROPS was introduced in 1976. Over time OECD Code 4 became the ancestral ‘static’ test standard for agricultural tractor ROPS, equivalent standards being implemented within the EEC (79/622/EEC), the USA (SAE J2194) and by the ISO (ISO 5700) (Stockton et al., 2002). Consequently a ROPS test performed in accordance with OECD Code 4 will meet any territorial requirements, which specify the abovementioned standards. Whilst testing a given ROPS to equivalent ‘dynamic’ or ‘static’ standards (e.g. OECD Code 3 or Code 4) theoretically ensures the same level of operator protection, and despite the precedence of the ‘dynamic’ method, today ‘static’ agricultural tractor ROPS tests are far more popular. The numbers of OECD ‘dynamic’ and ‘static’ tests performed worldwide during 1998 were 3 and 74 respectively (Stockton et al., 2002).

Given its broad acceptance, successful track record and ongoing popularity with both manufacturers and test stations, the OECD Code 4 ROPS test procedure was selected for use within this investigation. Further details / explanation of this test procedure are given in Section 4.1.2

15

4.1 FORD 5000

Figure 4.1 Ford 5000 2wd tractor fitted with Lambourn Mk 6 safety cab

4.1.1 Visual inspection

The tractor was believed to be approximately 33 years old (manufactured ~1969-1970), but being unregistered it was not possible to verify this. When new the tractor would have been sold fitted either with no cab whatsoever, or alternatively a non-structural 'weather’ cab, the latter being a popular ‘dealer-installed’ or ‘on-farm’ addition to new, un-cabbed tractors during the 1960’s, prior to the imposition of tractor safety cab / ROPS legislation. The Lambourn Mk 6 safety cab present upon the tractor (see Figure 4.1) had probably been retrofitted during the mid-1970's, to enable compliance with tractor safety cab legislation for existing / in-use (pre-September 1970) vehicles.

The condition of the test tractor’s sheet metalwork, the cab doors and the cab flexible plastic cladding suggested that the vehicle had been used with some care during the majority of its working life. The tractor’s 4-post ROPS is primarily constructed of rectangular hollow section (RHS) steel, with folded steel plate upper cross-members front and rear (see Figures 4.2, 4.3 & 4.5). The structure is bolted directly to the tractor’s rear axle housings, the mudguards / inner wings being made of thin sheet steel, relying upon the lower sections of the ROPS for structural support (see Figure 4.2). A lightweight (non-structural) angle / sheet steel panel in-fills between the ROPS front cross-member and the tractor bonnet / footplates, providing support for the windscreen and lower front windows (see Figure 4.1). Reinforced sheet steel & glass doors are hinged from each side of this panel. A reinforced flexible plastic cladding covers the remainder of the structure, providing both a weatherproof roof and clear side panels where appropriate. The operator’s seat bolts directly to the upper surface of the tractor’s transmission housing (normal safety cab practice).

16

Figure 4.2 Lambourn (Ford 5000) safety cab general design

Figure 4.3 Lambourn (Ford 5000) safety cab ROPS upper framework & rear cross–member: note limited surface corrosion

The entire (RHS / angle) ROPS construction was generally in very sound condition, only limited surface corrosion being evident and this being of little consequence due to the thickness of the structural members concerned (see Figure 4.3). However, some corrosion was present where moisture had been trapped either by cab cladding or joint design. The (non-structural) inner wings / fenders were found to be badly corroded where they contacted ROPS lower frame members (see Figure 4.4), again probably due to trapped moisture. However, it was not possible to determine visually whether the ROPS structural members had been weakened by corrosion, or were in fact in sound condition. The doors, flexible roof cladding and cab front panel were in remarkably sound condition for a tractor of this age, although it its probable that the flexible (roof) cladding had been replaced during the life of the vehicle. The cause of greatest concern, regarding the potential structural integrity of the cab, was the shortage of mounting bolts responsible for attaching the ROPS to the tractor rear axle housings. Six ǫ inch diameter high-tensile bolts should have been present at each mounting point (see Figure 4.2). In practice only four bolts were found at each mounting (see Figure 4.6) and certain of these were of dubious quality. Given the critical nature of these components, this situation was extremely undesirable.

17

Figure 4.4 Lambourn (Ford 5000) safety cab mudguard (inner wing) corrosion

4.1.2 Structural test

To the comply with (pass) the OECD Code 4 (Static) test standard for an agricultural tractor protective structure (OECD, 2002), a ROPS of this design (4-post, non-folding) is required to withstand sequential application of a number of loading conditions without deflecting to the extent that it infringes the ‘clearance zone’ likely to be occupied by the driver, or leaves the clearance zone unprotected. For a given ROPS the levels of force applied, and/or strain energy absorption required, during testing are derived from the ‘test mass’ prescribed for the host vehicle, the latter essentially being the unballasted mass of the tractor in a state suitable for normal operation. Higher test masses may be used if desired by the manufacturer.

The precise, sequential loading conditions and corresponding minimum strain energy / force levels employed are as follows:-

i) Rear horizontal loading (to ROPS right-hand rear corner (see Figure 4.2)) - absorbed strain energy (Joules) = 1.4 x test mass (kg)

ii) Rear vertical loading (crush) - force (Newtons) = 20 x test mass (kg)

iii) Side horizontal loading (to ROPS left-hand side (see Figure 4.7)) - absorbed strain energy (Joules) = 1.75 x test mass (kg)

iv) Front vertical loading (crush) (see Figure 4.8) - force (Newtons) = 20 x test mass (kg)

The applied loads, resultant deflections and consequent levels of strain energy absorbed by this example protective structure during testing were as follows:-

18

Figure 4.5 Ford 5000 plus Lambourn safety cab upon SRI ROPS test rig

Rear horizontal loading

To meet the requirements of the OECD test procedure, the ROPS was required to absorb a strain energy level of 4128 Joules (1.4 x tractor test mass), when applied to the rear, upper, offside corner, parallel with the tractor centreline (see Figure 4.5), without either infringing the defined driver’s ‘clearance zone’ or leaving it unprotected. The ROPS absorbed 4188 Joules during test without incident, however significant deflection was evident in the vicinity of the offside (o/s) mounting (see Figure 4.6 (right)). Whilst totally acceptable, the nature of this structural deflection highlighted the important role played by the safety cab mounting bolts, both in terms of their presence / number and quality / integrity. If the missing / faulty cab mounting bolts originally encountered (see Section 4.1.1 & Figure 4.6 (left)) had not been replaced prior to testing, the structural behaviour of the ROPS during loading would probably have been significantly different and probably much less satisfactory.

Rear crush

A vertical force of 63.3 kN was successfully applied across the rear section of the ROPS (via a horizontal, load spreading beam) without incident. A sustainable force level of 56.31 kN was required to comply with the test standard requirements (20 x tractor test mass, less mass of load application beam).

19

Figure 4.6 Bolts missing from n/s axle mounting prior to testing (left). Deflection of o/s axle mounting bracket during rear horizontal loading (right)

Side horizontal loading

Loading was applied to the cab nearside (n/s) upper horizontal member; an absorbed strain energy level of 5159 Joules (1.75 x test mass) being required, without clearance zone infringement or further deflection, for test approval. In practice the ROPS achieved an absorbed strain energy level of 5252 Joules after 250 mm deflection, thereby continuing to remain well outside the clearance zone and in good structural condition (see Figure 4.7).

Front crush

A vertical load of 67.4 kN was successfully applied (via a horizontal beam) to the front section of the cab roof (see Figure 4.8), the target test load being 56.3 kN. Recorded levels of deflection were acceptable and therefore the protective structure was deemed to have complied with the full range of requirements of the OECD Test Code: it had in fact passed with flying colours.

4.1.3 Summary

In essence the basic, robust (RHS steel-based) design of the Lambourn safety cab / ROPS was found to have survived the passing (~ 30) years with very little perceptible age-related deterioration. Certain sheet metalwork components had deteriorated but, in this particular cab design, these were non-structural and their corrosion had not transferred to the ROPS structural members. If implemented slightly earlier, simple ongoing maintenance (anticorrosion treatment / painting) could have enabled the cab to provide a further 30 years of service.

The only potential safety hazard encountered with this bolt-together structure was the potential loss of bolts over time, either on the ROPS axle-mounting flanges or elsewhere upon the structure. This test tractor & cab highlighted the potential ROPS performance problems which are likely to result if cab mounting bolts have been lost or removed (say, to permit major maintenance work upon the tractor), and not subsequently replaced correctly. When purchased for testing, five out of the tractor’s original compliment of twelve ROPS mounting bolts were missing or sub-standard.

20

Figure 4.7 Lambourn (Ford 5000) safety cab: side horizontal loading

Figure 4.8 Lambourn (Ford 5000) safety cab: front ‘crush’

21

4.2 MASSEY FERGUSON 690

Figure 4.9 Massey Ferguson 690 4wd tractor fitted with MF 600-series Q-Cab


The tractor (see Figure 4.9) was believed to be approximately 19 years old (first registered February 1984) but, at the time of purchase for the investigation, it appeared to have been out of service for some time. This was indicated by the absence of certain essential parts (front axle driveshaft, hydrostatic steering unit, spool valves), and evidence of a recent engine bay fire (turbocharger seized and hoses burnt). Whilst sold as ‘incomplete’ for dismantling purposes, this particular tractor was purchased because the extent of cab deterioration present was representative of vehicles of this particular make, model & age. Indeed, during the course of the second-hand tractor survey, many examples of ‘operational’ MF 600-series tractors were found exhibiting more severe cab deterioration than this vehicle.

The cab is of a welded and bolted steel construction, incorporating a 6-post ROPS and integral roof, floor, mudguards and operator’s seat mounting. Front and rear mounting brackets are bolted to the sides of the clutch housing and the top of the rear axle housings, respectively. The cab is attached to the brackets by anti-vibration mountings, one per side at the front and two per side at the rear. The main structural members are a mixture of hollow section, folded and pressed sheet / plate steel, typical of the more modern cabs designs of the period (see Section 3). Lower structural members (from cab mounting to mudguard level) comprise RHS steel encased by pressed steel sheet panelling. Upper structural members (from mudguard to roof level) comprise steel sheet pressings forming dedicated channel sections and panelling. The sheet steel roof is also a structural member.

22

Figure 4.10 A-pillar base deterioration – MF 600-series cab. Severe corrosion & fibreglass repair on offside (left): advanced surface corrosion on nearside (right)

Upon closer inspection the evidence of age-related deterioration was found upon, or in the vicinity of, a number of ROPS structural members / components. The base of the offside Apillar was severely corroded, to the extent that a mixture of fibreglass compound and newspaper had been used to fill the hole present in this supposedly ‘structural’ member. The corresponding area on the cab nearside also exhibited corrosion, albeit to lesser extent, demonstrating the deterioration path (see Figure 4.10). Removal of cab floor matting and other fittings highlighted the extent of deterioration in the cab offside A-pillar area (see Figure 4.11 (left)). The cab offside C-pillar was also badly holed at its interface with the mudguard upper surface, possibly due to moisture / water ingress from above and subsequent retention (see Figure 4.11 (right)). However, other than these specific areas, the middle and upper sections of the cab and the (structural) roof were in relatively sound condition.

Figure 4.11 Offside A-pillar deterioration viewed from inside cab (left) and offside Cpillar base deterioration (right)

The degree of corrosion present in the both nearside and offside rear inner wing / mudguard areas gave cause for concern, particularly that in the vicinity of the cab rear mountings. The nearside horizontal structural member had lost its end blanking plate, thereby allowing moisture ingress and internal corrosion (see Figure 4.12). This member is largely encased within the thin double-skinned inner wing / mudguard panel. Many examples of this cab design had been encountered during the market survey (see Section 2) where moisture had entered this (admittedly non-structural) panelling and, with no route for drainage, had caused internal

23

corrosion and eventual perforation. However, during this process the structural RHS member also corrodes, particularly in the vital area of the cab rear mountings. Deterioration of this nature was present in this instance (see Figure 4.12), but was far less advanced than upon many other example cabs encountered elsewhere. Additionally, both front and rear offside cab (antivibration) mounts / bolts had been disturbed, possibly during tractor component removal / replacement.

Figure 4.12 MF 600-series: deterioration found in nearside rear inner wing / rear mounting area

Of the cab’s secondary (non-structural) panels, the doors were badly corroded but nonetheless still intact. Other panels (mudguards, etc) exhibited some surface corrosion, but were not perforated. Overall it appeared the cab paint finish offered little long-term protection from external corrosion.


The tractor cab was subjected to the OECD Code 4 (Static) ROPS testing procedure, as used throughout the investigation, comprising sequential rear horizontal loading, a rear vertical crush, side horizontal loading, and finally a front vertical crush. However, as this cab design was originally approved for all tractors in the MF 600-series range, which included 4wd models up to ~67 kW engine power, a tractor test mass of 4375 kg was used for calculation of applied force and absorbed strain energy levels (see Section 4.1.2). This test mass was known to be identical to the value used in the original OECD approval test performed upon this cab structure by SRI in 1981, prior to the introduction of the 600-series tractors to the UK.


To meet the requirements of the OECD test procedure, the ROPS was required to absorb a strain energy level of 6125 Joules (1.4 x tractor test mass) to the rear, upper, offside corner, parallel with the tractor centreline, without either infringing the defined driver’s ‘clearance zone’ or leaving it unprotected. In practice this equated to an applied force in the region of 32 kN. During the course of load application one of the two rear offside cab mounting bolts failed: the

24

offside horizontal structural member also bulged in the vicinity of the cab mounting bosses (see Figure 4.13). Close inspection of the failed bolt showed it to be of lower quality (load rating) than stated in the cab specification. Following installation of a suitable replacement, load application recommenced and the ROPS successfully reached the test energy level specified.

Figure 4.13 MF 600-series offside rear mounting behaviour during rear horizontal loading: under load (left) and following initial failure of mounting bolt (right).

Rear crush

A vertical load of 88.65 kN was successfully applied to the rear section of the cab roof (via a horizontal, load spreading beam): a sustainable force level of 84.85 kN being required to comply with the test standard requirements (20 x test mass, less mass of load application beam). Significant signs of structural deflection were observed in the vicinity of the corroded hole in the base of the cab offside C-pillar (see Figure 4.11 (right)), but this did not significantly impair the performance of the ROPS during this stage of the test procedure.


Loading was applied to the cab nearside upper horizontal member: a sustainable absorbed strain energy level of 7657 Joules (1.75 x test mass) being required, without clearance zone infringement or further deflection, for test approval. The ROPS deflected significantly (385 mm), but not excessively (see Figure 4.14 (left)), achieving an acceptable absorbed energy level of 7723 Joules.

Front crush

Vertical loading was applied (by a horizontal beam) to the front section of the cab roof. Initial deflection / collapse of the cab structure (A-pillars) beyond acceptable limits, necessitated reapplication of loading further rearwards upon the structure, in the vicinity of the B-pillars (see Figure 4.14 (right)). However, whilst the ROPS could withstand / sustain the application of 81 kN vertical force in this manner, it was not able to sustain the required loading of 85 kN. It therefore failed to comply with the requirements of the OECD Test Code, failing the test.

25

Figure 4.14 MF 600-series: side horizontal loading (left) and front / mid crush (right)

4.2.3 Summary

The age-related deterioration (corrosion) of this safety cab and its subsequent failure to comply with OECD Code 4 requirements during re-testing, highlight a number of issues. The cab design and method of construction are typical of the ‘second generation’ Q-cabs discussed in Section 3; namely cab designs where role demarcation between thick-section structural members and thin-section non-structural cab members became less distinct, the latter being required to make a contribution to overall cab strength. In this instance certain of the cab structural members (A, B & C-pillars & roof) were produced from bespoke thin-section steel pressings to supplement those lower members constructed of RHS-steel. By employing this approach the entire cab was designed with a greater degree of precision, relying upon a wide range of lighter components to make a structural (energy-absorbing) contribution, thereby achieving a more controlled mode of failure and an adequate degree of operator protection in the event of an overturn.

It should be highlighted that this approach is totally acceptable and indeed is current state-of-the-art. However, in the agricultural environment thinner, pressed steel sections will succumb to age-related deterioration (corrosion) more rapidly than thicker sections, unless adequately protected. Designs incorporating hollow, composite sections, which can act as moisture traps and may have received inadequate internal anti-corrosion protection during manufacture, will also be highly susceptible to deterioration of this kind. Where such deterioration occurs in a ROPS of ‘advanced’ design (i.e. incorporating multiple thinner-section structural components and with a precisely-envisaged failure mode), it is highly possible that the cab structure will respond to loading in a different (failure) manner, certain of the (numerous) key structural components no longer being able to make their appropriate contribution to cab strength. This will result in unpredictable behaviour of the ROPS which, whilst not necessarily resulting in inadequate operator protection in the event of an overturn, will greatly increase the likelihood of this risk.

All of these characteristics are evident in this instance, particularly component designs that encourage corrosion and associated protective treatments which appear inadequate. The Massey Ferguson 600-series cab is well known for these traits in the marketplace, so there is every reason to believe this example is representative. The example tractor also highlighted the

26

potential problems which can arise if a safety cab and/or its mountings are removed at any point to permit major maintenance to be performed upon the vehicle. Unless mounting bolts are replaced strictly in accordance with manufacturers recommendations (bolt specification / tightening torque value) it is highly probable that the protection offered by the ROPS will be compromised due to possible change in ROPS failure manner. There was evidence that the test tractor had received a replacement O/S rear axle trumpet housing during its life. Imprecise replacement of the cab O/S mounting bolts after this operation could well have contributed to the premature bolt failure during the rear horizontal loading (see Figure 4.13).

27

4.3 JOHN DEERE 2040S ‘XE’

Figure 4.15 John Deere 2040S ‘XE’ 2wd tractor fitted with John Deere SG2 Q-Cab


Vehicle documentation suggested this tractor was approximately 19 years old at the time of inspection (first registered February 1984). Probably removed from service due to a gearbox fault, the tractor had spent its working life upon two farms in Suffolk. Whilst the cab door and much of the internal cab trim were missing, the general condition of the body panels, wheel rims and overall paintwork (see Figures 4.15) suggested that neither of the former owners had exposed the tractor to severe operating environments or applications.

This particular tractor was purchased both because of the immense popularity of the John Deere ‘SG2’ cab and in order to provide a direct condition comparison with the John Deere 2140 test tractor (see Section 4.4). Originally launched in the mid-1970’s on larger North American tractors, the John Deere ‘Sound Gard’ (SG) cab was one of the first combined safety / Q-cabs, pre-empting in-cab noise level legislation worldwide. Its unique construction, featuring a curved, split front screen incorporating a single door, remains a defining feature today. In 1981, production of a visually similar cab (SG2) began in Europe for German-built John Deere tractors. By 1983 25,000 SG2 cabs had been produced; the design remained in mainstream use until 1990. It consequently has a substantial presence in the UK second-hand tractor market.

The main structural members of the SG & SG2 cab / ROPS family are mixture of curved tubular / hollow section and bespoke pressed sheet steel channel members, combined in an all-welded structure (see Figure 4.16). As such it an early example of the developments in Qcab design which occurred in the early 1980’s (see Section 3). The cab is based upon a 4-post ROPS of welded steel construction comprising RHS tubular-steel uprights (B & C-pillars), braced at a lower level by longitudinal RHS members at the base of each inner wing, and at the rear by a transverse RHS member at the base of the rear window (see Figures 4.16 & 4.17).

28

Figure 4.16 John Deere SG2 ROPS general construction (courtesy John Deere)

The upper ends of the B & C-pillars are linked by horizontal pressed steel channel sections (see Figures 4.16 & 4.18): their lower sections are of curved profile to support the inner wing panels (see Figures 4.17). The sheet steel floor (with integral operator’s seat mounting) and inner wing panels are welded directly to the cab structural members below mudguard level. The cab is bolted to the tractor chassis via anti-vibration mountings, two per side, one each at the front and rear. The front mountings utilise intermediate brackets bolted to the sides of the clutch housing, whereas at the rear the cab mounts bolt directly to the rear axle housings by means of tapped holes.

The roof panel is constructed of glass-reinforced plastic (GRP) and is not a structural member. This panel and associated trim serves only to provide weather protection and to encase cab electrical controls and the heating & ventilation system. A non-structural, folded sheet steel framework extends forward from the top of the B-pillars to support the windscreen / cab door and forward section of the cab roof (see Figure 4.18). Pressed steel mudguards, door / window hinges and other sheet steel external trim panels bolt to the outer sides of the ROPS where required (see Figure 4.15).

Very little evidence of age-related deterioration was found upon this example tractor cab. The ROPS mountings and immediate structural members appeared sound, not even showing light surface corrosion (see Figure 4.19). Whilst the n/s C-pillar external trim appeared to have suffered slight impact damage, removal of all external trim showed the B and C-pillars to be in sound structural condition (see Figures 4.17 & 4.19), as indeed were the upper (structural) sections of the ROPS. The floor and lower (in-cab) sections of the inner wing panels indicated very slight surface corrosion (see Figure 4.17). Similar, minor levels of surface corrosion were present in the rear wheel arches and upon the window & door frames. However, without preventative maintenance (painting) these areas of corrosion would no doubt develop rapidly, especially if in contact with corrosive agricultural materials. Action would therefore be advised at this early stage, in order to prevent bodywork / ROPS condition limiting the working life of this tractor in the future.

29

Figure 4.17 JD 2040S SG2 ROPS lower section detail: C-pillar (left) & B-pillar (right) interface with inner wings

Figure 4.18 JD 2040S SG2 ROPS upper section detail: windscreen / door / roof support framework (left) & C-pillar / upper channel section interface (right)

Figure 4.19 JD 2040S SG2 cab rear mountings and rear structural members, showing little or no surface corrosion

30

4.4 JOHN DEERE 2140

Figure 4.20 John Deere 2140 2wd tractor fitted with John Deere SG2 Q-Cab


Very similar, both in appearance and mechanical detail, to the 2040S ‘XE’ tractor described in Section 4.3, this tractor was also fitted with a similar John Deere SG2 Q-cab, albeit a variant in which the gear levers are mounted in a side console and which incorporates an opening roof hatch. All other cab features and (importantly) the method of construction and dimensions of the ROPS were identical to that of the 2040S (see Figure 4.16). Despite these considerable similarities, and the fact that the 2140 tractor is approximately 2 years newer than the 2040S, the overall condition of the cabs could not have been more different.

First registered in May 1986, the tractor had spent its entire working life on a farm in Pembrokeshire. Approaching 17 years old when purchased for the investigation, the tractor was mechanically complete and in running order, suggesting it had been in service until recently. The vehicle appeared to have been operated in an extremely corrosive agricultural environment / application, involving farmyard manure. It had probably been in long-term use with a manure spreader, given the severely deteriorated / unserviceable condition of the lower link arms, but acceptable condition of the pickup hitch and power take-off (PTO) shaft. Presence of manure-encrusted bale string around the rear axle shafts and severe corrosion of the rear wheel rims supported this theory (see Figure 4.20).

The cab sheet metalwork was badly corroded, particularly at the rear of the vehicle (see Figure 4.21), suggesting that the tractor had received little, if any, maintenance to prevent or arrest the development of surface corrosion. The mudguard upper surfaces, door / windscreen frames and ROPS B & C-pillar external trim panels exhibited widespread surface corrosion, indicating long-term contact with corrosive material. The mudguards were perforated in places, to the extent that, at the rear, sections had rusted away (see Figure 4.21).

31

Figure 4.21 JD 2140 SG2 cab external sheet metalwork deterioration: nearside mudguard (left) and rear panels (right)

Whilst showing widespread surface corrosion, the ROPS mountings and immediate structural members appeared sound (see Figure 4.21 (right)). Upon removal of external trim panels, the B and C-pillars were found to exhibit a significant degree of surface corrosion, the proportion of which reduced towards the upper sections of the ROPS framework. Despite this, these structural members appeared basically sound, as did the ROPS upper longitudinal bracing and cross-members (see Figure 4.23).

Probably of greatest concern was the condition of the cab inner wings. Paint treatment during manufacture appeared to have provided inadequate protection against corrosion, to the extent that both inner wings were perforated, the nearside (n/s) to the point where a significant area simply was not present (see Figures 4.22 & 4.23). Very little of the original (black) paintwork was present: the remaining sheet metalwork was paper-thin.

Figure 4.22 JD 2140 SG2 cab: widespread corrosion of the inner wing / C-pillar interface; offside (left) & nearside (right)

32


Figure 4.23 JD 2140 SG2 cab: side horizontal loading

In common with other ROPS investigated during this study, the tractor cab was subjected to the OECD Code 4 (Static) ROPS testing procedure, comprising sequential rear horizontal loading, a rear vertical crush, side horizontal loading, and finally a front vertical crush. This (SG2) cab design was originally approved for a number of tractors in the Mannheim-built John Deere 40-series range (1640, 2040, 2040S & 2140), in both 2wd and 4wd variants. Consequently the tractor test mass (4300 kg) used for calculation of applied force and absorbed strain energy levels during this investigation (see Section 4.1.2) corresponded to the potential worst case within this vehicle range; the 2140 4wd model, it being the heaviest.. This test mass was known to be identical to the value used in the original OECD approval test performed upon this cab structure in 1981.


To meet OECD Code 4 requirements the ROPS was required to absorb a strain energy level of 6020 Joules (1.4 x tractor test mass), when applied to the rear, upper, offside corner, parallel with the tractor centreline, without either infringing the defined driver’s ‘clearance zone’ or leaving it unprotected. The ROPS absorbed 6175 Joules during test after 240 mm deflection in the direction of loading. This was deemed to be acceptable, the ROPS structural members (B & C-pillars and associated bracing members) having performed without incident (see Figure 4.16). However this initial loading highlighted the non-structural nature of the windscreen / door / front roof support framework, which made very little contribution to strain energy absorption.

Rear crush

To comply with the test standard requirements the ROPS was required to withstand of a vertical force of 86 kN (20 x tractor test mass) applied across the rear section of the structure via a horizontal, load-spreading beam. A sustainable force of 91.1 kN was successfully

33

Figure 4.24 JD 2140 SG2 cab front crush: initial (left) and subsequent successful attempt (right)

applied marginally in front of the ROPS rear (C-pillar) cross member without incident and little discernable deformation of the structure.


Loading was applied to the cab nearside (n/s) upper horizontal member (see Figure 4.23): an absorbed strain energy level of 7525 Joules (1.75 x test mass) being required, without clearance zone infringement or further deflection, for test approval. In practice the ROPS achieved an absorbed strain energy level of 7574 Joules after 295 mm deflection, whilst remaining well outside the clearance zone. Some distortion of the ROPS rear upper cross member was observed. Distortion of the cab seat mounting area and inner wings also occurred, badly corroded sections falling from the structure. However, despite this behaviour the ROPS remained effective and in good structural condition.

Front crush

Vertical loading was initially applied (by a horizontal beam) to the front section of the cab roof (see Figure 4.24 (left)), as required by the OECD Code 4 test procedure. Given that this was known to be a non-structural section of the cab, it was of little surprise that a maximum force of only 15 kN could be achieved. The loading was subsequently re-positioned rearwards (as permitted by the test procedure) and applied in the vicinity of the ROPS front (B-pillar) cross member (see Figure 4.24 (right)). In this location the ROPS was able to sustain a vertical load of 87 kN without incident, thereby meeting the requirements of the ‘front crush’ test and complying with the overall requirements of the Test Code.

4.4.3 Summary

Structural testing of this safety cab showed that a well-designed 4-post ROPS, constructed of adequately-sized RHS tubular and channel steel sections, plus sheet metalwork in-fill panels, can deliver perfectly adequate structural performance even when the sheet metalwork is in extremely poor condition. Despite at first sight exhibiting a very significant degree of corrosion, albeit confined to the sheet metalwork components, the ROPS performed well during structural testing without the assistance of the largely cosmetic sheet steel cladding. In

34

hindsight such performance is perhaps to be expected of a ROPS / safety cab design which despite its modern appearance, actually originated from the early-1970’s. This given that more recent safety cab designs frequently place greater reliance upon the structural contribution of sheet metalwork panels to the ROPS as a whole (see Section 3).

However, whilst having achieved adequate structural performance during test, it is necessary to question whether the cab would provide adequate protection to operator either in the event of an overturn or simply during normal everyday use. The degree of inner wing deterioration encountered potentially raises safety concerns regarding occupant retention (during an overturn) and contact with moving components (rear wheels) during use. Whilst not yet practicable, little further deterioration would be necessary to greatly increase such a risk.

As such it would seem that an otherwise serviceable design of cab has been undermined by accelerated deterioration of sheet metalwork components (see Figures 4.22, 4.23 & 4.24). The vehicle in question has undoubtedly been subjected to an unfavourable operating environment and by no means do all examples of SG2 cabs suffer from the problem of agerelated deterioration, as indicated by the 2040S cab (see Figure 4.17). Nonetheless the poor relative performance of the anti-corrosion (black) paint treatment applied to the lower sections of the 2140 tractor cab, in comparison with that of similar (green) paint treatment upon adjacent sheet metalwork, would suggest inadequacies during manufacture irrespective of subsequent poor treatment during service. If tractor / cab manufacturers wish to utilise thin sheet metalwork components in important roles, it is crucial and conceivable that anticorrosion treatments capable of exceeding the reasonable working life of the vehicle (~ 30 years) be employed.

35

4.5 FORD 4610 AP

Figure 4.25 Ford 4610 2wd tractor fitted with Ford (Sekura) AP Q-Cab


This tractor was approximately 17 years old at the time of investigation (first registered September 1985). Purchased in full working order and having had only two previous owners (in the Norfolk / Suffolk costal area), the vehicle’s overall appearance suggested it had experienced some harsh use in the past, most recently perhaps in a forestry or estate maintenance application, probably with a front-end loader fitted (evidence of mounting points). Nonetheless the cab condition was representative of other examples of this specific (Sekura ‘AP’) design, as found upon other Ford tractors of the period during the vehicle condition survey (see Section 2).

The Sekura-designed ‘All-Purpose’ or ‘AP’ cab was introduced in 1984 as the standard cab upon Ford 45 – 54 kW tractors and as a lower-cost option to the (GKN-built) Ford De-luxe Qcab upon 61 – 73 kW vehicles. The AP cab provided a lower overall profile, more suited to operation in older farm buildings, and a less luxurious interior, whilst still complying with tractor cab noise legislation. As such it was an extremely popular option in the livestock and less intensive mixed farm sectors in the UK. A further ‘Low-Profile’ or ‘LP’ variant was also available on certain models, but this shared the same ROPS design as the AP cab.

Of angular, slab-sided external appearance, the cab essentially comprises a 6-post ROPS of welded RHS-tubular steel construction (see Figures 4.25, 4.26 & 4.30). RHS cross members link the upper ends of the A & C-pillars at the front and rear of the cab. A cross member extends between the C-pillars at mudguard / cab waist rail level. A further cross member is bolted between the lower sections of the C-pillars, immediately below the lower rear window (see Figure 4.26). Longitudinal horizontal RHS members link the A, B & C-pillar upper ends on the nearside and offside. Front and rear mounting brackets are bolted to the sides of the clutch housing and the tops of the rear axle housings, respectively. The cab is attached to the brackets via anti-vibration mountings, two per side, one each at the front and rear.

36

Figure 4.26 Ford (Sekura) AP Q-cab general construction (courtesy Sekura)

Longitudinal RHS steel members extend forwards from the rear mounts to the front mounts (beneath the cab doorways). Sheet steel inner wings are welded to the lower members of the cab structure and as such are structural components. The cab also features an integral floor, operator’s seat mounting and instrument panel fairing of pressed sheet steel. A non-structural sheet steel roof panel bolts to the top of the ROPS. In many respects the cab appears reminiscent of mid-1970’s designs, but closer inspection revealed that considerable effort had been made to update and simplify the design, probably in order to reduce production costs. To that end the majority of the RHS members are in fact bespoke tubular profiles, designed to increase structural strength and to provide mating surfaces for the doors and top-hinged front, rear and side windows (see Figure 4.26).

In the case of the test tractor, the upper (above mudguard / waist rail level) and rear areas of cab structure were generally in excellent condition, minor paint flaking being evident, but nothing that was likely to affect the structural performance of the ROPS (see Figures 4.28 & 4.30). This was in extreme contrast with the very poor condition of cab floor (in the doorways), the inner wings and structural members in the vicinity of the front mountings. At each side of the ROPS the lower longitudinal RHS member terminates at the cab front mounting, being welded to steel angle bracket which mates to the upper face of the cab ISO mount (see Figure 4.27). An additional short section of RHS steel is welded to the outer edge of the angle bracket and extends forwards, thereby supporting the underside of the cab doorway and the base of the A-pillar. On both the cab nearside (n/s) and offside (o/s) this short RHS section had suffered serious corrosion, which had in turn migrated (to a far lesser extent) to the cab front mounting bracket and main longitudinal member (see Figure 4.27). The cab doorway floor areas (above the front mounting points) were corroded and exhibited signs of maintenance / repair, the n/s being perforated despite this treatment (see Figure 4.29).

37

Figure 4.27 Ford AP cab nearside lower longitudinal RHS members and front nearside mounting (as seen from below). Note severe deterioration of short RHS member adjacent to the mounting

Figure 4.28 AP cab inner wing deterioration and subsequent repair: nearside wing (left) and offside wing (right)

Figure 4.29 AP cab nearside doorway & front floor deterioration

The n/s inner wing was severely corroded and perforated to the extent that a replacement sheet steel panel had been overlaid within the wheel arch and pop riveted to the existing structure (see Figure 4.28 (left)). The deterioration of the o/s inner wing was less severe, but holes had developed nonetheless, necessitating insertion of a sheet steel patch in the lower front section of the wheel arch, immediately behind the lower section of the o/s door (see Figure 4.28 (right)).

38

Figure 4.30 Ford AP cab: rear horizontal loading

The paint finish upon the cab appeared particularly ineffective, due to very poor adhesion. Whilst providing a resilient layer which resisted surface penetration, the paint film seemed prone to flaking; partially detaching from the metal surface and encouraging moisture transfer along the metal surface / paint layer interface (see Figures 4.28 & 4.29). No paint whatsoever was present upon the outer surface of the o/s inner wing (wheel arch) (see Figure 4.30). That within the n/s wheel arch was solely a result of the repair made to the inner wing (see Figure 4.32 (right)).


The Ford 4610 cab was subjected to the same OECD Code 4 (Static) ROPS testing procedure as used elsewhere in the investigation, comprising sequential rear horizontal loading, a rear vertical crush, side horizontal loading, and finally a front vertical crush. This particular variant of the AP cab was designed and subsequently approved to fit Ford 4610 2wd and 4wd tractors, plus two other 2wd & 4wd models of smaller Ford tractors (3910 & 4110: see Figure 4.26). The tractor test mass (3300 kg) used for calculation of applied force and absorbed strain energy levels during ROPS testing therefore related to the worst case scenario for the structure, i.e. when fitted to the heaviest tractor in the range, the 4610 4wd model. This test mass was known to be identical to the value used in the original OECD approval test performed upon this cab structure in 1981.


To meet OECD Code 4 requirements the ROPS was required to absorb a strain energy level of 4620 Joules (1.4 x tractor test mass), when applied to the rear, upper, offside corner, parallel with the tractor centreline (see Figure 4.30), without either infringing the defined driver’s ‘clearance zone’ or leaving it unprotected. This design utilised the inner wings as structural members of the ROPS, their purpose during rear horizontal loading being both to transfer force from the cab rear members forwards to other parts of the structure, and to absorb a great deal of strain energy by virtue of their own deformation. Due to their poor

39

(structural) condition, both n/s and o/s inner wings failed to perform these roles particularly well, requiring the RHS framework to support the majority of the applied load. These shortcomings, together with structural weaknesses present in both n/s and o/s front mounting / floor / doorway areas, resulted in greater permanent deformation of the ROPS framework during the loading process than would normally be expected. An acceptable absorbed strain energy level of 4761 Joules was achieved after 200 mm deflection in the direction of loading. However, during loading the n/s inner wing detached from the ROPS framework after 140 mm deflection, as indicated by a momentary reduction in the applied force at this point (see Figure 4.31). If the inner wing had remained attached for a longer period, it is likely it would have made a far greater contribution to energy absorption, relieving some of the burden from the RHS framework.

Rear Horizontal Loading: Absorbed Energy = 4761 Joules

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

App

lied

forc

e (k

N)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

Deflection under load (mm)

Figure 4.31 Force – deflection record of rear horizontal loading applied to the Ford AP cab during testing

Rear crush

To comply with the test standard requirements the ROPS was required to withstand of a vertical force of 66 kN (20 x tractor test mass) applied across the rear section of the structure via a horizontal, load-spreading beam. A sustainable force of 69.7 kN was successfully applied, marginally in front of the ROPS rear cross-member, without incident and little discernable deformation of the structure. This was to be expected given that the majority of the loading would be transferred directly down the C-pillars to the rear mounts, and thence to the tractor rear axle housings, all of which were in very good condition prior to testing.

40

Figure 4.32 Ford AP cab: side horizontal loading (left) and front crush (right)


Loading was applied to the cab nearside upper horizontal member (see Figure 4.32 (left)): an absorbed strain energy level of 5775 Joules (1.75 x test mass) being required, without clearance zone infringement or further deflection, for test approval. In practice the ROPS achieved an absorbed strain energy level of 5869 Joules after 235 mm deflection whilst remaining outside the clearance zone, thereby meeting the test standard requirements. However, the resistance of the structure to loading actually reduced beyond 200 mm deflection (see Figure 4.33), but the degree of reduction during further load application / ROPS deflection was not so great as to require implementation of the overload test procedure specified within the OECD Test Code.

Side Horizontal Loading: Absorbed Energy = 5869 Joules

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

App

lied

forc

e (k

N)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Deflection under load (mm)

Figure 4.33 Force – deflection record of side horizontal loading applied to the Ford AP cab during testing

41

Front crush

Vertical loading was applied (by a horizontal beam) to the front upper section of the ROPS, as required by the OECD Code 4 test procedure (see Figure 4.32 (right)). Despite the extremely poor condition of the short RHS members responsible for supporting the bases of the cab Apillars (see Figures 4.27 & 4.35), and the consequent collapse of both the n/s & o/s cab doorway - floor areas during loading (see Figure 4.34), the ROPS was able to sustain a vertical load of 66.2 kN. It therefore met the requirements of the ‘front crush’ test and complied with the overall requirements of the OECD Code 4 (Static) ROPS test standard. However, given the severe corrosion of the short RHS structural members in the vicinity of the cab front mountings, and the behaviour of these regions of the cab during loading, further load was applied to determine the maximum sustainable resistance of the ROPS in this mode. This was found to be approximately 75 kN, equating to an overload margin of some 13 % despite the deteriorated condition of the cab.

Figure 4.34 AP cab:- doorway / floor / short RHS member collapse after front crush

Figure 4.35 Deterioration of AP cab short longitudinal RHS members (prior to test): nearside (left) offside (right). Note open rear end of member (right)

42

4.5.3 Summary

The failure of the inner wing panels during rear horizontal loading removed much of the support normally provided to B-pillar lower ends, and also the force transfer path from these points to the lower longitudinal RHS members and the cab front mountings during side loading. The extremely poor condition of the short RHS members, responsible for linking the bases of the A-pillars to the cab front mountings, also compromised the force transfer path from the upper sections of the ROPS, via the A-pillars, during both side horizontal and front vertical (‘crush’) loading.

An inescapable conclusion from this evidence is that the ROPS structure was able to meet the requirements of the OECD Test Code despite the severe degree of deterioration present in certain key areas of the ROPS. However, a further subjective conclusion may be that the specific nature of the deterioration could conceivably have protected the deteriorated sections of the ROPS from receiving the loading they may well have experienced if the structure (and associated load transfer paths) had been in better conditions, i.e. if the structure had performed during loading in the manner that the designer(s) originally envisaged.

In this instance the method of corrosion development and subsequent failure of structural components is very interesting. Ford AP cabs have a poor reputation for corrosion resistance in service, the susceptibility of their paint treatment to deterioration through flaking, as demonstrated by poor external appearance, being a contributory factor. This is in many ways surprising, because many older cabs of similar design (John Deere ‘OPU’, David Brown 10 / 12-series) do not appear to suffer from deterioration to the same degree. A number of AP cabs encountered during the second-hand market survey (see Section 2) exhibited corrosion in the front sections of the lower longitudinal RHS members, immediately behind the cab front mounting plate. The test cab did not exhibit severe corrosion in this precise location, but rather in the short RHS members attached to the outer side of each front mount angle bracket (see Figures 4.27 & 4.35). This (short) RHS member was the result of a modification of the original AP cab design, and was not present upon the drawing of the cab originally submitted for OECD testing (see Figure 4.26). Whilst a welded plate sealed the front end of the RHS section, the rear end was open to the elements at the time of the SRI test. Originally some form of blanking / sealing plate may have been in place, but over time either it became misplaced or possibly succumbed to corrosion. Perforation of the inner wings during service had permitted water / mud to enter the cab floor area, running forward and potentially exiting via the access holes for the cab front mounting bolts (see Figure 4.29). This would enable moisture to be trapped between the cab floor and the short RHS members. Alternatively mud and water could simply have been thrown forward, due to possible poor design of the rear wheel arches (see Figure 4.35), the upper surface of the cab step mounting plate providing an area for the accumulation of mud, etc, accelerating corrosion of the RHS member rear blanking plate (if present) and the underside of the cab floor / doorway (see Figure 4.35 (right)). Once perforated, mud and water would be able to enter the RHS section and corrode it from the (possibly unprotected) interior, as the evidence suggests (see Figure 4.27).

In any event it seems possible that insufficient consideration of the in-service consequences (in terms of corrosion susceptibly and preventative measures required) of what may have been regarded as a minor structural modification, combined with poor paint coating performance, have substantially increased the susceptibility of this ROPS design to age-related deterioration in use. Nonetheless, despite these design shortcomings, the particular test example would have provided adequate protection to the operator in the event of an overturn.

43

4.6 MASSEY FERGUSON 3090

Figure 4.36 Massey Ferguson 3080 2wd tractor fitted with MF 3000-series Q-Cab


First registered in December 1987, the test tractor was 15 years old at the time of inspection. Vehicle documentation suggested that, despite having had four former owners, the tractor had spent the last 10 years (1992 – 2002) on the same farm. The vehicle’s appearance suggested it had been in normal service until recently, having been used and maintained with some care e.g. lights and external panels were generally undamaged (see Figures 4.36 & 4.37). The vehicle was included in the investigation because the MF 3000-series Q-cab embodies many features and design principles which are still in use upon modern cabs from MF (AGCO) and other manufacturers today. Introduced in 1986, many 3000-series tractors and their direct descendants are still in frontline service on UK farms. Regrettably, they are known to suffer from surface corrosion, a fact confirmed by the second-hand market survey (see Section 2).

The still-modern cab design is essentially a 2-post ROPS which utilises enlarged C-pillars, located slightly forwards of the rear axle to provide uninterrupted rear corner visibility (see Figure 4.37). To promote forward visibility the A-pillars are of narrow section, their main role being to locate the windscreen and provide mating surfaces for the wide cab doors, the latter rear-hinged from the C-pillars. The cab is of welded and bolted steel construction incorporating an integral floor, inner wings and operator’s seat mounting. Above cab waist rail / mudguard level, the (main structural) C-pillars each comprise two RHS tubular-steel members linked by a pressed steel panel (see Figure 4.38). Profiled, horizontal RHS members attach to the C-pillar upper ends, extending forwards and rearwards, forming the roof support structure (see Figure 4.38). A front cross member of steel angle links the Apillar upper ends to the roof RHS members. It is believed that the A-pillars do not make a significant structural contribution to the ROPS, in common with the windscreen / door / front roof support framework of the John Deere SG2 cab (see Sections 4.3 & 4.4).

44

Figure 4.37 MF 3000-series Q-Cab fitted to Massey Ferguson 3080 tractor

Figure 4.38 MF 3000-series cab structure: C-pillar base (left) and upper end & roof support members (right)

Front and rear cab mounting brackets are bolted to the sides of the clutch housing and the tops of the rear axle housings, respectively. The cab is attached to the brackets by anti-vibration mountings, one per side at the front and two per side at the rear. The cab inner wings are structural components, reinforced by curved RHS members, two linking each C-pillar base to each rear cab mounting bracket; a further member extending forward under the wheel arch and doorway to each A-pillar base and cab front mounting point.

There was no evidence to suggest the tractor had been used in a severely corrosive environment or application. The cab structure was in very sound condition, although some paint breakdown and subsequent light surface corrosion was present at a number of locations, particularly where moisture had been trapped by fittings. The cab mountings and close structure were structurally sound and in relatively good condition, except for surface corrosion upon the n/s lower front cross member, immediately above the cab front mounting (see Figure 4.39 (left)). The lower parts of the ROPS were also generally in good structural condition, although inside the cab the o/s A-pillar base and adjacent front window frame exhibited widespread surface corrosion (see Figure 4.39 (right)). This was probably a result of water run-off from the floor, the area being kept moist by the floor matting and glazing rubbers.

45

Figure 4.39 MF 3000-series cab: surface corrosion upon nearside lower front cross member (left) and front window frame / A-pillar base (right)

The wheel arch / inner wing and C-pillar lower areas were also structurally sound, but the Cpillar external surfaces above mudguard level indicated areas of light surface corrosion which had received some remedial treatment (painting), thereby arresting further deterioration. Above cab waist rail / mudguard level the ROPS was in very good structural condition.

The cab roof cladding and hatches were in good condition for a tractor of this age, as was the cab floor. Corrosion was present in the outer edges of both n/s and o/s doorways, probably due to water retention; deterioration of the o/s area being more advanced to the extent that perforation had occurred (see Figure 4.40). Severe corrosion had developed in the lower sections of both n/s and o/s doors causing perforation of the inner and outer skins (see Figure 4.41). This appeared to be due to internal corrosion, possibly as a result of moisture retention and/or inadequate corrosion protection. Some corrosion was evident where the mudguard extensions attached (by means of bolted joints) to the cab inner wings, but this was minor and did not appear to be developing rapidly.

Figure 4.40 MF 3000-series cab: door threshold perforated due to corrosion

46

Figure 4.41 MF 3000-series cab: severe corrosion of door skin lower sections – outer (left) and inner (right)

4.6.2 Summary

Despite its age the MF 3000-series cab is a modern, effective design that, even when compared with newer tractor cabs, can still provide the operator with a comfortable working environment. Therefore, given continued mechanical reliability, there is every reason to expect that examples of these tractors will remain in everyday use in the UK for many years to come.

Whilst not having demonstrated any age-related deterioration of key ROPS components, the test tractor’s cab (and other MF 3000-series cabs encountered during the second-hand market survey) appear to be susceptible to surface corrosion in certain areas, namely:-

x Door lower section / door skin (internal & external) x Doorway threshold x A-pillar base x Lower front cross member x C-pillar external panel

Whilst corrosion in certain of these locations probably resulted from moisture retention, a common theme and strong contributory factor was the apparent poor performance of the paint coating upon many of these (grey-coloured) components, it seeming to offer little protection against corrosion development if there was initial light surface damage and/or trapped moisture. This was in contradiction to the very good performance of the coatings applied in more critical areas (e.g. wheel arches).

Appropriate maintenance, in the form of identification and treatment of surface corrosion, had ensured the test tractor remained in serviceable condition. However, this does highlight the importance of taking appropriate remedial action as soon as possible, prior to deterioration reaching levels at which not only treatment becomes either too costly or not practicable, but also the performance of the ROPS potentially may be affected. The danger of deterioration developing in areas of the cab which are not normally visible (e.g. doorway threshold) is all too obvious.

47

4.7 CASE-IH 956 XL

Figure 4.42 Case-IH 956XL 4wd tractor fitted with Case-IH XL Q-Cab


First registered in April 1991, the test tractor was approx. 12 years old at the time of testing. Vehicle documentation indicated it had spent the majority of its working life on two farms in Cornwall. The test tractor’s appearance suggested that it had recently stood idle for some months, probably having been removed from service because of a gearbox fault. The nearside (n/s) cab door and some other panels had been removed prior to sale.

This tractor was chosen for the investigation partly because of the popularity of the CASE-IH 56-series in the marketplace. Over an 11-year production run these vehicles became (and still are) highly regarded for their operational simplicity and longevity. Of greater relevance to the investigation, when introduced in June 1981 the 56-series was fitted with the International Harvester (IH) XL “Control Centre” cab. As discussed in Section 3, the cab was of modern, ground-breaking design, incorporating improved ergonomic layout, larger glass area and repositioned structural members to improve operator visibility. Structurally, the cab made much use of bespoke, pressed-steel profile panels, spot-welded together to create structural members. Importantly, the cab was subsequently offered upon most IH (subsequently Case-IH) European-built tractors of 45 –100 kW engine power, and remained in production upon certain models until 1998.

The basic construction of the Case-IH XL (C-85) cab is in many ways similar to that of the MF 3000-series (see Section 4.6). Whilst nominally a 4-post structure, enlarged C-pillars located forward of the cab rear corners, above the rear axle (to improve rear corner visibility) form the main cab structural member (rear hoop), providing the majority of operator roll-over protection (see Figure 4.43). The front and rear corners of the cab are attached to the tractor chassis via mounting brackets, the latter being bolted to the sides of the clutch housing and tops of the rear axle housings, respectively. Rubber anti-vibration mountings provide an interface between the cab structure and the mounting brackets, two per side being employed at the front and one per side at the rear.

48

Figure 4.43 Case-IH C-85 (XL) Q-cab general construction (courtesy Case-IH)

Press-formed sheet steel inner wings and the lower rear window surround panel are integral with the operator’s seat mounting and the cab floor, thereby acting as part of the cab structure. Longitudinal channel members, press-formed from sheet steel, link the cab C and A-pillars on each side of the structure, immediately above the cab mountings, and provide additional support for the cab floor (see Figure 4.43). The C-pillars are constructed from two pressedsteel plate profiles, spot-welded together to form a composite member comprising twin rectangular hollow sections (RHS) linked by a plate (see Figures 4.43 & 4.44 (right)). These members extend vertically above the rear axle mount area on each side of the cab, being linked at their upper ends by an RHS cross member, thereby forming an integral 2-post ROPS. Bespoke press-formed RHS members extend rearwards and forwards from the upper sections of the C-pillars, defining the extremities of the cab roof area (see Figures 4.43 & 4.44 (left)). Bespoke, thin steel tubular members act as A-pillars, linking the front corners of the roof area to the cab floor, in the vicinity of the cab front mountings (see Figure 4.43). These members also act as ventilation ducts, carrying air from the roof-mounted fan unit to the cab floor area. Where required, the profiles of the cab members incorporate suitable flanges to accept direct glazing, or to provide interface point for opening door / window seals.

Considering its relatively young age, the test tractor cab exhibited quite a large degree of corrosion, particularly in the lower front window / A-pillar base area (see Figure 4.45). The mudguards also exhibited significant corrosion at their front edges, suggesting the vehicle had seen use in a fairly corrosive environment or application. However the sound condition of the front panels and bonnet appeared to contradict this assumption. Despite severe corrosion of the A-pillar bases and close areas, the cab mountings and close structure appeared to be in sound condition, as indeed were the remaining structural members of the cab.

49

Figure 4.44 Case-IH C-85 cab structural ‘hoop’: composite construction C-pillars (left & right) linked by horizontal RHS cross member (left)

Figure 4.45 Case-IH C-85 cab A-pillar base deterioration: severe corrosion upon both offside (left) and nearside (right)

The inner wings appeared to have resisted the suspected corrosive operating environment very well, showing only slight surface rust upon their outer surfaces. Elsewhere the (black) paint finish upon the cab structure was in very good condition; a fact reflected by the good condition of the cab pressed-steel components. However, window sealing may have been a problem, in that sections of the (sheet steel) window retaining lips had corroded away at a number of points upon the structure. This corrosion had spread to adjacent structural members in the form of surface rust, but had not yet developed to an extent where structural performance would be compromised.

Of greater concern to the potential structural performance of the cab was the fact that instances of missing, broken or loose cab mounting bolts were encountered upon two of the four cab mountings: a undesirable tribute to very poor maintenance and/or workshop practice.

50


In common with other ROPS investigated during this study, the tractor cab was subjected to the OECD Code 4 (Static) ROPS testing procedure, comprising sequential rear horizontal loading, a rear vertical crush, side horizontal loading, and finally a front vertical crush (see Section 4.1.2). This (XL C-85) cab design was originally approved for a number of tractor models in the IH 56series (both 2wd and 4wd variants of 956 & 1056 models). Consequently the tractor test mass (4800 kg) used for calculation of applied force and absorbed strain energy levels during this investigation (see Section 4.1.2) corresponded to the potential worst case within this vehicle range; the 1056 4wd model, it being the heaviest. This test mass was known to be identical to the value used in the original OECD approval test performed upon this cab structure in 1981.

Figure 4.46 Case-IH C-85 cab: rear horizontal loading & resultant deformation of cab rear member, as viewed from above (left) and the cab offside (right)


To meet OECD Code 4 requirements the ROPS was required to absorb a strain energy level of 6720 Joules (1.4 x tractor test mass), when applied to the rear, upper, offside corner of the structure, parallel with the tractor centreline, without either infringing the defined driver’s ‘clearance zone’ or leaving it unprotected. The rearmost cross member of the C-85 cab is deemed to be semi-structural in nature, in so much as in the event of significant rear horizontal loading, it is designed to deform forwards and transfer loading to the main C-pillar / cross member (rear hoop) structure. This failure scenario occurred (see Figure 4.46), but the driver’s clearance zone was not infringed and adequate protection was provided. The ROPS absorbed 7144 Joules after 260 mm deflection in the direction of loading. This was deemed to be acceptable, the ROPS structural members (C-pillars and associated bracing members) having performed without incident.

Rear crush

To comply with the test standard requirements the ROPS was required to withstand a vertical force of 96 kN (20 x tractor test mass), applied across the rear section of the structure (upon the cab upper cross-member) via a horizontal, load-spreading beam. A sustainable force of 102.1 kN was successfully applied without incident and little discernable deformation of the structure. This was to be expected given that the loading would be transferred directly down the C-pillars to the cab rear mounts, and thence to the tractor rear axle housings, all of which were in very good condition prior to the test.

51

Figure 4.47 Case-IH C-85 cab: side horizontal loading resulting in rotation of A-pillars about their bases


Loading was applied (by means of a spreading beam) to the cab nearside (n/s) upper horizontal member (see Figure 4.43), centred on a point approximately 300 mm forward of the C-pillar upper ends. An absorbed strain energy level of 8400 Joules (1.75 x test mass) was required, without clearance zone infringement or further deflection of the structure, for test approval. In practice the ROPS achieved an absorbed strain energy level of 8527 Joules after 300 mm deflection in the direction of loading. This was both acceptable, given that the structure remained well outside the clearance zone, and of a similar magnitude to the sideloading deflections exhibited by the other ROPS tested during the investigation. The behaviour of the A-pillars during loading was, however, of note (see Figure 4.47). The members effectively pivoted about their (corroded & weakened) bases, providing little resistance to side loading. The structural role of the A-pillars is not substantial in this cab design, the majority of side loading energy being successfully absorbed by the C-pillar / rear hoop assembly. Nonetheless, if the A-pillar bases had been in better structural condition, these members would possibly have made a slightly greater contribution to the overall energy absorption requirement placed upon the structure, enabling this to have been satisfied at a lower overall deflection value.

Front crush

Vertical loading was initially applied (by a horizontal beam) to the front, upper section of the ROPS, marginally behind the A-pillars, as required by the OECD Code 4 test procedure. Load application resulted in substantial deflection and subsequent failure of the n/s A-pillar - cab floor intersection. Further loading caused the n/s A-pillar and door threshold to break away from the cab floor - front mounting area (see Figure 4.48 (left) & (right)). Vertical loading continued until the front section of the ROPS had deflected below an imaginary plane (known as the ‘ground line’), as drawn from the C-pillar cross member to the uppermost front point of the tractor chassis structure (see Figure 4.49).

52

Figure 4.48 Case-IH C-85 cab: initial (left) and final (right) failure of nearside A-pillar – door threshold as a result of front vertical (crush) loading

Figure 4.49 Case-IH C-85 cab: illustration of ‘ground line’ of deformed structure following initial front crush loading.

Loading was subsequently re-positioned rearwards (as permitted by the test procedure) and applied to the main structural ‘hoop’ of the ROPS (C-pillars & linking cross-member). In this location the ROPS was able to sustain a vertical load of 115 kN without incident, thereby meeting the requirements of the ‘front crush’ test (target load = 96 kN) and complying with the overall requirements of the OECD Test Code.

4.7.3 Summary

As in the case of the MF 3000-series cab, the Case-IH XL (C-85) “Control Centre” cab was a modern, ground-breaking design when introduced and it withstood the rigours of agricultural market well during its 17-year (1981 – 1998) production run. The design can still provide a comfortable operating environment and, in the case of the 56-series tractors, was mated to vehicles that gained an envious reputation for reliability. These tractors are therefore still in demand for serious use on commercial farms; good-condition examples commanding prices of up to £10,000.

53

Figure 4.50 Case-IH C-85 cabs after OECD Code 4 structural testing:- 12 year-old deteriorated example (left) and new example (right)

The C-85 cab makes full use of (then) modern construction techniques, embodying pressformed profiles joined by spot-welding to form structural members. Considerable use is also made of thinner sections and panels within the overall cab structure. This approach to cab construction demands good anti-corrosion protection and, in the main, this has been achieved, albeit with the notable exception of the A-pillar bases. However, the cab design relies heavily upon the C-pillar – upper cross member ‘rear hoop’ structure as the main structural member for roll-over protection. The cab is in many ways an extremely well-crafted 2-post ROPS constructed within a Q-cab.

The bases of the A-pillars have suffered from severe internal corrosion, resulting in perforation. There are a number of potential explanations as to why they have deteriorated in this manner. The members are constructed from extremely thin sheet steel, increasing their susceptibility to corrosion. Anti-corrosion (paint) treatment within the section may have been inadequate, but the absence of this trait elsewhere upon the structure undermines this explanation. Probably of greater consequence is the use of the A-pillars as ventilation ducts, bringing hot or cool air from the roof-mounted cab ventilation unit to the driver’s feet. In certain conditions this could possibly have resulted in build-up of condensation within the A-pillar bases where, with no drainage route, corrosion would develop. Similar traits were found upon the A-pillars of the MF 3000-series cab, which used a similar mode of ventilation. Finally, rainwater leakage from the cab roof and/or roof hatch (a common fault upon C-85 cabs) could enter the upper ends of the A-pillars and accumulate as described. Whatever the explanation, it is a characteristic that was observed upon a number of C-85 (XL) cabs during the second-hand vehicle survey and appears to be due largely to an inherent fault in the design of the structure.

54

The deterioration of the A-pillar bases must severely compromise the ability of these members to absorb energy during roll-over. It is fair to argue that the cab A-pillars do not have a primary structural role, and this is supported by the fact that the test cab met the requirements of the OECD Test Code despite their poor condition. However, in spite of this apparently acceptable result, the failure manner of the cab did change significantly from that observed during the test of an identical C-85 structure when new (see Figure 4.50 (left) & (right)). This variation is largely attributable to the performance of the A-pillars during loading. The behaviour observed during this investigation has two potential consequences:-

i) The (corrosion) deteriorated A-pillars will make a lesser contribution to energy absorption during roll-over, placing additional responsibility upon the others structural members;

ii) The structural integrity of the cab will probably be compromised (by door and/or windscreen loss) during a roll-over event, greatly increasing the likelihood of driver ejection from the ROPS and the possibility of severe injury or death.

Luckily the main structural ‘hoop’ of the C-85 cab appears to have enough strength in reserve to meet its additional obligations as outlined in (i), but the risk of scenario (ii) is very real, particularly if the driver is not wearing any form of seat restraint.

55

56

5. DISCUSSION

This study was commissioned as a result of concerns regarding the presence of deteriorated safety cabs on a certain proportion of the tractor fleet within the UK. The objectives of the investigation were:-

i) To assess the extent of the perceived problem; in terms of the proportion of used tractors being offered for sale in the UK, fitted with deteriorated safety cabs or ROPS;

ii) To determine if example (tractor) safety cabs, purchased upon the UK secondhand market, had deteriorated to an extent whereby they no longer provided adequate ROPS protection;

iii) To identify trends in, and propose reasons for, the deterioration found;

iv) To discuss the practical implications of the problem for vehicle users, manufacturers and enforcement agencies.

Considering the findings of the investigation with respect to each of these objectives in turn:-

5.1 EXTENT OF THE PERCEIVED PROBLEM

Is age-related structural deterioration of safety cabs a widespread problem within the UK tractor fleet? The findings of the second-hand tractor survey (see Section 2) indicate that approximately 13% of used tractors surveyed, manufactured between 1970 & 1990, suffered from sufficient levels of safety cab or ROPS structural deterioration to warrant concern (graded as “poor” condition). Tractors in this condition are not necessarily unsafe or unfit for use, but would probably offer a reduced margin of safety in the event of an overturn. The survey also indicated that cab structural component deterioration was significantly more prevalent in vehicles within the 1981-1985 age range, followed by those manufactured in the 1976-1980 period. Tractors manufactured before this time (1970-1975), fitted with cabs or ROPS of more simplistic construction, remained in better condition, as did the cabs of post1985 vehicles.

Tractors with structurally-deteriorated cabs / ROPS are undoubtedly present within the UK marketplace, but are their numbers substantial? How great would the percentage of vehicles in this (“poor”) condition have to be in order to be of concern? Does the cross-section of tractor age and condition found for sale at auction during the survey period accurately reflect the vehicle population in use on UK farms? These questions are to an extent related. The authors believe the vehicles surveyed were representative of on-farm machines, the age, make & model range and number of individual tractors inspected instilling considerable confidence in the results obtained. If this is the case, what percentage of severely deteriorated safety cabs or ROPS is acceptable in the workplace? Given that a tractor ROPS is a safety-critical component, can this proportion be anything other than zero? The authors of this report are unable to comment upon this aspect, but would draw the reader’s attention to two points. Firstly, of those example cabs re-tested during this investigation, not every “poor” condition cab / ROPS failed the official test, but all gave cause for concern in some way (see Section 5.2). Secondly, it would seem reasonable to assume that a tractor, whose cab had deteriorated into “poor” condition, would no longer be in an adequate mechanical condition to be capable of frontline service. Annual usage of such a vehicle would therefore be

57

significantly less and the theoretical opportunity for accident, and consequent risk of overturn, reduced. Possibly a logical train of thought, but undermined by the lack of evidence to suggest the frequency of overturning accidents is dependent upon annual usage of individual vehicles. These issues are discussed further in Section 5.3.

5.2 DETERIORATED CAB INSPECTION & TESTING

Can deteriorated tractor cabs provide adequate driver protection in the event of a roll-over? The programme of cab inspection and structural (ROPS) testing conducted upon example deteriorated cabs, deemed to be in either “acceptable” or “poor” condition (see Sections 2 & 3) found that, in the majority of instances, such cabs can still satisfy official ROPS test requirements (see Section 4). Only 1 of the 5 example cabs tested actually failed the OECD Code 4 ROPS test (MF 600-series, graded as “poor” condition before testing). However, this result is somewhat overly positive, because the failure mode and/or the degree of deterioration of a further 2 examples of the 5 cabs tested was such that the structure may not have prevented driver ejection during a roll-over incident, unless a seat restraint (belt) had been worn. The risk of driver ejection is not assessed by current ROPS testing procedures. From December 2002 onwards, PUWER 98 (HSE, 1998) requires employers to fit seat restraints to any mobile work equipment (new or old) which is fitted with a ROPS (HSE, 2000). Prior to the introduction of PUWER, a firm grip on the steering wheel and closed cab doors & windows were all that prevented driver ejection during roll-over. Consequently, cab door and/or window loss during roll-over, due to loss of cab structural integrity, greatly increases the risk of driver ejection and subsequent injury or death.

A common problem, encountered on a number of the test tractors, concerned the cab mounting and/or axle attachment bolts. Instances included missing bolts, incorrect reinstallation (following major servicing of the vehicle) or substitution of inferior quality examples. These simple components perform a vital function. Unless installed as originally intended, the ability of the ROPS to absorb energy during a roll-over incident is severely compromised. The structure has to remain part of the tractor chassis to perform its function. Missing or incorrectly installed bolts would potentially lead to local overloading of the ROPS and possible premature failure in an undesirable manner. The cab mounting bolts of all the test tractors were checked and (where necessary) re-installed or replaced prior to testing. Unless this action had been taken, it is highly probable that a greater number of test failures would have occurred during the investigation.

Both the nature of deterioration and the subsequent test performance of the example cabs were found to be closely related to developments in cab design during the 1970 – 1985 period (see Section 3). These designs can be grouped into three broad, largely chronological categories:-

Type 1 Simplistic welded & bolted structure of rectangular hollow section (RHS) and steel plate, of substantial material thickness (Lambourn Mk6 & Ford (Sekura) AP);

Type 2 One or two main structural ‘hoops’ (2–post or 4-post) of either bespoke rolled RHS or press-formed steel plate, welded to form composite hollow sections. Remaining cab ‘pillars’ are non-structural and of thinner wall thickness (John Deere SG2, Case-IH C-85 & MF 3000-series);

Type 3 Press-formed channel or hollow section members, supplemented by thin-section steel pressings. All designed to have a structural role. Material section thickness reduced accordingly, to reflect intended load sharing (MF 600-series).

58

Advances in cab design over the period in question resulted in a move away from the generic, simplistic RHS-type designs (Type 1), to those where hollow-section structural members were still present, but carefully sculpted and encased within (or supplemented by) nonstructural sheet steel or glass-reinforced plastic panels and/or cladding (Type 2). Further developments of this kind led to cabs entirely constructed of press-formed and spot-welded members of thinner wall thickness (Type 3). These developments inevitably led to much greater sensitivity to corrosion-related deterioration, from Type 1 to Type 2 and finally Type 3; as confirmed by the findings of this investigation (see Section 4). The effectiveness of anti-corrosion treatment and appropriate cab design features (good external sealing, absence of dirt / water traps, adequate structural member internal drainage) becomes progressively more critical as cab structural member material thickness reduces.

However, generalisations are dangerous. A Type 1 cab design can still be prone to deterioration if dirt / water traps, inadequate anti-corrosion treatment, or poor structural member drainage are present, as demonstrated by the Sekura ‘AP’ cab (see Section 4.5). Type 2 cab designs, which may suffer even quite severe non-structural deterioration, are normally able to rely upon the performance of their main structural members, even if other components have deteriorated. However, as previously discussed, in such instances structural integrity and the risk of driver ejection during roll-over may become an issue. Type 3 cab designs must be of good design (effective external sealing, absence of dirt / water traps, adequate structural member internal drainage) and benefit from very good anti-corrosion treatment upon all surfaces (and within hollow-section members) to ensure long-term survival in, what is after all, a potentially corrosive agricultural operating environment.

As discussed above, important issues arising from the example cab testing programme may be summarised as follows:-

x The importance of maintaining the condition of the cab – tractor chassis mountings during service. Ensure all the bolts are present, are of the correct quality and are tightened to the torque values stated in the operator’s handbook. Remember that most Q-cab mounting brackets bolt both to the cab and to the tractor chassis: all bolts require regular checking;

x The influence of cab material selection and method of construction upon deterioration resistance;

x The importance of effective cab anti-corrosion treatment during manufacture and adequate hollow section drainage, to promote longevity in service, especially if constructed of thinner materials;

x The likely influence of vehicle & cab care and maintenance in service upon the rate of deterioration (e.g. treating surface corrosion and sealing water leaks when encountered);

x The potential effect of non-structural component condition upon the longevity of key structural components (e.g. Sekura AP inner wing failure contributing to failure of front structural members);

5.3 CURRENT AND FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

What are the likely consequences of usage of tractors fitted with deteriorated cabs?

Simplistically, the heightened risk of inadequate ROPS performance during a roll-over incident, resulting in either ROPS structural failure or, alternatively, loss of structural integrity and an increased risk of driver ejection during the roll-over (if not otherwise

59

restrained). The former would probably result in driver injury / death within the cab, through crushing or bodily penetration by newly-exposed, sharp edges: the latter would result in a risk of crushing between the tractor / cab structure and the ground surface. Possible legal and financial consequences would include prosecution for failure to provide safe work equipment (if an employer), and possible invalidation of insurance cover.

What is the likelihood of tractors fitted with deteriorated cabs being used on UK farms?

This issue is very dependent upon the balance between tractor mechanical and cab structural longevity. Historically the estimated useful life of a tractor was believed to be in the region of 10,000 engine operating hours, limited by mechanical failure of the major components (e.g. engine, transmission, etc). During the 1960’s and 1970’s it was considered an achievement to utilise a tractor for more than 1000 hours p.a., 300 - 600 hours p.a. being more common. However, changes in cropping patterns, reductions in on-farm labour, greater use of farm contractors, and reliance upon fewer, larger, more costly tractors mean that today an annual utilisation of 1000 hours is considered normal and 2000 hours p.a. is a common occurrence. These changes, together with the general trend for annual operating hours to reduce progressively through a tractor’s life, mean that whilst a 30-year max. useful life may have been expected of early-Q-cab tractors (mid-1970’s), today’s new machines will probably achieve 10,000 hours in approx. 10 years operation: a fact confirmed by many second-hand tractors on the market today. The age range of the tractors tested within this study was 12 – 33 years, whilst engine operating hours showed far less variation (~ 6000 – 9000 hours).

The implications of these trends are numerous. The majority of new medium – large tractors will reach the (theoretical) end of their useful lives within 10 years. Unless of extremely flawed design, there is little or no chance of a modern tractor cab deteriorating significantly during such a period. Also, unless under-utilised, many 10 year-old tractors are now approaching 8000 – 10,000 hours total usage. However, such machines are understandably still in good cosmetic condition and command reasonable second-hand values (e.g. £7000 – 12,000 depending upon size). This required level of investment would suggest that potential purchasers expect to extract at least 4 – 6 years further work from these machines, at a reasonable level of utilisation. If this were the case, this would result in a 14 - 16 year-old vehicle of perhaps 12,000 – 13,000 recorded operating hours. By this point in a tractor’s life, many major mechanical components would be approaching the end of their lives, potentially incurring repair costs which would be uneconomic in relation to the value of the vehicle. This would most likely result in the machine being dismantled for spare parts. Importantly, the (~15 year-old) tractor cab would almost certainly still be in serviceable condition.

The main area of concern appears to be vehicles manufactured in the early – mid 1980’s. Certain cabs of this period appear susceptible to age-related deterioration but, because of light previous use, these vehicles may not have reached the end of their mechanical lives before age-related cab deterioration reaches undesirable levels. However, in many respects the marketplace is self-policing. Tractors of this age are not expensive (~£2000 – 4000) and there is no shortage of vehicles in the marketplace, in a range of conditions, many of which are perfectly serviceable. Many of these machines are purchased for “hobby-farming” and/or for low intended levels of annual utilisation. Cosmetic appearance and potential cosmetic longevity are frequently key factors influencing the purchasing decision, so typically only tractors with cabs in good condition will find buyers.

Smaller professional farmers may well have tractors of this age within their vehicle fleets, but their reducing value encourages a demand for second-hand replacement parts in the marketplace. This requirement, which is satisfied by tractor breakers, in turn creates a

60

demand for unserviceable tractors to dismantle for parts. Such machines may have been removed from service as a result of either mechanical component or cab structural / cosmetic failure, but this ‘recycling’ process can only serve to maintain the UK fleet in better overall condition. Undoubtedly some vehicles are in use on-farms in an undesirable, deteriorated condition. However, the number of these instances (which this investigation has not directly assessed) requires consideration alongside the likely annual usage of these vehicles and the consequent risk posed to their operators. Also, it is only a matter of time before the condition of such machines will deteriorate to the point where they will either be broken for spares or (if economic) be repaired.

Figure 5.1 Replacement components available for MF 600-series cab

Is there a requirement for aftermarket cab repair or replacement in the UK?

With the exception of the MF 600-series cab (see Figure 5.1), most tractor Q-cabs are unitary, welded structures. This method of construction essentially prevents the repair or replacement of deteriorated sections of the structure by means other than welding. However, any form of repair or modification to structural components of a tractor safety cab (e.g. by welding or drilling of holes) will immediately invalidate the Test Approval originally gained by the structure. It is illegal to use a tractor, fitted with a ROPS which is no longer “approved for use”, for agricultural purposes in the UK. Bolted structural components may be removed and replaced, but only with replacement parts from the original manufacturer. In reality the likely cost of such components may prove uneconomic compared with the value of the vehicle in question. There will always be isolated cases of enthusiastic amateur vehicle restorers undertaking such activities in farm workshops, but if the sheer time, effort and difficulty associated with tractor cab repair is seriously considered, an appropriate (approved) secondhand replacement cab (from a ‘broken’ vehicle), or an alternative vehicle, will usually be sourced.

61

Have developments in cab design and/or manufacture solved the problem of cab deterioration?

As discussed in Section 3, modern cab designs frequently utilise curved, steel tube of bespoke cross-section profile as structural members within an all-welded unitary construction. Window frames and many other sheet metalwork components and cladding have been discarded, reducing cab complexity and production costs. Remaining sheet metalwork components (e.g. inner wings, cab floor, seat mounting) form an integral part of the structure and contribute both to overall strength and energy absorption during failure. The cab roof is typically a nonstructural, bolt-on component of moulded, glass-reinforced plastic.

It is almost certainly too soon to determine whether tractor cab designers have learnt from earlier errors, which in certain instances appear to have precipitated accelerated age-related cab deterioration. Whilst a greater proportion of cab components now have a structural role, designs are undoubtedly cleaner and, visually, more simplistic. Given thorough anti-corrosion pre-treatment during manufacture, effective, durable sealing to prevent water ingress, adequate component drainage and absence of water / dirt traps, there is every reason to expect that modern cab designs will perform well alongside the best examples from the past.

What evidence of deterioration should the Inspectorate being looking for on farms?

Firstly it is important to emphasize that not only the Inspectorate, but also tractor owners and/or operators should be looking for the following signs of deterioration upon cabs, given that these could potentially lead to inadequate performance of the ROPS during a roll-over incident. Operator protection is, after all, the objective. Whilst the appearance of a tractor cab may indicate poor condition (e.g. perforated mudguards), it is primarily the state of the structural components that is of importance. Indicators of immediate or future problems include:-

x Holes or splits in, or significant corrosion upon, structural components;x Missing, loose or incorrect quality cab mounting bolts;x Incorrect cab mounting (e.g. bolt installation) following major vehicle maintenance;x Repairs to cabs members, whether structural or non-structural. The former invalidate

the ROPS’s approval for use, rendering the vehicle illegal if used in agriculture or other workplaces requiring vehicle roll-over protection: the latter could indicate the development of deterioration elsewhere in the cab structure.

Would regular vehicle inspections identify instances of tractor cab deterioration more effectively than the Agricultural Inspectorate?

Agricultural tractors are currently one of the very few classes of road-licensed vehicles in the UK which do not require some form of periodic technical inspection or test. If introduced for tractors, the scope of such periodic technical inspections would certainly include the condition of the safety cab or ROPS. Also, if applied upon, say, an annual or biennial basis, the frequency of individual vehicle inspection may well exceed that of repeat safety inspections upon individual farms, theoretically leading to improved levels of vehicle condition monitoring. However, a significant disadvantage of this approach is that such periodic technical inspections would only encounter licensed, road-going tractors: not those the subject of statutory off-road notification (SORN) or unlicensed vehicles, which may well be prime candidates for agerelated cab deterioration. On-farm health & safety inspections theoretically encounter all the vehicles upon a given enterprise and therefore can, in theory, be more thorough, given sufficient resources to ensure adequate frequency of inspection. In practice, the authors can foresee a combination of both approaches being employed.

62

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The objectives of this investigation were to determine the prevalence, structural severity and practical implications of tractor safety cab / roll-over protective structure (ROPS) structural deterioration with age. With these in mind, the following conclusions may be drawn:-

x The defining characteristics of tractor safety cab deterioration are:- - the initial susceptibility of the cab / ROPS to deterioration (corrosion); - the subsequent rate of deterioration development; - the ability of the overall structure to continue to offer effective roll-over protection

despite deterioration of certain sub-components.

Given comparable operating environments and in-service care, these characteristics were found to be extremely dependent upon cab / ROPS design and method of construction.

x 13% of the tractors surveyed (manufactured in the period 1970–1990 and deemed representative of the UK vehicle fleet), exhibited sufficient levels of deterioration (corrosion) upon safety cab / ROPS structural members to be graded in “poor” condition and cause their ability to protect the operator during a roll-over incident to be questioned.

x The deterioration level of non-structural cab components (mudguards / fenders) was found to increase with vehicle age, the sheet metalwork of older tractors being (predictably) in poorer condition. However, the deterioration of cab structural components (cab vertical members & mountings to the tractor chassis) did not follow this trend, indicating that factors in addition to cab age influence rate of deterioration.

x Considering four sub-divisions of the target tractor age range (1970–1990), cab structural deterioration was found to be most prevalent upon 1981-1985 vehicles, followed by those manufactured in the 1976-1980 period. Tractors manufactured before this time (1970-1975) and fitted with cabs or ROPS of more simplistic construction, remained in better condition, as did the cabs of post-1985 vehicles.

x Advances in cab design and manufacturing techniques over the 1970-1985 period resulted in a transition from simplistic, thick-walled, rectangular hollow section (RHS) structural members, supplemented by non-structural sheet metalwork, to cab designs where structural members comprised bespoke press-formed & spot-welded composite sections. Additionally, role demarcation between thick-walled structural members and thin-wall nonstructural members became less distinct, the latter being required to make a contribution to overall cab strength / energy absorption. These developments inevitably led to designs with a much greater sensitivity to corrosion-related deterioration, the inspired use of thin-section steel regrettably not being accompanied by clean cab design (absence of dirt / water traps & effective structural member internal drainage) and effective anti-corrosion treatments. These ‘advanced’ cab designs entered the UK market during the late 1970’s – early 1980’s, and have proved (with certain exceptions) to be susceptible to structural deterioration.

x Even if exhibiting significant levels of structural deterioration, tractor safety cabs / ROPS may still perform adequately, in terms of structural strength and energy absorption capability, as determined by recognised (new cab) testing procedures (4 out of 5 example deteriorated cabs passed a structural re-test). However, in many instances the degree of deterioration and/or failure mode during testing compromised cab integrity to the extent that the structure may not have prevented driver ejection and injury during a roll-over event, unless a seat restraint (belt) had been worn.

63

x Where deterioration develops in a ROPS of ‘advanced’ design (i.e. incorporating multiple thinner-wall structural components and with a precisely-envisaged failure mode), it is highly possible that the cab structure will respond to loading in a different (failure) manner, certain of the (numerous) key structural components no longer being able to make an appropriate contribution to cab strength. This will result in unpredictable behaviour of the ROPS which, whilst not necessarily resulting in inadequate operator protection in the event of an overturn, will greatly increase the likelihood of this risk.

x If thinner section sheet metalwork components are utilised in important (structural) roles, to ensure adequate longevity the cab must be of good design (effective external sealing, absence of dirt / water traps, adequate structural member internal drainage) and benefit from effective anti-corrosion treatment(s) upon all surfaces and within hollow-section members. Surface treatments should preferably be capable of exceeding the reasonable working life of the vehicle (~ 30 years) in an agricultural environment.

x Current cab design and construction reflects a desire for cost effectiveness and ease of manufacture, frequently resulting in clean, minimalist designs incorporating rolled tubular steel structural members of greater wall thickness. Given the absence of dirt / water traps & water ingress, and adequate anti-corrosion treatment(s), such designs will probably be less susceptible to age-related deterioration, but in reality only the passage of time will tell.

x Cab mounting and/or axle bracket bolts play a vital role in the overall performance of any ROPS, new or old. Instances of missing bolts, incorrect re-installation (following removal for major servicing of the vehicle) or substitution of inferior quality examples, were found to be common. These are not ‘fit-and-forget’ components, but require regular checking.

x Cab cladding (both interior and exterior, depending upon design) can obscure underlying levels of cab deterioration from the vehicle user. In many instances, inspection and timely treatment of surface corrosion upon otherwise hidden panels, could arrest, or at least delay, the development of deterioration upon the cab floor, inner wings and the lower sections of vertical structural members.

x Increased annual utilisation of modern tractors during the last 15 years means that, unless fitted with a cab of flawed design, it is likely that mechanical component failure will limit vehicle service life before cab deterioration reaches undesirable levels. Where possible, low-intensity users of older, cheaper tractors are likely to select used vehicles of good cosmetic appearance, if only to maximise the useful working life and minimise the need for relatively expensive ‘cosmetic’ maintenance. Additionally, the current UK demand for used replacement components for older (~ pre-1985) tractors, maintains a market requirement for tractors (frequently fitted with deteriorated cabs) to be ‘broken’ for spares. By these means the problem of tractor cab deterioration in the UK is probably self-policing to a large extent.

x A proportion of the tractors on UK farms are undoubtedly fitted with structurallydeteriorated safety cabs or ROPS. Regular third-party (HSE) inspections of on-farm equipment would be an effective method by which to control the problem, but adequate publicity regarding the dangers of using structurally-deteriorated cabs / ROPS would probably be more cost-effective. Periodic technical inspections of road-registered vehicles may have a role to play in the future, but the potential effectiveness of this technique, in terms of its ability to target the appropriate sectors of the UK tractor fleet, is open to debate.

64

x Physical indicators of cab structural deterioration and/or potentially inadequate ROPS performance include:-

� Holes or splits in, or significant corrosion upon, structural components;� Missing, loose or incorrect quality cab mounting bolts;� Incorrect cab mounting (e.g. bolt installation) following major vehicle maintenance;� Repairs to cabs members, whether structural or non-structural. The former

invalidates the ROPS’s approval for use, rendering the vehicle illegal if used in agriculture: the latter could indicate the development of deterioration elsewhere in the cab structure.

x Recommendations for tractor users, to improve safety cab / ROPS longevity and (ultimate) performance include:-

� Regularly check cab (& cab bracket) mounting bolt torque and condition, especially after instances of cab removal. Remember that most Q-cab mounting brackets bolt both to the cab and to the tractor chassis: all bolts require attention;

� Rectify poor cab sealing & water leaks, from doors, windows & the roof hatch. Also drainage from the roof and air conditioning system. If moisture gets in, it may not be able to get out!;

� Keep the cab as clean as possible, especially the interior. Granular fertilisers, slurry or farmyard manure will combine with moisture and cause accelerated corrosion;

� Remove mud and other moisture-retaining debris from external traps & ledges on the cab;

� If surface corrosion does develop on the cab, treat it sooner rather than later. It may be hidden from view by cab cladding or floor mats.

65

66

7. REFERENCES

BSI (1966) BS 4063:1966 Specification for the Safety Requirements and Testing of Safety Cabs and Safety Frames for Agricultural Wheel Tractors. British Standards Institution, London, UK.

BSI (1973) BS 4063:1973 Specification for the Requirements and Testing of Protective Cabs and Frames for Agricultural Wheel Tractors. British Standards Institution, London, UK.

Chisholm, C.J. (1978) Durability of Tractor Safety Cabs. National Institute of Agricultural Engineering Divisional Note No. DN/E/931/02009 (unpubl.), Silsoe, UK.

HSE (1998) Safe Use of Work Equipment. Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. Approved Code of Practice and Guidance, L22. HSE Books. ISBN 0 7176 1626 6.

HSE (2000) Operator Seat Restraints for Mobile Work Equipment in Agriculture and Forestry. Agriculture Information Sheet No.37. www.hse.gov.uk.

OECD (2002) OECD Standard Code for the Official Testing of Protective Structures on Agricultural and Forestry Tractors (Static Test). Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.

OECD (2002) OECD Standard Code for the Official Testing of Protective Structures on Agricultural and Forestry Tractors (Dynamic Test). Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.

Statutory Instruments (1967) No. 1072 – Agricultural Employment – Safety, Health and Welfare: The Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) Regulations 1967. HMSO, London.

Statutory Instruments (1974) No. 2034 - Agricultural Employment – Safety, Health and Welfare: The Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) Regulations 1974. HMSO, London.

Stockton, A.D., O’Neill, D.H. & Hampson, C.J. (2002) Methods for Optimising the Effectiveness of Roll-Over Protective Structures. HSE Contract Research Report 425/2002. HSE Books, ISBN 0 7176 2330 0, 131pp.

67

68

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: Preliminary Survey of Tractor Safety Cab Deterioration

Introduction

In response to concerns raised by the Health & Safety Executive, Silsoe Research Institute staff performed a rudimentary survey of a range of tractors submitted for auction at Cheffins’ Sutton (Cambridge) agricultural machinery sale in December 2001. The purpose of this exercise was to visually inspect the safety cabs & frames of a representative range of vehicles, and note the apparent condition & structural integrity of the safety structures encountered. Tractors were selected to fall within one of four age-defined categories, as detailed below, such that any problems found could be compared with advances in tractor cab design and/or methods of construction. The defined age ranges were:-

x 1970 – 1975x 1976 – 1980x 1981 – 1985x 1986 – 1990

Method of evaluation

Tractors of different makes, models, power ranges, cab types and cab condition were chosen to ensure a balanced cross-section of vehicles. A standard evaluation sheet was prepared, to ensure all vehicles were assessed by the following, common criteria:-

1) General vehicle information:- Tractor make, model, age and registration number; Cab make & model, serial number (if present) and OECD approval number (if displayed).

2) Cab / ROPS structural condition:- Condition of cab mounts and cab vertical structural members (A, B & C-pillars (see Figure 2.1)) at their extremities (top & bottom).

3) Cab non-structural condition:- Condition of cab mudguards / fenders.

The condition of cab components designated within (2) and (3) above, were graded on a scale of 1 to 3 where:-

1 = good condition with no (or only very light) surface corrosion; 2 = advanced surface corrosion and/or widespread paint blistering; 3 = significant corrosion including weakening and/or perforation.

Additional, general notes were also taken.

The following tractors are given as typical extreme examples (both good and poor) within each of the age groups. The examples provided are a very small sample of what was encountered: their portrayal does not imply either the superiority or inferiority of given safety structure designs, as many alternative examples could have been selected.

69

Fig A.1 MAKE: URSUS MODEL: C385

AGE: 1975 CAB MANUFACTURER: URSUS

Fig A.2 MAKE: FORD MODEL: 4000

AGE: 1973 CAB MANUFACTURER: FORD

1970-1975. Condition 1 (good) Condition 3 (poor)



1986-1990 Condition 1 (good) Condition 3 (poor)

1970-1975

Ursus C385 (Fig A.1) Ford 4000 (Fig A.2) Leyland 2100 (Fig A.3) Ford 6600 (Fig A.4) Fendt 309 (Fig A.5) Fiat 680 (Fig A.6) Massey Ferguson 390 (Fig A.7) Massey Ferguson 3090 (Fig A.8)

A Pillar T 1 B 1 B Pillar T 1 B 1 C Pillar T 1 B 1 Cladding/ Fenders 2

Mounts F 1 B 1 COMMENTS: No major problems: a degree of surface rust present in non-structural areas.


Mounts F 3 B 2 COMMENTS: Fenders and floor pans corroded away with general rusting all over main frame.

70

1976-1980

Fig A.3 MAKE: LEYLAND MODEL: 2100

AGE: 1976 CAB MANUFACTURER: VICTOR


Mounts F 1 B 1 COMMENTS: Vehicle is in very tidy condition & has probably been dry stored. No areas of concern regarding the structural integrity of the safety cab.

Fig A.4 MAKE: FORD MODEL: 6600

AGE: 1979 CAB MANUFACTURER: FORD (GKN) Q-CAB (BUBBLE)


Mounts F 3 B 3 COMMENTS: The majority of the safety cab is badly corroded with particular problems at the bottom of the front windscreen, in the footwells and generally on flat horizontal areas where water lies.

71

1981-1985

Fig A.5 MAKE: FENDT MODEL: 309LA

AGE: 1983 CAB MANUFACTURER: FENDT.8952 S/N-17176


Mounts F 1 B 1 COMMENTS: Safety cab in excellent condition with no areas of concern regarding structural integrity.

Fig A.6 MAKE: FIAT MODEL: 680

AGE: 1981 CAB MANUFACTURER: CABIN DE

SKUREZZIA C52 OECD- CS1296

S/N-D3757


Mounts F 3 B 3 COMMENTS: From the roof down, including the mounts, the safety cab exhibits significant signs of corrosion to structural members.

72

1986-1990

Fig A.7 MAKE: MASSEY FERGUSON MODEL: 390

AGE: 1988 CAB MANUFACTURER: GKN-SANKEY


Mounts F 1 B 1 COMMENTS: Safety cab in excellent condition with no areas of concern regarding structural integrity.

Fig A.8 MAKE: MASSEY FERGUSON MODEL: 3090

AGE: 1988 CAB MANUFACTURER: MASSEY FERGUSON

A Pillar T 3 B 3 B Pillar T 2 B 2 C Pillar T N/A B N/A Cladding/ Fenders 2-3

Mounts F 1 B 1 COMMENTS: The front footwell has corroded at the base of the A pillar, together with the A pillar itself below the door catch. The top of the A pillar has also corroded badly. The full extent of corrosion within the safety cab could not be established without the removal of trim, which was not possible in the circumstances.

73

Discussion of Findings

Having commenced this work with the intention of evaluating both safety frames and cabs it became apparent that, within the range of vehicles encountered, examples of severely deteriorated safety frames (Condition 3) were not found and therefore no details are presented. This is deemed to result from the methods and materials used in safety frame construction some 30 years ago. Nonetheless, it is possible to find tractors fitted with safety “Q” cabs in all four age ranges, which may be graded to be in 1 (good) or 3 (poor) overall, condition. The following initial patterns were seen to emerge:-

x Tractors which are dry-stored and well cared for tend to be graded 1 or 2;

x Tractors which have suffered broken windows, damaged cladding and suspected external storage tend to be graded 2 or 3;

x Visible inspection of structural members of tractor cabs within the 19861990 age range was limited due to the presence of trim: however corrosion was evident on exposed members to grade 2

x Particular designs of safety cab exhibit high levels of visible corrosion, which may affect their ability to provide protection to the operator in the event of a roll-over incident;

74

APPENDIX 2: Tractor Cab Condition Evaluation Form

LOT NO:-MAKE:-MODEL:-REG. No.:-Estimated Age:-Cab Manufacturer:-Cab Type / Model Cab Serial No. OECD Approval No: Photo Nos:-Sale Price:-

CAB SECTION CONDN COMMENTS

A Pillar TOP

1 2 3

BOTTOM 1 2 3

B Pillar TOP

1 2 3

BOTTOM 1 2 3

C Pillar TOP

1 2 3

BOTTOM 1 2 3

Mounts 1 2 3

Fenders 1 2 3

75

APPENDIX 3: Tractor Cab Condition Survey Data LO

T N

o.

TRA

CTO

R M

AK

E TR

AC

TOR

MO

DEL

R

EG N

o.

EST.

A

GE

CA

B M

AN

. C

AB

TY

PE /

MO

DEL

API

LLA

R

TOP

AP

ILLA

R

BTM

BPI

LLA

R

TOP

BP

ILLA

R

BTM

CPI

LLA

R

TOP

CP

ILLA

R

BTM

M

OU

NTS

FEN

DER

S

1005

1007

1009

1014

1018

1024

1028

1035

1037

1041

1042

1251

1248

1247

1245

1244

1540

1246

1190

1185

1655

1534

1529

1528

1513

1512

1510

1509

1507

1506

1505

1502

1653

1702

1099

1100

1101

1102

1103

1104

1105

1108

1109

1110

1111

1112

1115

1116

1117

JOH

N D

EE

RE

FO

RD

FO

RD

FE

ND

T FO

RD

FO

RD

JO

HN

DE

ER

E

JOH

N D

EE

RE

JO

HN

DE

ER

E

JOH

N D

EE

RE

FO

RD

M

UIR

HIL

L D

AV

ID B

RO

WN

FO

RD

D

EU

TZ

JOH

N D

EE

RE

M

AS

SE

Y F

ER

GU

SO

N

JOH

N D

EE

RE

M

AS

SE

Y F

ER

GU

SO

N

MA

SS

EY

FE

RG

US

ON

ZE

TOR

M

AS

SE

Y F

ER

GU

SO

N

MA

SS

EY

FE

RG

US

ON

M

AS

SE

Y F

ER

GU

SO

N

MA

SS

EY

FE

RG

US

ON

M

AS

SE

Y F

ER

GU

SO

N

MA

SS

EY

FE

RG

US

ON

M

AS

SE

Y F

ER

GU

SO

N

MA

SS

EY

FE

RG

US

ON

M

AS

SE

Y F

ER

GU

SO

N

MA

SS

EY

FE

RG

US

ON

M

AS

SE

Y F

ER

GU

SO

N

BE

LAU

RU

S

FOR

D

DE

UTZ

JO

HN

DE

ER

E

FIA

T D

EU

TZ

SA

ME

S

AM

E

JOH

N D

EE

RE

ZE

TOR

JO

HN

DE

ER

E

JOH

N D

EE

RE

ZE

TOR

JO

HN

DE

ER

E

JOH

N D

EE

RE

JO

HN

DE

ER

E

JOH

N D

EE

RE

2650

4W

D

7810

4W

D

7810

4W

D

510

4WD

82

10 4

WD

II

8210

4W

D II

I 43

50 4

WD

33

50 4

WD

36

50 4

WD

28

50 4

WD

87

30 4

WD

12

115

94 2

WD

56

00 2

WD

D

7206

31

3055

031

3026

8026

4072

4526

556

529

014

814

813

513

513

513

513

513

5P

RO

GR

ES

S 4

WD

46

00D

X85

2W

D

2140

2W

D

8090

4W

D

DX

4.7

0 C

EN

TUR

ION

75

4WD

LE

OP

AR

D 9

0 2W

D

2140

XE

4W

D

6245

3050

4W

D

1040

2W

D

8111

2W

D

2850

2W

D

3140

4W

D

2040

2W

D

3050

G60

VB

S

F355

VR

L F9

11 W

HN

E

753

EA

P

F269

JV

L G

982

YW

L E

159

YD

O

F726

MC

J F6

05 V

DE

F2

91 D

KE

H

943

KE

T

B30

8 E

TN

BA

M 8

7V

TBL

936S

JS

U 6

87R

D

WT

115T

B

UR

193

X

BD

X 4

05Y

G

574

MR

H

XO

O 2

30L

HH

R 1

66N

JVO

283

P

AY

L 19

9S

LSB

180

H

TGV

730

R

G38

2 LA

H

TDG

996

X

CH

K 9

60X

C

982

0WP

D

412

VN

U

B77

0 M

CD

D60

3 N

SU

J9

30 X

NT

E51

4 V

KK

F439

CW

T

HC

V 2

80W

G

64 J

NG

1989

1988

1988

1987

1988

1989

1987

19

88

1988

19

88

1990

1974

1984

1979

19

7919

7719

7919

8119

8119

8219

8919

8619

7919

7819

7219

7419

7319

7519

72

1977

1969

1976

1989

1978

1981

1982

1985

1986

1984

1983

1986

1993

1987

19

8819

8819

8719

82

1980

1968

JOH

N D

EE

RE

FO

RD

FO

RD

Fe

ndt

FOR

D

FOR

D

JOH

N D

EE

RE

JO

HN

DE

ER

E

JOH

N D

EE

RE

JO

HN

DE

ER

E

FOR

D

SE

KU

RA

FO

RD

S

EK

UR

A

SE

KU

RA

G

KN

S

EK

UR

A

MF

MF

GK

N

GK

N

LAM

BO

UR

N

SIR

OC

CO

S

IRO

CC

O

SIR

OC

CO

S

IRO

CC

O

Siro

cco

CA

B C

RA

FT

DU

NC

AN

C

AB

CR

AFT

FOR

D

DE

UTZ

JO

HN

DE

ER

E

FIA

T D

EU

TZ

SA

ME

S

AM

E

JOH

N D

EE

RE

ZE

TOR

JO

HN

DE

ER

E

JOH

N D

EE

RE

D

UN

CA

N

JOH

N D

EE

RE

S

EK

UR

A

SE

KU

RA

JO

HN

DE

ER

E S

G 2

S

UP

ER

Q

SU

PE

R Q

X

L S

UP

ER

Q

SU

PE

R Q

S

G2

SG

2 S

G2

SG

2 S

UP

ER

Q

EX

PLO

RE

R

BU

BB

LE

OP

U

OP

U

SIN

GLE

DO

OR

O

PU

S

ING

LE D

OO

R

SIN

GLE

DO

OR

200

SE

RIE

S

SIN

GLE

DO

OR

BU

BB

LE

DX

6 S

G2

Pin

ifarin

a D

X6

SG

2

SG

2 M

C1

Q MC

1 O

PU

O

PU

S

G2

N/A 1 1 N/A 1 1 N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 1 N/A

N/A

1 1 N/A 1 1 N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 1 N/A

2 1 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 N/A

N

/A 1 1 N/A 1 N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A 1 N/A 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 1 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 N/A 2 1 2 1 N/A 1 N/A

N

/A 2 1 N/A 1 N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A 1 N/A 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

3 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1.5 1 1.5 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

76

LOT

No.

TR

ACTO

R M

AKE

TRAC

TOR

MO

DEL

R

EG N

o.

EST.

AG

E C

AB M

AN.

CAB

TYP

E /

MO

DEL

API

LLAR

TO

P

API

LLAR

B

TM

BPI

LLAR

TO

P

BPI

LLAR

B

TM

CPI

LLAR

TO

P

CPI

LLAR

BTM

M

OU

NTS

FEN

DER

S

1567

11

37

1566

11

24

1122

11

19

1125

11

31

1141

11

46

1149

10

94

1095

10

9110

84

1081

10

77

1076

10

75

1120

11

21

1123

11

27

1128

11

29

1130

11

34

1139

11

40

1147

11

50

1151

17

07

1074

10

73

1071

10

69

1068

10

67

1066

10

64

1063

10

62

1061

17

08

1711

15

61

1418

15

64

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

JO

HN

DEE

RE

JO

HN

DEE

RE

M

ERC

EDES

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

JOH

N D

EER

E

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

C

ASE

C

ASE

CAS

E

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

ZE

TOR

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

590

690

690

4WD

T 69

9 2W

D

675

2WD

69

0 69

0 4

WD

67

5 2W

D

698

2WD

69

0 4W

D

690

2WD

40

40 4

WD

42

55 4

WD

M

B TR

AC 1

000

8200

4W

D

8210

III 4

WD

76

10 2

WD

82

10 4

WD

78

10 4

WD

37

0 4W

D

360

2WD

20

40S

2W

D

390

2WD

39

0 4W

D

390

4WD

39

0 4W

D

3080

2W

D

3080

4W

D

3080

4W

D

IH 8

85 X

L 2W

D

IH 8

85 X

L IH

885

XLD

46

00

7810

4W

D

7810

4W

D

7610

4W

D

7610

4W

D

6610

2W

D

6610

2W

D

7610

2W

D

6610

4W

D

6610

4W

D

7710

2W

D

7710

FO

RC

E II

2WD

50

00

4600

57

5 70

45

188

SST

293T

D

861

UVL

B2

14 A

AV

B803

AFL

JNO

214

Y AA

V 77

8Y

A391

TVL

A853

DSY

CFW

662

X

G15

6 LN

G

E448

SM

K

F86D

FW

F 34

6 PS

E

E687

MSC

H

886

VAH

A1

09 H

GV

F735

UFV

E5

85 B

AL

G99

7 O

KE

G99

5 PT

T G

515

HU

X

E615

OW

Y B1

86 D

HE

PR

E 89

6R

F467

MG

M

F280

JVL

C

588

MU

X

F590

SFA

A2

40 L

EX

DEX

787

Y

F617

HFE

A174

JAL

Q64

UC

Y

RPV

690

W

C43

7 YE

X

1978

19

86

1984

19

84

1984

19

81

1982

19

85

1983

19

85

1985

19

86

1988

19

83

1981

19

89

1987

19

88

1988

19

87

1990

19

83

1989

19

88

1987

19

88

1987

19

89

1989

19

89

1987

19

84

1976

19

88

1988

19

85

1988

19

83

1982

19

88

1988

19

88

1983

19

87

1972

19

72

1980

19

85

1974

GKN

M

F M

F M

F M

F M

F M

F M

F M

F M

F M

F JO

HN

DEE

RE

JOH

N D

EER

E

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

MF

MF

JOH

N D

EER

E M

FM

FD

UN

CA

N

MF

MF

CAS

E IH

C

ASE

IH

CAS

E IH

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FRIT

ZMEI

ER

GKN

Q

3607

S

IRO

CC

O

GM

ASSE

Y FE

RG

MAS

SEY

FER

SIN

GLE

DO

OR

60

0 SE

RIE

S 60

0 SE

RIE

S 60

0 SE

RIE

S 60

0 SE

RIE

S 60

0 SE

RIE

S 60

0 SE

RIE

S 60

0 SE

RIE

S 60

0 SE

RIE

S 60

0 SE

RIE

S 60

0 SE

RIE

S SG

2 SG

2

BUBB

LE

SUPE

R Q

SU

PER

Q

SUPE

R Q

SU

PER

Q

300

serie

s 30

0 se

ries

SG2

300

serie

s 30

0 se

ries

Q-L

P

300

serie

s 30

00 s

erie

s 30

00 S

ERIE

S

3000

SER

IES

IH

XL

C85

L X

L C

85

BUBB

LE

SUPE

R Q

SU

PER

Q

SUPE

R Q

SU

PER

Q

BUBB

LE

BUBB

LE

SUPE

R Q

BU

BBLE

BU

BBLE

BU

BBLE

SU

PER

Q

Safe

ty

DO

UBL

E D

OO

R

1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A

N

/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2

1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 N/A

N

/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 1.5

1 1 1 1.5

1.5

1.5

1.

5 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2

N/A 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 N/A 1 N/A

N/A 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5

1 N/A

N

/AN

/A

N/A

1 N/A

2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 N/A 1 N/A

1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2

1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5

1 1.5

1 1 1 1.5

1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2

1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5

1.

5

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2

2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5 1 1.5

1 2.5

2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 3

77

A

AB

B

CC

ES

T.

CAB

TYP

E /

LOT

No.

TR

ACTO

R M

AKE

TRAC

TOR

MO

DEL

R

EG N

o.

CAB

MAN

. PI

LLAR

PI

LLAR

PI

LLAR

PI

LLAR

PI

LLAR

PI

LLAR

MO

UN

TS F

END

ERS

AGE

MO

DEL

TO

P B

TM

TOP

BTM

TO

P B

TM

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

18

8 LH

J 66

4P

SIR

OC

CO

15

65

1975

1

1 N/A

N

/A 1

1 1

2.5

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

185

SIR

OC

CO

15

69

1973

2.

5 2.

5 N

/A

N/A

2

2 2

3 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

188

SIR

OC

CO

15

72

1974

2

2 N

/A

N/A

2

2 2

2 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

188

LAM

BO

UR

N15

73

1974

2

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

188

SIR

OC

CO

15

74

1975

2

2.5

N/A

N

/A

2 2

2 3

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

18

8 S

IRO

CC

O

1575

19

73

2 2

N/A

N

/A 2

2 1.

5 2

.5

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

16

8 S

IRO

CC

O

1576

19

74

2 2

N/A

N

/A

2 2

2 2

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

18

8 TC

W 4

66P

SIR

OC

CO

15

78

1975

1

1 N

/A

N/A

1

1 1

1 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

168

SIR

OC

CO

15

79

1974

1

1 N

/A

N/A

1

1 1

1 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

698

2WD

M

F 60

0 se

ries

1142

19

84

1 1

1 1

1 1

2 2

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

69

9 4W

D

C59

5 PA

V M

F 60

0 se

ries

1143

19

85

1.5

2 1

1 1

2 1

1.5

U

RS

US

12

04 4

WD

BR

W 5

9T

1651

19

78

1 1

2 2

1 2

1

2

FOR

D

4600

FO

RD

BU

BBLE

16

98

1978

1

2.5

1.5

2.5

1 2.

5 1

2

FO

RD

46

00

DEB

908

V

FOR

D

BUBB

LE

1699

19

79

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

FOR

D

4600

N

ST 2

96R

FO

RD

BU

BBLE

17

01

1976

1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 D

EUTZ

89

H P

4W

D

B774

XSL

D

EUTZ

D

X 6

12

43

1984

1

2 1

2 1

1 1

3 ST

EYR

76

0X 4

WD

KG

B 29

5N

RSM

1241

19

74

1 1

N/A

N

/A

1 1

1 2

JOH

N D

EER

E

2130

2W

D

RR

E 9

86L

DU

NC

AN

SAFE

TY

1240

19

72

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

FOR

D

4610

2W

D

SEK

UR

A AP

1238

19

85

1 1

1 1

1 1

2 2

MAR

SHAL

L 70

2 M

BK 9

55Y

SE

KU

RA

EXPL

OR

ER

1236

19

82

1 2

1 2

1 2

2 3

LEYL

AND

25

5 2W

D

GEW

140

N

VIC

TOR

SA

FETY

12

35

1974

1

2 1

1 1

1 2

2 FI

AT

880

2WD

FI

AT

Pini

farin

a C

S2

1233

19

78

2 1

1 1

2 2

1 1

CA

SE

IH

785

XL

RJR

360

Y

IH

IH X

L C

85

1232

19

82

1 2

N/A

N

/A

1 1

1 1

JOH

N D

EER

E

2650

4W

D

H15

8 BM

V

JOH

N D

EER

E SG

2 12

30

1990

N

/A

N/A

1

2 1

1 1

1 R

ENAU

LT

75-1

4 4W

D

B300

FN

P

REN

AULT

ET

40R

12

29

1984

1

1 N

/A

N/A

1

1 1

1 S

AM

E

TAU

RU

S

DN

G 1

9T12

28

1978

1

1 1

1 1

2 1

1

FO

RD

66

10 F

orce

11

D21

4 M

YL

FOR

D

SUPE

R Q

10

60

1986

1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 FO

RD

46

10 F

OR

CE

II

SEK

UR

A LP

10

59

1986

1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 FO

RD

46

10 4

WD

N

MB

787Y

SE

KU

RA

LP

1058

19

83

1.5

2 1

1 1

2 1.

5 2

.5

FOR

D

4610

2W

D

B436

HC

H

SEK

UR

A LP

10

57

1984

1

1 1

1 1

1.5

1

2

FOR

D

6600

2W

D

OU

F 96

1X

FOR

D

BUBB

LE

1056

19

81

1 1.

5 1

1.5

1 1

1

2

FO

RD

50

00

GD

D 7

07L

FOR

D

SAFE

TY

1055

19

72

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

FOR

D

5610

AR

E 47

0Y

SEK

UR

A AP

1054

19

82

1 1.5

1 1

1 1

1

2

FOR

D

5000

YC

J 13

2J

FOR

D

SAFE

TY

1052

19

70

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 2

FOR

D

5610

A4W

D

A86

6 U

CA

SE

KU

RA

AP10

51

1983

1

1 1

1 1

1.5

1 1

.5

FOR

D

4610

H

FW 3

85Y

SE

KU

RA

LP

1048

19

86

1 2

1 1.

5 1

1.5

1 2.

5 FO

RD

41

10

B351

EYN

SE

KU

RA

LP

1047

19

84

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

FIAT

80

-90

DT

4WD

E7

06 V

UJ

FIAT

Pi

nifa

rina

CS1

4 10

97

1987

1

2 1

1 1

1 1

2 R

ENAU

LT

120.

54 4

WD

H

616

YAH

R

ENAU

LT

1098

19

90

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

DA

VID

BR

OW

N

1212

M

CL

836X

D

AV

ID B

RO

WN

12

23

1981

1

1 1

1 1

1 2

2 JO

HN

DEE

RE

2850

2W

D

F320

UBS

JO

HN

DEE

RE

SG 2

10

49

1988

N

/A

N/A

1

2 1

2 2

3 C

AS

E

IH 8

85 X

L F3

4 FR

M

IH

XL

C85

14

01

1988

1

2 N

/A

N/A

1

1 1

1 D

AVID

BR

OW

N

1490

N

ES 1

11Y

SEK

UR

A EX

PLO

RER

14

02

1982

1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 D

EUTZ

D

X3.

10

DEU

TZ

1407

19

89

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

CAS

E

1394

E8

74 G

GV

SE

KU

RA

EXPL

OR

ER

1410

19

87

1 1

1 1

1 1

2 1

FOR

D

7710

R

RD

145

Y

FOR

D

BUBB

LE

1411

19

82

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

DEU

TZ

DX

4.5

0 F9

15 B

YC

DEU

TZ

1413

19

88

1 1

1 2

1 2

1 2

REN

AULT

11

3.12

FA

H 5

03Y

1415

19

82

1 1

1 1

1 1

1

1

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

59

0 G

KN

SIN

GLE

DO

OR

15

47

1978

2

2 N

/A

N/A

2

2 2

3

78

LOT

No.

TR

ACTO

R M

AKE

TRAC

TOR

MO

DEL

R

EG N

o.

EST.

AG

E C

AB M

AN.

CAB

TYP

E /

MO

DEL

API

LLAR

TO

P

API

LLAR

B

TM

BPI

LLAR

TO

P

BPI

LLAR

B

TM

CPI

LLAR

TO

P

CPI

LLAR

BTM

M

OU

NTS

FEN

DER

S

1546

15

45

1544

15

43

1076

11

07

1108

11

10X

11

12

1113

X

1114

11

16

1117

11

18

1119

11

72

1171

11

67

1166

11

62

1159

11

58

1157

11

53

1152

11

50X

11

25

1126

16

57

1655

16

52

1650

16

49

1648

12

08

1206

13

42

1351

13

52

1358

13

60

1361

12

16

1240

12

43

1248

15

63

1223

15

61

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

DEU

TZ

DEU

TZ

DEU

TZ

FIAT

D

EUTZ

SA

ME

DEU

TZ

REN

AULT

SA

ME

REN

AULT

FE

ND

T IH

C

ASE

IH

IH CAS

E

IH CAS

E

IH IH MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

CAS

E IH

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

ZE

TOR

ZE

TOR

C

MO

BEB

OU

S Be

laru

s ZE

TOR

ZE

TOR

IM

TJO

HN

DEE

RE

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

JO

HN

DEE

RE

FOR

D

VALM

ET

FOR

D

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

JOH

N D

EER

E JO

HN

DEE

RE

DEU

TZ 2

WD

JO

HN

DEE

RE

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

ZE

TOR

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

590

2WD

59

0T 2

WD

59

0T

590T

D

X12

0 4W

D

DX

4.70

4W

D

3.90

2 W

D

880

DT

DX

3.10

2W

D

LASE

R 1

00 4

WD

D

X12

0 4W

D

145.

14 4

WD

EX

PLO

RER

70

90-3

4 4W

D

955

2WD

69

5 2W

D

IH 4

34 2

WD

12

94 2

WD

IH

574

HYD

RO

2W

D

1494

2W

D

XLC

85

IH 8

85 X

L 4W

D

3070

4W

D

3080

4W

D

795

2WD

35

5 2W

D

390

4WD

77

11 T

UR

BO

62

45

1062

62

45

7045

57

7 28

50

399

4WD

28

50

8210

80

5 88

30

3060

30

60 2

WD

21

40

3040

D

4506

31

30

590

814

4WD

57

5

FAR

MER

310

LSA

4W

HFE

476

T H

CS

149V

D

KJ 3

97T

RPW

293

W

A491

JFA

C

922

BSR

D

443

BDX

E243

ASW

A5

86 H

AD

GEW

474

Y E4

01 N

BC

K754

HYA

D

E84

ARR

JW

B 7

05W

J1

61 N

SM

HU

J 95

2D

A830

HR

T O

FT 1

6R

B151

UVG

H

389

AAN

D

401

LAI

E426

BFE

G

524

SSP

H57

0 YS

R

F685

DD

O

H21

9 JV

R

G16

1 D

EL

LFO

223

Y

F154

CSM

G

134

KYC

E7

91 E

FW

E241

KSL

G

982

YWZ

G97

6 G

OS

H

674

AKO

H

634

XSN

D

168

XBB

BER

230

V X

HS

842S

D

WT

115T

C

UA

513V

G

129

TFG

BU

G 6

65T

1978

19

79

1978

19

80

1983

19

85

1986

19

81

1983

19

87

1983

19

82

1987

19

92

1987

19

80

1991

19

96

1983

19

76

1984

19

90

1986

19

87

1989

19

90

1987

19

88

1990

19

89

1988

19

88

1982

19

88

1989

19

87

1987

19

89

1989

19

90

1990

19

86

1980

19

79

1977

19

78

1979

19

89

1978

GKN

G

KN

GKN

G

KN

DEU

TZ

DEU

TZ

DE

UTZ

FI

AT

DEU

TZ

DEU

TZ

REN

AULT

LU

GST

EIN

R

ENAU

LT

FEN

DT

TIM

C

AS

E IH

SI

RO

CC

O

SEK

UR

A IH

SE

KU

RA

IH IH M F

M

F

CAS

E IH

MF

MF

ZETO

R

ZETO

R

BELA

RU

S ZE

TOR

ZE

TOR

IM

T JO

HN

DEE

RE

MF

300

serie

s JO

HN

DEE

RE

FOR

D

VALM

ET

FOR

D

MF

MF

SEK

UR

A SE

KU

RA

RS

MSE

KU

RA

GKN

D

UN

CA

N

MF

SIN

GLE

DO

OR

D

OU

BLE

DO

OR

SIN

GLE

DO

OR

D

OU

BLE

DO

OR

D

X 6

D

X6

DX

11-D

82/2

Pi

nifa

rina

C5

DX

10

DX

6 TX

G

-80

TX

SPC

R

L LO

W P

RO

FIL E

R

OLL

BAR

EX

PLO

RER

74

SER

IES

Q

EXPL

OR

ER

XL

C85

X

L C

85

3000

SER

IES

3000

SER

IES

XL

C85

30

0 se

ries

300

serie

s R

X60

11

RX

6011

TY

PE 2

R

X60

11

BX59

11

39 6

00A

SG2

SG2

SUPE

R Q

H

505-

805

SUPE

R Q

2

3000

ser

ies

3000

ser

ies

OP

U

OP

U

K6 M

KZ

OP

U

DO

UBL

E D

OO

R

SIN

GLE

DO

OR

1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 N/A 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 N/A 1.5

1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 N/A 1 N/A

1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2.5

1 2 1

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 1 N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A 1 1 1 1 N/A 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A

N

/A 1 1 N/A 1 N/A 1 N/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 1 N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A

N

/A 1 1 N/A 1 N/A 2 N/A

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1.5

1.

5

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1.5 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1

1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1.5

1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1

1 2 1 1 3 2.5

1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 1.5

2.

5

2 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 2.5

1

79

LOT

No.

TR

ACTO

R M

AKE

TRAC

TOR

MO

DEL

R

EG N

o.

EST.

AG

E C

AB M

AN.

CAB

TYP

E /

MO

DEL

API

LLAR

TO

P

API

LLAR

B

TM

BPI

LLAR

TO

P

BPI

LLAR

B

TM

CPI

LLAR

TO

P

CPI

LLAR

BTM

M

OU

NTS

FEN

DER

S

1560

15

59

1006

10

17X

10

19

1028

10

41

1045

10

48

1049

10

50

1051

10

53

1054

X

1058

X

1060

10

63

1064

10

65

1066

10

68

1069

10

70

1071

10

75

1078

10

82X

10

81

1089

10

90

1091

10

92X

10

93

1095

11

45

1143

11

42

1140

11

39

1138

11

37

1135

16

53

1654

16

55

1656

11

43

1142

11

41

MAS

SY F

ERG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

JOH

N D

EER

E

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

JOH

N D

EER

E FO

RD

FO

RD

FO

RD

FO

RD

JO

HN

DE

ER

E

JOH

N D

EER

E

JOH

N D

EER

E FI

AT

VALM

ET

JOH

N D

EE

RE

FE

ND

T R

ENAU

LT

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

DEU

TZ

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

ZETO

R

ZETO

R

ZETO

R

ZETO

R

SAM

E M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

DEU

TZ

590

4WD

67

5 35

0 28

50 4

WD

82

10 4

WD

82

10 4

WD

86

30 4

WD

66

10 2

WD

46

00 2

WD

77

10 2

WD

78

10 2

WD

76

10 4

WD

46

10 2

WD

76

10 2

WD

66

10 4

WD

50

00 2

WD

50

00

8210

4W

D

7610

2W

D

7810

4W

D

1640

76

10 2

WD

TW

15 4

WD

77

10 4

WD

67

10 4

WD

36

50 4

WD

30

40 2

WD

30

50 4

WD

11

80 0

7 80

5 4W

D

3350

4W

D

F380

CT

4WD

12

0 14

12

00

690

4WD

69

8T 2

WD

39

0 69

0 2W

D

3080

4W

D

D78

07C

69

0- 4

WD

35

0 2

WD

70

45

7211

70

45

1414

5 17

0 G

ALAX

Y 39

0 D

X90

XU

L 36

3S

A866

MN

A E7

05 Y

DO

E6

36 H

SP

G72

4 LP

L H

681

PNG

C89

6 X

CL

RR

D 1

45Y

E9

84 V

HL

A364

BNT

D91

5 BU

C

D19

7 BE

G

G82

6 M

EX

E626

AKE

F9

59 H

RM

C

RN

121

YD

641

BFA

F5

24 S

SF

A963

XH

E

F849

UN

H

IMPO

RT

E809

FSH

IMP

OR

T E6

80 E

PB

LFW

351

P A8

03 J

SM

B160

TJL

E5

76 C

UF

BHC

831

Y F7

67 A

MH

IM

POR

T D

867

UVL

D

173

AEW

B9

66 V

AH

J525

UU

J R

VO 5

13X

D98

3 W

RA

E526

CU

F N

MA

570Y

1977

19

83

1987

19

87

1989

19

90

1988

19

85

1975

19

82

1987

19

83

1983

19

86

1986

19

70

1969

19

89

1987

19

88

1982

10

86

1988

19

88

1985

19

88

1983

19

88

1986

19

89

1988

19

86

1987

19

75

1983

19

84

1987

19

82

1988

19

87

1986

19

86

1984

19

92

1981

19

86

1985

19

87

1983

MF

MF

600

serie

s M

F 30

0 se

ries

JOH

N D

EER

E FO

RD

FO

RD

FO

RD

FO

RD

LA

MB

OU

RN

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

SEK

UR

A FO

RD

SE

KU

RA

LAM

BO

UR

NSE

KU

RA

FOR

D

SEK

UR

A FO

RD

JO

HN

DEE

RE

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

JOH

N D

EER

E JO

HN

DEE

RE

JOH

N D

EER

E FI

AT

VALM

ET

JOH

N D

EER

E FE

ND

T R

EN

AULT

M

FM

FM

F M

F M

F M

FD

EUTZ

M

FM

FZE

TOR

ZE

TOR

ZE

TOR

D

UN

CA

N

MF

DEU

TZ

SIN

GLE

DO

OR

SG2

SUPE

R Q

SU

PER

Q

SUPE

R Q

BU

BBLE

S

AFE

TY

BUBB

LE

SUPE

R Q

BU

BBLE

AP SU

PER

Q

AP SA

FETY

SA

FETY

SU

PER

Q

AP SUPE

R Q

SG

2 SU

PER

Q

SUPE

R Q

SU

PER

Q

BUBB

LE

SG2

SG2

SG2

Pini

farin

a C

S5

H50

5 80

3 SG

2

R22

/327

600

SER

IES

60

0 SE

RIE

S 30

0 SE

RIE

S 60

0 SE

RIE

S 30

00 S

ERIE

S

600

SER

IES

BX59

11

RX

6011

BX

5911

S7

3415

33 S

ERIE

S D

X1

1 1.5

1 N/A 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 N/A

N

/A

N/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2

1.5 2 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 N/A

1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A

1 1 1 1 N/A

1 1 1 1 N/A

N/A

N

/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2.5

1 1.5

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2

N/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1

N/A

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5 1 1 1.5

1 1.5

1 1.5 1 1 1 2 1 1 1.5

1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2

1.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5 1 1.5

1 1 1 1 1.5 1 1 1 1 2.5 1 1 1 1 1 2.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1.5

1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2

1 1.5

1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1.5

1 2 1 1 1 1.5

1.

5

1.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 2 1 1.5

1 1 1.5

1.

5

3 1 1.5

1 1.5

1 2.5

2.

5 1 1 1 1.5

2 1 1.5

1 1 2 2.5 2 1 1.5

1.

5

1 2 1 3 2.5

1 2 1 1 2.5

1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2

80

A

AB

B

CC

ES

T.

CAB

TYP

E /

LOT

No.

TR

ACTO

R M

AKE

TRAC

TOR

MO

DEL

R

EG N

o.

CAB

MAN

. PI

LLAR

PI

LLAR

PI

LLAR

PI

LLAR

PI

LLAR

PI

LLAR

MO

UN

TS F

END

ERS

AGE

MO

DEL

TO

P B

TM

TOP

BTM

TO

P B

TM

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

30

70

E426

BFE

M

F 30

00 S

ERIE

S 11

38

1987

1

2 N/A

N

/A 1

1 2

2.5

JO

HN

DEE

RE

2850

JO

HN

DEE

RE

SG2

1136

19

85

N/A

N

/A

2 1

1 1

1 2

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

39

0 F2

05 L

FE

MF

33 S

ERIE

S 11

35

1988

2

2 2

2 1

1 1

1 JO

HN

DE

ER

E

3040

A8

87 H

SM

JO

HN

DEE

RE

SG2

1134

X

1983

N

/A

N/A

1

1 1

1 1

1 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

3060

E9

15 J

PY

MF

3000

SER

IES

1133

19

87

1 2

N/A

N

/A

1 2

1 2

JOH

N D

EE

RE

30

40

YRH

945

X

JOH

N D

EER

E SG

2 11

24

1981

N

/A

N/A

2

2 2

2 2

3 JO

HN

DEE

RE

1640

C

RN

121

Y JO

HN

DEE

RE

SG2

1121

19

82

N/A

N

/A

1 1

1 1

1 2

JOH

N D

EER

E

3050

F9

61 Y

WY

JO

HN

DEE

RE

SG2

1120

19

88

N/A

N

/A

1 1

1 1

1 1

JOH

N D

EER

E 21

40

JOH

N D

EER

E SG

2 11

16

1982

N

/A

N/A

2 1

2 1

2 2

.5

JOH

N D

EER

E 28

50

F320

JO

HN

DEE

RE

SG2

1115

19

89

N/A

N

/A

2 2

2 2

2 3

JOH

N D

EE

RE

26

50

G60

VB

S

JOH

N D

EER

E SG

2 10

98

1989

N

/A

N/A

2

2 1

2 2

3 D

EU

TZ

DX

120

A49

1 JF

A

DEU

TZ

DX

6 10

96

1983

2

2 2

2 1

1 2

2 R

EN

AULT

10

6.14

C

950

XP

W

REN

AULT

ET

42-1

11

00X

19

85

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

JOH

N D

EE

RE

21

40

C93

0 JO

D

JOH

N D

EER

E SG

2 11

10

1985

N

/A

N/A

1

1 2

2 2

2 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

3080

G

524

SSP

MF

3000

SER

IES

11

52

1989

2

2 N

/A

N/A

2

2 2

2 C

ASE

1494

B1

51 V

VG

SEK

WA

EXPL

OR

ER

1159

19

84

1 2

1.5

2 1

2 2

1.5

D

AVID

BR

OW

N

1290

AO

A 31

9W

SEK

WA

EXPL

OR

ER

1160

19

80

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 3

CAS

E

1394

B7

7 TL

J SE

KW

A EX

PLO

RER

11

61

1994

2

2 1

1 2

2 2

3 C

ASE

14

90

VWX

547

X

SEK

WA

EXPL

OR

ER

1163

19

80

2 2

2 2

2 2

1 1

JOH

N D

EE

RE

26

50

G59

2 R

TT

JOH

N D

EER

E SG

2 19

89

N/A

N

/A

1 1

1 1

1 1

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

13

5 LA

MB

OU

RN

S

AFE

TY

1505

19

74

N/A

N

/A

1 1

1 1

1 2

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

13

5 N

RR

293

P SI

RO

CC

O

FLEX

I CLA

DD

I N

115

06

1975

1

N/A

N

/A

1 1

1 2

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

13

5 FL

ATFO

RD

R

OLL

BAR

15

07

1969

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

1

1 1

3 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

135

LAM

BO

UR

N

SA

FETY

15

11

1969

N

/A

N/A

1

1 1

1 1

1 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USI

ON

13

5 AA

H 5

43S

DU

NC

AN

S6

1 A

-V

1512

19

77

1 1

1 1

2 2

1 2

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

40

S

IRO

CC

O

RIG

ID C

LAD

DI N

1

1523

19

76

1 N

/A

N/A

1

1 1

2 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

240

CA

BC

RA

FT15

27

1979

1

2 1

2 1

2 2

2 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

590

2WD

W

CV

207S

G

KN

SIN

GLE

DO

OR

15

29

1977

1

1 N

/A

N/A

1

1 1

1 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

20B

B900

XKN

D

UN

CA

N

1530

19

84

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

26

5 2W

D

GKN

15

32X

19

82

1 1

1 2

1 2

2 3

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

26

5 2W

D

CA

BC

RA

FT15

34

1978

2

2 2

1 1

2 1

3 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

590

2WD

YN

T 4T

G

KN

SIN

GLE

DO

OR

15

38

1978

2

1 N/A

N

/A 1

1 1

2.5

FO

RD

88

30 4

WD

H

674

AHO

FO

RD

SU

PER

Q

1091

19

90

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

FEN

DT

309I

SA 4

WD

E3

77 P

CL

FEN

DT

1089

19

87

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

JOH

N D

EER

E 30

50 4

WD

F8

02 0

GV

JOH

N D

EER

E SG

2 10

82

1988

N

/A

N/A

1

1 1

1 1

1 JO

HN

DEE

RE

3050

4W

D

F849

UN

H

JOH

N D

EER

E SG

2 10

81

1988

N

/A

N/A

1

1 1

1 1

2 JO

HN

DE

ER

E

3650

4W

D

JOH

N D

EER

E SG

2 10

78

1990

N

/A

N/A

1

1 1

1 1

2 FO

RD

82

00 4

WD

VE

W 4

60X

FO

RD

BU

BBLE

10

77

1981

1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 FO

RD

78

10 4

WD

F5

15 N

RV

FO

RD

SU

PER

Q

1075

19

88

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

.5

FOR

D

7810

4W

D

FOR

D

SUPE

R Q

10

73

1988

1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 FO

RD

78

10 4

WD

F9

70 X

KG

FOR

D

SUPE

R Q

10

72

1988

1

1 1

1.5

1 1

1

1

FOR

D

8210

111

4W

D

G98

2 YW

L FO

RD

SU

PER

Q

1071

19

89

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

FOR

D

7810

111

4W

D

G77

3 PA

O

FOR

D

SUPE

R Q

10

70X

19

89

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 2

FOR

D

7810

4W

D

E31-

KV

FO

RD

SU

PER

Q

1069

19

87

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 2

FOR

D

7810

4W

D

G87

1 TS

R

FOR

D

SUPE

R Q

10

68

1989

1

1 1

1 1

1 1

2 FO

RD

78

10 4

WD

A3

80 J

VF

FOR

D

BUBB

LE

1067

19

83

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

FOR

D

6710

4W

D

FOR

D

BUBB

LE

1063

19

79

1 1

1 1.

5 1

1.5

1

1

FOR

D

6710

2W

D

A679

JEX

FO

RD

BU

BBLE

10

59

1983

1

1 1

1.5

1 1

1

2

FOR

D

6600

2W

D

TRT

558X

FO

RD

BU

BBLE

10

58

1981

1

1 1

2.5

1 2

1

2

81

LOT

No.

TR

ACTO

R M

AKE

TRAC

TOR

MO

DEL

R

EG N

o.

EST.

AG

E C

AB M

AN.

CAB

TYP

E /

MO

DEL

API

LLAR

TO

P

API

LLAR

B

TM

BPI

LLAR

TO

P

BPI

LLAR

B

TM

CPI

LLAR

TO

P

CPI

LLAR

BTM

M

OU

NTS

FEN

DER

S

1057

10

55

1052

10

50

1048

12

00

1201

12

05

1207

12

13

1220

X

1224

12

23

1227

X

1235

15

42

1548

15

49

1551

15

52X

15

53

1554

15

57

1558

15

59

1564

15

65

1567

15

68

1569

15

70

1694

16

95

1696

17

00

1704

17

10

1713

16

2916

34

1018

10

19

1025

10

29

1030

10

36

1037

10

40

1541

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

FOR

D

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

D

EUTZ

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

JO

HN

DE

ER

E

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

LE

YLAN

D

JOH

N D

EER

E M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

FO

RD

FO

RD

FO

RD

FO

RD

FO

RD

FO

RD

FO

RD

IH UN

IVER

SAL

FOR

D

FOR

D

JOH

N D

EER

E FI

AT

JOH

N D

EER

E

CAS

E

JOH

N D

EER

E JO

HN

DEE

RE

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

4610

76

10 4

WD

66

10 2

WD

77

10 4

WD

46

10 2

WD

11

F 50

00

TW 2

0 4W

D

390

4WD

70

HP

DX

675

4WD

39

0 2W

D

2050

2W

D

50

272

2130

69

8 2W

D

575

2WD

59

0 2W

D

590

2WD

26

5 2W

D

575

2WD

56

5 2W

D

550

2WD

57

5 2W

D

590

2WD

18

5 2W

D

188

2WD

18

5 16

8 2W

D

188

188

2WD

50

00

5000

50

00

4600

40

00

4000

41

00

674

2WD

55

0DT

4WD

78

1011

1 4W

D

8210

111

4WD

26

50 4

WD

90

90D

T 4W

D

2850

4W

D

5130

4W

D

3650

4W

D

2850

4W

D

575

B43

6 H

CH

-958

CPR

A1

68 0

KR

G35

1 U

AS

E625

HSP

H75

2 JE

G

E51

JSP

RN

G 1

39R

JS

P 22

1S

A398

TVL

VY

A 87

3R

GR

M 1

14V

WV

L 73

8S

VAL

769S

BLK

916R

M

SA 2

48P

LHJ

664P

M

VG 2

74P

DO

T 33

4K

OC

G 4

23L

VTL

398K

DVG

90P

G

139

HN

G

G72

4 LF

L F9

42 V

AF

E161

HVT

G

134

KYC

H

245

WW

W

F605

UD

E H

584

AFS

H

SS ?

?8V

1984

19

83

1985

19

83

1983

19

75

1978

19

89

1987

19

85

1983

19

87

1978

19

76

1977

19

83

1976

19

78

1979

19

79

1977

19

77

1978

19

78

1976

19

75

1975

19

75

1974

19

72

1973

19

71

1972

19

72

1977

19

72

1971

19

77

1972

1975

19

89

1989

19

88

1987

19

89

1990

19

88

1990

19

79

SEK

UR

A FO

RD

SE

KU

RA

FOR

D

SEK

UR

A FO

RD

FO

RD

M

FD

EUTZ

M

FM

FJO

HN

DEE

RE

DU

NC

AN

LE

YLAN

D

DU

NC

AN

MF

GKN

G

KN

GKN

D

UN

CA

N

GKN

G

KN

GKN

G

KN

GKN

S

IRO

CC

O

SIR

OC

CO

SI

RO

CC

O

SIR

OC

CO

S

IRO

CC

O

SIR

OC

CO

FO

RD

FO

RD

FO

RD

FO

RD

FO

RD

FO

RD

FO

RD

IH DU

NC

AN

FO

RD

FO

RD

JO

HN

DEE

RE

FIAT

JO

HN

DEE

RE

CA

SE

JOH

N D

EER

E JO

HN

DEE

RE

GKN

LP

BUBB

LE

AP BUBB

LE

AP SAFE

TY

BUBB

LE

300

SER

IES

600

SER

IES

30

0 SE

RIE

S

SG2

QM

SU

PER

CAB

60

0 SE

RIE

S SI

NG

LE D

OO

R

SIN

GLE

DO

OR

2

DO

OR

SIN

GLE

DO

OR

SI

NG

LE D

OO

R

SIN

GLE

DO

OR

SI

NG

LE D

OO

R

SIN

GLE

DO

OR

R

IGID

CLA

DD

I N

FLEX

I CLA

DD

I N

FLEX

I CLA

DD

I N

FLEX

I CLA

DD

I N

RIG

ID C

LAD

DI N

R

IGID

CLA

DD

I N

SAFE

TY

SAFE

TY

SAFE

TY

BUBB

LE

SAFE

TY

SAFE

TY

BUBB

LE

SAF

ETY

S245

6 SU

PER

Q

SUPE

R Q

SG

2 PI

NIF

ARIN

A SG

2

SG2

SG2

SIN

GLE

DO

OR

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 N/A 1 N/A

N

/A 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5

1 N/A 2 1 1.5

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A

1.

5

N/A 1 N/A

N

/A 3

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A

N

/A

N/A 1 N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A

1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A

N

/A

N/A 2 N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 N/A

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1.5

1 1 1 1 1.5

2 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

1.5

1 1 1 1.5

1.

5

1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2.

5

1.5

1 1 1.5

2.

5

2 2 2 1.5

1 2 1.5

2.

5

2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2.5

3 3 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 2 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 1 2.3

1.5

1.

5

2 2 2.5

3

82

A

A

B

B

C

C

EST.

C

AB T

YPE

/ LO

T N

o.

TRAC

TOR

MAK

E TR

ACTO

R M

OD

EL

REG

No.

C

AB M

AN.

PILL

AR P

ILLA

R

PILL

AR

PILL

AR

PILL

AR

PILL

AR

MO

UN

TS F

END

ERS

AGE

MO

DEL

TO

P B

TM

TOP

BTM

TO

P B

TM

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

55

0 LU

A 50

1V

GK

N

DO

UBL

E D

OO

R

215

39

1979

2

N/A

N

/A

2 3

2 3

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SO

N

590

GK

N

SIN

GLE

DO

OR

15

38

1979

1

3 N

/A

N/A

2

2 1

3 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

590

TUN

772

T G

KN

SI

NG

LE D

OO

R

1531

19

78

2 2

N/A

N

/A

1 2

3 3

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

26

5 C

WN

415

V C

AB-C

RAF

T 15

30

1979

1

1 2

3 2

2 1

3 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

US

ON

24

0 C

ABC

RAF

T 15

27

1979

2

3 1

2 1

2 2

2 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

698T

2W

D

B160

TGL

MF

600

Serie

s 11

44

1984

1

3 1

1 1

1 1

2 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

698T

2W

D

C77

0 C

UM

M

F 60

0 SE

RIE

S 11

36

1985

1

3 1

1 1

1 1

1 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

698

2WD

KM

B 85

0Y

MF

600

SER

IES

1126

19

84

1 3

1 1

1 1

2 3

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

69

0 2W

D

ADX

558

Y M

F 60

0 SE

RIE

S 11

56

1982

1

1 1

1 1

1 3

3 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

690

4 W

D

A804

JSF

M

F 60

0 SE

RIE

S 11

54

1984

1

3 1

1 1

2 2

2 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

699

4WD

M

F 60

0 SE

RIE

S 11

18

1984

2

3 1

2 1

2 2

2 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

698

4WD

A2

43 C

CN

M

F 60

0 SE

RIE

S 11

35

1983

1

2 1

1 2

2 3

3 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

690

4WD

C

UN

236

Y M

F 60

0 SE

RIE

S 11

38

1987

1

3 1

2 1

2 2

2 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

690

2WD

?6

09 N

RH

M

F 60

0 SE

RIE

S 15

59

1985

1

2 1

1 1

1 3

2 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

US

ON

59

0 G

KN

SI

NG

LE D

OO

R

1560

19

78

2 2

N/A

N

/A 2

3 2

2.5

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

550

RJG

330

S G

KN

SI

NG

LE D

OO

R

1562

19

77

1.5

3 N

/A

N/A

2

2 2

3 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

US

ON

16

8 SI

RO

CC

O

1580

19

73

3 2

N/A

N

/A

2 2

2 3

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

69

0 2W

D

MF

600

SER

IES

1237

19

84

1 3

1 2

1 2

2 2

JOH

N D

EER

E 21

40 X

E 2W

D

JOH

N D

EER

E S

G2

XE

12

26

1987

N

/A

N/A

2

2 2

3 2

3 FO

RD

76

10 4

WD

II

E520

WFS

FO

RD

SU

PER

Q

1219

19

87

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 3

FOR

D

7810

F9

70 X

KG

FO

RD

SU

PER

Q

1406

19

88

1 1

1 3

1 1

1 2

IH

IH 9

56 X

L 2W

D

E713

OC

L IH

C

85 X

L 11

61

1987

1

3 N

/A

N/A

1

1 1

2 C

ASE

IH 9

56 X

L 4W

D

H15

9 H

AF

IH

XL

C85

11

56

1990

1

3 N

/A

N/A

2

2 1

3 C

ASE

IH 8

56 X

L 4W

D

E33

RAH

IH

X

L C

85

1155

19

87

1 3

N/A

N

/A

1 1

1 2

FIAT

80

-90

2WD

B6

83 E

EW

FI

AT

Pini

farin

a C

S14

1157

19

84

1 3

1 1

1 1

1.5

2

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SO

N

575

VYC

15W

G

KN

2

DO

OR

12

15

1980

1.

5 2

N/A

N

/A

1.5

3 2

3 FO

RD

46

10 2

WD

C

744

XPW

S

EKU

RA

AP

10

46

1985

1

2 1

1.5

1 1

3 2

.5

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

69

0 4W

D

MF

600

SER

IES

1146

19

84

1 3

1 1.5

1 2

2.5

3

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

69

0 4W

D

A589

MO

D

MF

600

SER

IES

1133

19

83

1 3

1 1

1 2

2 2

.5

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

39

8T

B221

DTG

M

F 30

0 SE

RIE

S

1140

19

84

2 3

1 2

2 2

2.5

2.5

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

US

ON

20

E

GK

N15

28

1984

2

2 2

3 2

2 2

2 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

698

2WD

W

SO 4

22Y

MF

600

SER

IES

1537

19

82

1 1

1 3

1 2

2 3

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

69

8T 2

WD

C

770

CVM

M

F 60

0 SE

RIE

S 15

40

1985

1

3 1

1 1

1 1

1 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

690

4WD

D

867

UVL

M

F 60

0 SE

RIE

S 15

41

1986

1

2 1

1 1

3 2

2 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

675

2WD

A8

66 M

NA

MF

600

SER

IES

1547

X 19

83

1 3

1 1

2 2

2 2

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

56

5 2W

D

GK

N

SIN

GLE

DO

OR

15

55

1978

3

1 N

/A

N/A

2

1 1

2 C

ASE

IH

956

XL

E717

NSE

IH

C

B5

1010

19

87

1 3

N/A

N

/A

1 3

2 3

FOR

D

2610

2W

D

AXW

962

X FO

RD

BU

BBLE

10

45

1981

1

3 1

3 2

1 1

3 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

699

4WD

B1

26 E

VJ

MF

600

serie

s 11

48

1984

1

3 1

1 1

2 3

3 FI

AT

580

DT

WKE

724

X FI

AT

Pini

farin

a C

S8

1247

19

81

1.5

1.

5 2

2 3

3 2

3

FI

AT

780

2WD

BR

S 98

4Y

FIAT

Pi

nifa

rina

CS

1242

19

82

1 2

1 3

2 3

2 3

ZETO

R

7245

G

703

ELJ

ZETO

R

RX

6011

16

54

1989

2

3 1

3 2

2 2

1.5

M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

US

ON

57

5 IM

PO

RT

GK

N

SIN

GLE

DO

OR

15

64

1977

1

3 N

/A

N/A

1

2 3

3 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

US

ON

30

95

H53

2 EC

N

MF

3000

SER

IES

11

26

1990

2

3 N

/A

N/A

2

2 3

2 M

ASSE

Y FE

RG

USO

N

698

4WD

B1

70 B

VI

MF

600

SER

IES

1539

19

84

2 3

1 1

1 1

3 3

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

69

8T 2

WD

B1

60 T

SL

MF

600

SER

IES

1543

19

84

1 3

1 1

2 3

2 2

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SO

N

265

A163

GSS

G

KN

20

0 SE

RIE

S

1532

19

77

2 2

3 3

2 2

3 3

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

69

8 2W

D

GEY

422

Y M

F 30

00 S

ERIE

S

1134

19

82

3 3

2 2

2 2

3 2

MAS

SEY

FER

GU

SON

69

8 4W

D

EAG

884

Y M

F 60

0 SE

RIE

S 15

45

1982

1

3 1

2 1

3 3

3 FI

AT

80-9

0 4W

D

E265

XTA

FI

AT

Pini

farin

a 12

12

1987

3

3 2

3 1

1 3

3

83

84

Printed and published by the Health and Safety ExecutiveC30 1/98

Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive C1.10 07/04

ISBN 0-7176-2873-6

RR 251

78071 7 628735£25.00 9

Documents

RESEARCH REPORT 251 - Health and Safety Executive · 2019-12-05 · manufactured in the 1981-1985 period, followed by those built in 1976-1980. Tractors manufactured before this time