Jump to content

Talk:Backhoe/Archives/2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


how to operate?

I have looked all over, I would think somewhere on the internet is how to operate one... perhaps a java based game? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by by 134.114.104.43 (talk • contribs) 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a flash-based simulator approximately here, from the last page of the howstuffworks article now linked to from our page. (Disclaimer: it doesn't work for me, perhaps because it's Windows-only.) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
There's also a VRML-based one at http://cic.nist.gov/vrml/equip.html. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if people would be interested in placing a link to [http://earlyhistory.googlepages.com/historyoftheearlybackhoe History of the Early Backhoe]? Please explain your reasoning as to why or why not. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by West wikipedia (talk • contribs) 18:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Because it does not cite it's sources, doesn't add anything already in Wikipedia, the site is non-notable i.e. it hasn't been cited as an authority by other reliable sources and it's authors are completely unknown. In fact if I google for earlyhistory googlepages com I get nothing. Please read WP:WEB (under criteria), WP:RS (e.g. Non-scholarly sources) and WP:NOTABLE and ideally please solve this one link first before you start posting to all the other entries you've been trying to make. Ttiotsw 18:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that here we are only two days later and the suggested link http://earlyhistory.googlepages.com/historyoftheearlybackhoe is already dead. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Backhoe = forkcrane

In Japan, and Korea I'm told, backhoes are referred to as 'forkcranes'.

I'M NOT SURE WHERE TO PUT THIS

This article has a bit of a european/british take. I say that not as a criticism, but to point out nomenclature is a bit different in some respects in North America, and that should be added as well (not instead of). I've added a few of the points, like TLB instead of JCB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesaf3 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggested merge

I propose merging Backhoe fade into the main backhoe article. "Backhoe fade" is a narrowly-used neologism. I do think it warrants a mention here, but not its own article. Rather than nominating it for deletion as I was originally going to do, I thought I would suggest a merge first. Kafziel 14:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Comments

Backhoe fade was deleted yesterday as being non-notable, etc. Unfortunately, when the merge was suggested, no {{mergeto}} banner was added to its page, so it was not obvious that a merge proposal was underway. I have managed to obtain the original page text and have extracted the minimal encyclopaedic content into a new section within backhoe. It seems to be a widely-used term in the industry, even if its etymology is 'humorous', and so is worth including here. A suitable cite has been found too.

The page backhoe fade has been created afresh as a redirect to the new section, since it is linked from elsewhere within WP.

EdJogg 14:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Backhoe fade should be included, and does exist. I've committed it, though it wasn't my fault - improperly buried phone line, unmarked and not in conduit. It isn't all that humorous at the time.... Charlesaf3 (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The term Backhoe and Loader are not used in Europe. There is already a note that the company name JCB is used generically (I suspect this may only be in the UK), but digger is just as common. MalcolmDM (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

definitive etymology?

As the article says, "Similar attachments for [other vehicles] are still called backhoes even though they are mounted on the front. This is because the name refers to the action of the shovel, not its location on the vehicle; a backhoe digs by drawing earth backwards, rather than lifting it with a forward motion". And personally, I completely agree with this on both points, but I'd like to find some really definitive historical sources explaining how the term arose. (This is for my own curiosity, and perhaps for the Etymology section at wikt:backhoe, not because I'm about to start slapping {{cite}} tags all over this article. But obviously anything I learn will be fodder for this article.)

My own hunch -- and this is what I'd really like to confirm, if it's true -- is that the term "backhoe" was coined in direct opposition to the older steam shovel. If you look at a picture of a steam shovel, such as this one of ours, or this cute one, or this classic one, you can pretty clearly see that the digging bucket faces up, and that the machine digs by lifting up and away. A backhoe, on the other hand, as we know digs by pulling down and back towards the machine. The fact that you don't see steam shovels -- or anything else with that same, old up-and-away action -- any more makes me suspect that the pull-down-and-towards action has been found to be much more effective. (But it had to await the development of modern hydraulics, because a cable-hauled backhoe wouldn't work nearly as well.)

Anyway, I suspect that the word "back" in the name "backhoe" was chosen specifically because of the back-towards-the-machine action, which was backwards from the way steam shovels worked. I suspect that the fact that backhoes are often mounted on the backs of tractors is a coincidence which had nothing to do with the term's coinage (though I could be wrong). But the web searches I've done to try to confirm these suspicions have come up dry.

If anyone can dig up any confirmation for any of this (and preferably more definitive than personal armchair speculation, which is all I've really been doing so far), I'd appreciate it.

(I've raised the same question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, and I'll be checking for answers at both places.) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, I'm curious too. I have nothing to add though, except that another name for "excavator" is "trackhoe". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.143.42 (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

The most common backhoes, with a loader on the front, are often called backhoe-loaders Its still common to see tractors with smaller loaders and/or backhoes attached to them, but the common models used by cities and private contractors are pretty uniform in their specifications. I would suggest a specifications section, mentioning how they are all powered hydrologically, are four-wheel drive and have a bucket on the front with a capacity of one cubic yard. Also, perhaps something on usage. Backhoes are the most versatile machine used in construction, since they can dig small pipelines or foundations and load dump trucks efficiently. On any large job though, they are relegated to an all-purpose secondary role since they can't achieve the depth or width of an excavator or the loading speed of a front end loader. --troublefunk--


Nomination to merge

This page is identical to Backhoe loader. Suggest copy/paste the contents into Backhoe loader then edit for redundancy. I do recognize the distinction between a general term backhoe and the strict term backhoe loader. Backhoe should be a subsection of backhoe loader due to the lack of general reference to anything other than a backhoe loader as a backhoe. Yes the hoe or stick does move towards the operator with excavators but the nomenclature is distinctive on these two types of equipment..Granite07 06:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose per the above merge discussions, but mostly because one need not have a loader to have a backhoe mounted on a general purpose tractor. In construction/Civil Engineering/street and road departments, their is little doubt in my mind that the loader variant is most common... but there are loads of farmers that attach backhoes as there are loads of skid steer loaders that will take a backhoe...
       The etymological discussion above contrasting the mechanism of a steam shovel and the three axis excavator/Backhoe hydraulic piston actuated mechanism is likely correct... the backwards "hoe-like" action could not be replicated in cable implementations, and as one who has operated one extensively, that particular hydraulic action (the twisting into the soil of the bucket teeth end on the two extended lever arms) is the secret to the efficiency and effectiveness of the machine. They don't lift (comparatively) worth a damn but tear and pull really well. The two arm lever of the steam shovel is certainly different, and the action is opposite being away ... like a loader bucket. So, no. What is needed is an etymological search in histories of technology, and some additional pictures. Merging Backhoe with Excavator might make more sense to some, but there are more than one type of excavator mechanism as well. An article that discusses the mechanism in detail is warranted, then it can be cited/linked-to by the others. // FrankB 22:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    • ok Some clarification: in common nomenclature, loader (equipment) is usually an articulating center pivot wheeled tractor with a front bucket, example CAT 950. Loaders do not have a backhoe attachment available. A smaller wheeled tractor, that does accept the backhoe attachment, is steered by turning the front wheels and has a front bucket is typically called a skip loader (skippy) when no backhoe is present. Skip loaders are used in asphalt work but not often seen otherwise, due to rental cost being similar to a backhoe. The backhoe is the equipment that is almost always present on any jobsite. Having operated all of these equipments (backhoe, loader, excavator, skip loader...), worked around this equipment as a laborer, managed the equipment as an equipment manager, and studied equipment as civil engineer student, is where I get this opinion of backhoes from. I appreciate your knowledge on the subject and as you note the above discussion has consensus. steam shovel? Granite07 (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Backhoe and Backhoe loader are Separate

Against Merging Backhoe and backhoe loader:

As anyone can tell by reading the two entries in detail, a backhoe is specifically the articulated arm that pulls earth, which can be attached to a variety of vehicles. Whereas the Backhoe loader is a vehicle with a backhoe already attached to it. These articles should continue to be separate because backhoe refers to the attachment and the backhoe loader refers to the vehicle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.228.253 (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • don't merge: This discussion has died but the two pages have continued to be modified in their current (and separate) states. I'm going to remove the merger, as I don't see any support for it but I and the fellow above don't. Correct me if I'm wrong. :) -- Matthew Glennon (T/C\D) 18:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Origins section: The history of Case is awkwardly inserted and appears to be corporate grafitti

[[1]]

The section begins with a history of JCB. The second paragraph, though, shifts to Case:

In early 1957 Case moved to acquire Churubusco, Ind.-based American Tractor Corp., a successful small firm that was developing a hydraulically powered backhoe to attach to its crawler units. American Tractor had started making crawlers in 1949 and developed numerous innovations including a threepoint hitch and torque converter.

There was no mention of the company "Case" before this, yet this reads as though it was. The article continues with the rest of the history of Case.

This should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregconquest (talk • contribs) 11:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the picture of the excavator?

Why is there a picture of a crawler-excavator equipped with a narrow sheepsfoot roller? The description of a backhoe says it is a tractor-like machine with a bucket. This picture does not depict that description. 192.128.133.68 (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'll remove that image from this page. It is already on excavator page where it belongs anyway. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Too much original research, not enough citations

An editor recently deleted a 'citation needed' tag without explanation. I have added it back. The entire Article contains too much original research and not enough citations. Let's make an attempt to fix this. Rahul (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The original {{Citation needed}} was in my opinion requesting proof that it was dangerous for the bucket to be reversed on a backhoe, not that is was actually possible. Most of the paragraph was in fact written as a part of some Vandalism which was not completely removed. I rewrote the paragraph and provided a photo showing the bucket reversed on a machine, makes sense to me that this should be proof enough. I can provide a cite but it would be from a company who build the hitches, and this might be considered advertising... Your call. FNQ (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I think we all appreciate your good-faith effort here. This one incident of a deleted tag is of importance primarily because it moves the article, already lacking citations, a step in the wrong direction. I highly recommend adding a citation for the description of the reversed bucket. The photo by itself is arguably original research, since it's not illustrating any fact reliably established independently of the photo. And then, the editors of this Article should try to support the rest of the Article with citations to reliable sources. Rahul (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Backhoe/Archives/2012&oldid=1034405707"