Capital Equipment News April 2017

A compact loader scores on a variety of features, namely longer wheelbase, longer reach, better fuel consumption, better tyre wear, as well as ease of maintenance as accessibility to service points is generally better.

even terrain where larger bucket capacities are required, then a compact wheel loader would be the ideal choice. “It has a wider wheel base resulting in a more stable and less bumpy ride,” says Kundra. Justin Nicoll, MD of Force 8 CC, the local distributor of the Atlas Weyhausen range of articulated wheel loaders, says there is no clear check list that lets you tick off relevant factors and come to an irrevocable decision about which machine – skid steer or compact wheel loader – will work best in your operation. The choice, essentially, seems to be a matter of thinking through several considerations and then evaluate which solution is, overall, most advantageous. According to Nicoll, there will always be a place for both machines, adding that skid steers are well suited for very confined circumstances on sites, but outside of this parameter, “there is no contest that a compact wheel loader is a significantly more productive option”. “The compact wheel loader is less of a compromise on a variety of design features that on a skid steer are barely optimal by virtue of the machine’s fundamental design mandate, which puts manoeuvrability as top priority,” argues Nicoll. Key considerations Leask says pricing plays a key role in any decision-making process but it is not always the main criteria. “In terms of purchasing, generally there is about a 25% difference in price between the top of the range skid steer loader and the mid to low range wheel loader. Thus, in terms of price, the skid steer loader has a significant advantage.” In today’s challenging economic environ-

MultiOne South Africa says the compact loader is a better choice in digging applications than the skid steer, and believes it is one of the reasons why there is increased uptake in the local agricultural sector.

ment, one of the key factors that determines the choice of one machine type over the other is cost of ownership. Comparing the compact wheel loader and the skid steer by horsepower, the skid steer, because of its mode of steering, significantly requires more horsepower, perhaps 30 or 40% more than a compact wheel loader of similar rated oper- ating capacity. Van Wyk adds that a compact wheel loader doesn’t need such a high horsepower motor as that found on a comparable skid steer. “Smaller horsepower means reduced fuel consumption,” he says, adding that an articulated wheel loader generally uses six times less fuel than a comparable skid steer. “The articulation of the wheel loader doesn’t require huge amounts of power for

steering. Skid steers need added horsepower to generate a greater volume of auxiliary- hydraulic flow than most comparably sized compact wheel loaders. A positive upshot of less horsepower is lower fuel consumption,” says Van Wyk. The reason for reduced fuel consumption is not only down to the engine size. Van Wyk adds that a compact loader is throttle driven, which means that the engine revs only when the throttle is used. In contrast, a skid steer loader is regularly used at full throttle or at high runs per minute, even if it has a foot throttle. Van Wyk says the engine revs required for a skid steer to move are higher as it needs maximum torque to pull its heavier weight. He adds that the articulated loader’s generally smaller engine places

CAPITAL EQUIPMENT NEWS APRIL 2017 25