Good Works Tractor Co. and their latest Quick Hitch

[mcmxi]

I watched Courtney's latest video yesterday featuring their updated Quick Hitch. I was surprised to see how much clearance there is between the pin and the locking catch. Courtney has repeatedly made the point that their QH doesn't require bushings and is made for CAT 1 pins (7/8") on the implement side. I just don't see this design controlling upward movement of the implement.

I've made some less than positive posts about Land Pride's QH15 which I have and which I consider to be a screw up on Land Pride and/or Kubota's part. I also have a QH10 which works very well, and the new QH16 is what the QH15 should have been. All that said, look at the fit between the CAT 3 pin (represented by a bushing) and the locking catch on the QH15. This is how it should be where the catch limits upward movement of the pin and therefore implement. I don't think that GWTC thought this through, but perhaps I'm missing something here.

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

Yea, I wouldn't want that much slop on the three point.

 

[jimh406]

If that's a production model, that seems like a bad design.

 

[rc51stierhoff]

At a glance in that pic it looks like that pin might be able to bounce/wiggle out…I’m not saying that it would but at a glance it looks like it would not take much.

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

At a glance in that pic it looks like that pin might be able to bounce/wiggle out…I’m not saying that it would but at a glance it looks like it would not take much.

After it smacks it a few times anything is possible!

 

[rc51stierhoff]

I watched Courtney's latest video yesterday featuring their updated Quick Hitch. I was surprised to see how much clearance there is between the pin and the locking catch. Courtney has repeatedly made the point that their QH doesn't require bushings and is made for CAT 1 pins (7/8") on the implement side. I just don't see this design controlling upward movement of the implement.

View attachment 141164

I've made some less than positive posts about Land Pride's QH15 which I have and which I consider to be a screw up on Land Pride and/or Kubota's part. I also have a QH10 which is works very well, and the new QH16 is what the QH15 should have been. All that said, look at the fit between the CAT 3 pin (represented by a bushing) and the locking catch on the QH15. This is how it should be where the catch limits upward movement of the pin and therefore implement. I don't think that GWTC thought this through, but perhaps I'm missing something here.

View attachment 141165

Good day.

Thanks for sharing.

Why no QH20 with those 2 orange monsters in your stable?

 

[Kennyd4110]

That IS a lot of gap there! Wow.
Imagine that with the added weight holding brackets he sells that puts down pressure on the hitch itself vs the implement directly.

Not sure I agree with the "no top link bushings needed" theory either.

 

[mcmxi]

Good day.

Thanks for sharing.

Why no QH20 with those 2 orange monsters in your stable?

I don't know. Once I convert the QH15 to a QH16 all will be good.

 

[rc51stierhoff]

I don't know. Once I convert the QH15 to a QH16 all will be good.

Good day.

Do your large implements all attach / pull from drawbar? Or are they cat1/cat2(both)?

(Q16 would not give the width for a cat2 implement)

https://cdn-assets.greatplainsmfg.com/ari/attach/lp/public/specs/320-003s.pdf

 

[GreensvilleJay]

If ( IF ) the top link IS CAT1, then no bushing should be needed to attach a CAT1 implement to the CAT1 hitch...... that is a big 'IF' of course.

Agree a LOT of 'gap' ! Maybe someone used a Metric tape measure when they cut out the Imperial pieces ??
before buying, I hope someone calls and ask about the gap. No way it'd be safe to use as shown.

 

[mcmxi]

Good day.

Do your large implements all attach / pull from drawbar? Or are they cat1/cat2(both)?

(Q16 would not give the width for a cat2 implement)

I only have the Land Pride folding cutter RC3712 and the Schafer disc harrow that pull from the drawbar, every other implement attaches to the 3-point directly or QH.

You're absolutely right about the QH16 but your observation can be extended to the QH10 and QH15. The width of those QHs where they connect to the implement (lower hitch spacing) is centered around 28" which is CAT 1, whereas CAT 2 uses a 34" spacing. So I connect to all of the QH compatible implements using the CAT 1 interface/spacing on the implement. I hope that makes sense.

 

[NCL4701]

I don’t have a quick hitch so please pardon my possibly blatant ignorance of this question I’ve had for some time.

Cat 0, 1, 2, etc. are differentiated by both spacing of attachment points and pin size (as detailed in @mcmxi post above). There seems to be a significant volume of demand for quick hitches for Cat 1 and Cat 2 tractors. So why is it most of the quick hitches I’ve ever seen or considered buying have Cat 1 spacing (which matches my tractor’s Cat 1 hitch and my Cat 1 implements), yet they use Cat 2 pin sizing and require spacers plus many require modifications of the top link hook?

Is there a reason that it isn’t industry standard to have a Cat 1 quick hitch that is Cat 1 in every spec, Cat 2 quick hitch that is Cat 2 in every spec, etc.?

While I’m asking 3 point questions that have puzzled me for years, why is it every Cat 3 and Cat 4 three point I’ve seen for at least the past couple decades comes standard stock from the factory (regardless of brand) with locking cups (like a welded on Pat’s as OEM) on the lift arms, or more recently Euroball as an option; yet standard OEM for Cat 0, 1, 2 is still the “line it up perfectly and kick the crap out of it three times” ball? Extending links make hookup easier but if any manufacturer is offering the quick attach cup ends, even as a cost add option, below Cat 3 it certainly doesn’t seem common.

BTW, about 90% of the time when I’m not talking and my wife asks, “What are you thinking about?” this is the type stuff I’m thinking about. At some point I think she started believing me, which probably is why she asks less often.

 

[mcmxi]

Cat 0, 1, 2, etc. are differentiated by both spacing of attachment points and pin size (as detailed in @mcmxi post above). There seems to be a significant volume of demand for quick hitches for Cat 1 and Cat 2 tractors. So why is it most of the quick hitches I’ve ever seen or considered buying have Cat 1 spacing (which matches my tractor’s Cat 1 hitch and my Cat 1 implements), yet they use Cat 2 pin sizing and require spacers plus many require modifications of the top link hook?

Is there a reason that it isn’t industry standard to have a Cat 1 quick hitch that is Cat 1 in every spec, Cat 2 quick hitch that is Cat 2 in every spec, etc.?

Excellent questions for sure. I have implements that have pins that are both CAT 1 and CAT2, but as you point out, most QHs from Kubota/Land Pride or similar use CAT 1 spacing. So if I want to connect to the implement using the CAT 2 pins I would have to remove the QH.

Like many industries, folks didn't sit around a table and get it all figured out at the beginning, so what we end up with is a mess of mismatched products, and often, little thought is put in to how a broad spectrum of people actually use things.

 

[mcmxi]

So here's a photo of my QH10 with a 7/8" pin held in place by the lock. I like Courtney and GWTC but I sure as heck wouldn't buy their latest and greatest QH. I sent Courtney an email and included the three photos from this forum, and hopefully he gets this corrected.

 

[Flintknapper]

View attachment 141164

All that said, look at the fit between the CAT 3 pin (represented by a bushing) and the locking catch on the QH15. This is how it should be where the catch limits upward movement of the pin and therefore implement. I don't think that GWTC thought this through, but perhaps I'm missing something here.

^^^^^

No, you are not missing anything.

That much slop in the fitment is No Bueno Por Caca...!

 

[GreensvilleJay]

re:
Is there a reason that it isn’t industry standard to have a Cat 1 quick hitch that is Cat 1 in every spec, Cat 2 quick hitch that is Cat 2 in every spec, etc.?


yes, 'profit margin'. If you look at most CAT1 quick hitches, the mfrs use the same 'lower end' casting for their QH versions cat1, cat 2 and cat 3 . If (IF ) you're lucky ,they'll supply the NEEDED reducing bushings to make it FIT Cat1. Then there's the 'width' issue . As pointed out Cat2 spacing is wider than Cat1, so mfrs need MORE design/mfg/inventory.
I think Speeco (?) is the only one that makes a true CAT1 QH , IE: Cat1 on tractor side AND Cat1 on implement side

 

[rc51stierhoff]

I only have the Land Pride folding cutter RC3712 and the Schafer disc harrow that pull from the drawbar, every other implement attaches to the 3-point directly or QH.

You're absolutely right about the QH16 but your observation can be extended to the QH10 and QH15. The width of those QHs where they connect to the implement (lower hitch spacing) is centered around 28" which is CAT 1, whereas CAT 2 uses a 34" spacing. So I connect to all of the QH compatible implements using the CAT 1 interface/spacing on the implement. I hope that makes sense.

View attachment 141261

That does make sense.

I sort of went the other way…I went with QH20 thinking there were all kinds of affordable (I was wrong ) cat 2 implements for that would allow me to use the capability of the MX. however I am not super brand loyal…if you go all landpride they have both cat1/2 for most, but in some cases they don’t have any of the ‘specialty implements’ that I use. IMO, the reality is that most cat 2 implements that are much heavier than a cat1, and the cat 2 either cost way more than cat 1 or they are heavy enough they need to be pulled from the drawbar…starting to get into heavier / ag applications. So in most cases I now sort of tend to think Cat 1 makes the most sense as a platform for the implements. But even still there are still some oddballs out there that still leaves you in the position to pay more, modify or take the QH off for one or two implements.

Either way I made the decision to go QH20 thinking I would add longer pins / bushings to make up the spread vs a cat 1 QH. I’ve only had one implement where I needed a structural modification to the implement. So far that’s working out and pins are cheap option.

The real kick in the sac is that there is at least one implement on my watch (soon to buy) list and I already know it is not QH20 acceptable and I will have to trim the PTO shaft. I am not really wanting to transition over to pats on the MX since I have several PTO shafts I would then also need to replace / cut to length. Damned if I do and damned if I dont.

 

[Kennyd4110]

Is there a reason that it isn’t industry standard to have a Cat 1 quick hitch that is Cat 1 in every spec, Cat 2 quick hitch that is Cat 2 in every spec, etc.?

The not-so-simple answer is that the ASAE ASAE Category 1 Standard S278.6 for quick-attach hitches calls for CAT3 sized hooks on the upper and lower hooks.

ASAE Standard Quick Hitch
The American Society of Agricultural Engineers has developed a series of standards for U-shaped quick hitches (Figure 1). There are ASAE standard quick hitches for compact utility tractors (Category 1) as well as farm tractors (Categories 2-4). ASAE standard quick hitches are designed to mate up with the three existing hitch pins on the implement, thus you have to buy only the tractor portion of the hitch; no additional parts are needed on the implement. This system works great as long as the implements conform to the ASAE standard.

Unfortunately, most implements for compact utility tractors are made by short-line implement manufacturers that completely ignore the ASAE hitch standards. This means that an ASAE standard quick hitch will not work with most small implements. You can sometimes remedy the problem with a welder and cutting torch, but most folks don’t want to rebuild their implements.

 

[drygulch]

I watched Courtney's latest video yesterday featuring their updated Quick Hitch. I was surprised to see how much clearance there is between the pin and the locking catch.

Showed up in my queue so I watched and thought the exact same thing.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

figures... it took a committee to wreck a well known system, the 3 point hitch, into THEIR idea of what it should be. Obviously not one real farmer on the committee.
There is no good reason for CAT3 ends on a CAT1 hitch.