Archive




TimberKing Sawmills



Please visit this sponsor

The Largest Inventory of Used Chainsaw Parts in the World

Toll Free 1-800-582-0470

LogRite Tools


Forest Products Industry Insurance

Norwood Industries Inc.

Sawmill & Woodlot Magazine



Wood Processing equpment. Splitters, Processors, Conveyors

Your source for Portable Sawmills, Edgers, Resaws, Sharpeners, Setters, Bandsaw Blades and Sawmill Parts

EZ Boardwalk Sawmills. More Saw For Less Money!

STIHLDealers.com sponsored by Northeast STIHL

Woodland Sawmills

Margeson Insurance

Peterson Swingmills

Pacforest Supply Company

Forestry Forum Tool Box

Author Topic: Forcat 2000 VS Conventional Log skidder  (Read 28337 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kodiakmac

  • Full Member x2
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Location: North Glengarry, Ontario
  • Gender: Male
    • Upper Canada Outfitters
Re: Forcat 2000 VS Conventional Log skidder
« Reply #20 on: November 18, 2008, 09:41:07 pm »
Yup. Agree with Ironman almost 100%.  You could broaden the TJ range to include all the 200 series...and you could throw in the Treefarmer C4 and C5 models.  I don't know anything about Franklin, but they were smart enough to buy TF!

Robin Hood had it just about right:  as long as a man has family, friends, deer and beer...he needs very little government!
440JD, Echo CS510

Offline Dale Hatfield

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 609
  • Location: Ohio
  • Gender: Male
  • A plan is a start to a great ending
Re: Forcat 2000 VS Conventional Log skidder
« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2008, 08:54:01 pm »
I wouldnt think twice about a used skidder. But dont let a good motor on a poor tracked dozer sell you into a pitfall. New tracks roller sprockets on a JD450 D  will run well above 15,000 grand.
Look for a dozer blade on a skidder if ya feel ya need that kind of blade  JD sold em.
Game Of Logging trainer,  College instructor of logging/Tree Care
Chainsaw Carver

Offline zackman1801

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
  • Age: 23
  • Location: Buckfield, Maine
  • Gender: Male
Re: Forcat 2000 VS Conventional Log skidder
« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2008, 10:00:28 pm »
aint nothing i enjoy more that putting tracks on a dozer in the snow a mile out in the woods after they fall off!
"Improvise, Adapt, OVERCOME!"
Husky 365sp 20" bar

Online beenthere

  • Senior Member x2
  • *****
  • Posts: 21431
  • Location: Southern Wisconsin
  • Gender: Male
Re: Forcat 2000 VS Conventional Log skidder
« Reply #23 on: November 20, 2008, 10:25:39 pm »
aint nothing i enjoy more that putting tracks on a dozer in the snow a mile out in the woods after they fall off!
I hear ya Zack
I did that "once"... while teetering on a ravine edge. Backing up, came outta the tracks. Managed to walk one back on, but the other was with come-alongs and a lot of sweat..even in 0F and light snow.
Wanted to push it over the edge and leave it..
south central Wisconsin
 It may be that my sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others

Offline Maineloggerkid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 633
  • Age: 24
  • Location: Kingman, Maine
  • Gender: Male
  • Earth first...Log the other planets later!
Re: Forcat 2000 VS Conventional Log skidder
« Reply #24 on: November 21, 2008, 05:11:34 am »
Track machines are nice when they work, but undercarriges are definetly a high maintnence proposition. Money and time.
JD 540D cable skidder, and 2 huskies- just right.   

Loggers- Saving the world from the wrath of trees!

Offline james

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
  • Age: 53
  • Gender: Male
  • truck drivin fool
Re: Forcat 2000 VS Conventional Log skidder
« Reply #25 on: November 30, 2008, 03:07:22 pm »
the other problem with a track machine in snow is that on a side hill those steel tracks make great ice skates and a real harry ride :o :o :o
james (speaking from experience)

Offline Maineloggerkid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 633
  • Age: 24
  • Location: Kingman, Maine
  • Gender: Male
  • Earth first...Log the other planets later!
Re: Forcat 2000 VS Conventional Log skidder
« Reply #26 on: November 30, 2008, 05:11:00 pm »
Ya, ice cleats are almost something you have to have.
JD 540D cable skidder, and 2 huskies- just right.   

Loggers- Saving the world from the wrath of trees!

Offline mad murdock

  • Senior Member x2
  • *****
  • Posts: 2448
  • Age: 49
  • Location: NW OREGON Near Carlton.
  • Gender: Male
  • The woods is the best "office"!
Re: Forcat 2000 VS Conventional Log skidder
« Reply #27 on: January 19, 2009, 06:18:26 pm »
I agree with the above sentiments.  Better off buying used Iron, i.e. International S8, JD 440, old TJ or whatever.  I bought a Garrett model 15 diesel skidder from craigslist for 3,000.00.  The winch still needs some work, but it is a good old machine, and will last forever.  I do not use it fuull time, though I have drug out about 8 truckloads with it in the last 2 years.
'64 Garrett 15A, Granberg Alaskan III, Logosol Timberjigg, Husky 372XP, McCulloch 10-10 auto, Poulan wild thing, Stihl 075, Mac 10-10A(x5),7-10A, PM700, SP81E, JD AMT626, Plus more toys

Offline John Woodworth

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 381
  • Age: 67
  • Location: Port Townsend Washington
  • Gender: Male
Re: Forcat 2000 VS Conventional Log skidder
« Reply #28 on: January 27, 2009, 11:15:37 pm »
Having run skidders for over 30 years now would be hard to convince me that any kind of production at all could be had with the Forcat, it's time and place is for small logs and small jobs.Skidders in my oppinion are the most unuversal and cost effective way to yard yet tracks have their own place at a price. I've run the big Deere's and Cat skidders in the past and presently have two Garret 21's and a Garret 10. The Garret is a economical skidder to run and work on and the 21's will pull with the best on 40 gallons of fuel a week verses 40 gallons a day with the others.
The Forcat with it's 8000 pound winch compared to my Garret 10 with a 8000 pound winch would be no comparison as far al production however it would be good for thinning but they need to get the butts off the ground which I think would create a rolling over condition on sharp hard pulls. I don't know what they cost but log prices today for small jobs have to be figered in and prices here in the North West today wouldn't justify the cost.
I personaly would recomend a serious look at used skidders to anyone just look close at what you are bying and if you run across a Garret the old girl will work it's heart out for you.
Two Garret 21 skidders, Garret 10 skidder, 580 Case Backhoe, Mobile Dimension sawmill, 066, 046 mag, 044, 036mag, 034, 056 mag, 075, 026, lewis winch

Offline Shawn Bevins

  • member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Forcat 2000 VS Conventional Log skidder
« Reply #29 on: November 23, 2009, 08:26:14 am »
Somethings need to be clarified, the gas powered unit does not exsist anymore, we phased it out because of overheating and lack of power, the new unit has a 36 hp Perkins deisel engine and can skid up 3 times it's own weight 4100 lbs X 3 = 12300 lbs , as for parts we have all parts in stock and ready to ship to anywhere in North America within 24 hours.  I have included a link for our new video   and tech specs for your review, we will also in the very near future offer this unit with a standard skidsteer plate front and rear so all the attachments you see at this link http://www.quick-attach.com/  will fit onto the machine, also the name of the machine has been changed to OXTRAC.

Offline tughill

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Boonville NY, snowmobile capitol of the east
  • Gender: Male
Re: Forcat 2000 VS Conventional Log skidder
« Reply #30 on: November 23, 2009, 11:14:36 am »
Personally, I think a Deere350/450 or Cat D3/D4 with a winch and log arch is the way to go.  I guess it's all relative, if you are considering using a 4 wheeler, then you are not really thinking much about production, and the Forcat would be relatively better, but fairly expensive, and probably hard to sell (for a reasonable price) if and when you want to get rid of it.  Old skidders are kinda the same to me, right now for example the log markets are bad, so logging equipment is very difficult to sell.  Older dozers are always in demand for farmers, do it yourselfers, loggers, etc. more so than an old skidder.  As far as track problems, to me it's no better or worse than tire problems.  Ultimately if you are not mechanically inclined, you probably shouldn't be getting involved with any of this equipment.

Good luck, this whole thing is kinda like auto racing, "speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?"
"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not."- Thomas Jefferson
Local Farmer here won 10$ million in the lottery, when asked what he was going to do with his winnings, responded, "Keep on farming until that's all gone too."

Offline mahonda

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Age: 33
  • Location: oregon
  • Gender: Male
Re: Forcat 2000 VS Conventional Log skidder
« Reply #31 on: November 23, 2009, 08:25:34 pm »
Well just to add some worry to your dilemma, We bought a used skidder a number of years back. Cat 508 grapple skidder. ran great to start worked really well, put a plow on it to push snow, and it pushes a ton. so after about a year we lost the engine. okay new reman was about 8 thousand i think after all the mechanic costs. so about six months after that lost the torque converter. not to bad to fix but couldn't find a new one for almost four months. so after that we welded the center pivot back together new pins, bushings, few hoses and the tranny still leaks. we have a 550g dozer with almost 20,000 hours and still starts and runs great put lots of tracks on it though, but tires or tracks its all money. and if you have tires you almost have to have chains in the winter and they cost almost as much or more than the tires. But don't give up if it was me and i had a few jobs to do and not looking at going full time, RENT deere and cat will rent a small dozer with a winch for a little bit especially good deal if you have the job all cut. so just have to skid while you got it rented so its not sitting there. Good luck and renting means they turn the wrenches my favorite part
"If your lucky enough to be a logger your lucky enough!"
 Burly aka Dad

Offline sjfarkas

  • Full Member x2
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Sonora, CA
  • Gender: Male
    • Sasha's Land Clearing
Re: Forcat 2000 VS Conventional Log skidder
« Reply #32 on: November 23, 2009, 08:27:37 pm »
I'd still take a bobcat track machine over all options mentioned any day.  
Always try it twice, the first time could've been a fluke.

Offline nas

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 879
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Gods Country, Milton Ontario
  • Gender: Male
  • Measure twice and cut aw DanG
    • Traditional forest products
Re: Forcat 2000 VS Conventional Log skidder
« Reply #33 on: November 23, 2009, 08:45:11 pm »
Like this one? ;)
 





Nick
Better to sit in silence and have everyone think me a fool, than to open my mouth and remove all doubt - Napoleon.

Indecision is the key to flexibility.
2002 WM LT40HDG25
stihl 066
Husky 365
1 wife
6 Kids

Online beenthere

  • Senior Member x2
  • *****
  • Posts: 21431
  • Location: Southern Wisconsin
  • Gender: Male
Re: Forcat 2000 VS Conventional Log skidder
« Reply #34 on: November 23, 2009, 08:52:20 pm »
Well nas. That one certainly looks stuck.  ::) ::)

Ya think?? ???     ;D
south central Wisconsin
 It may be that my sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others

Offline 4genlgr

  • Full Member x2
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Forcat 2000 VS Conventional Log skidder
« Reply #35 on: November 23, 2009, 09:01:09 pm »
i was going to suggest a 4wd compact tractor and a threepoint hitch winch then i read "logs to big   land to steep"
my 40hp JD 990 with a farmi winch can do quite a bit but most of the time i cut out the big logs in the woods take them out and come back for the rest   smaller trees come out full lenght, and the bucket is nice (multi purpose machine)
from the sounds a small skidder would fit your bill better with the ground yyou discribed  hunt around there should be a good used not abused one out there some where

Offline bill m

  • Senior Member x2
  • *****
  • Posts: 1261
  • Age: 59
  • Location: Stockbridge Ma.
  • Gender: Male
Re: Forcat 2000 VS Conventional Log skidder
« Reply #36 on: November 23, 2009, 09:07:37 pm »
 Good Feller
   Don't let everyone tell you that you can't make a living with a small machine. I am using a 55 hp. tractor with a grapple/winch on back and a metavic log trailer with loader and use less than 15 gal. of fuel a week. The pine on the job I did last winter averaged 800 ft. per tree and I did well enough last winter to take most of the summer off. I know this set up will not work on every site but on real steep and rocky ground it's hard to make good money with any size machine unless your getting the wood for almost nothing. Small machines do have their place in this business, you just have to decide what type of jobs you want to take on and size your equipment accordingly.
NH tc55da Metavic 4x4 trailer Stihl and Husky saws

Offline sjfarkas

  • Full Member x2
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Sonora, CA
  • Gender: Male
    • Sasha's Land Clearing
Re: Forcat 2000 VS Conventional Log skidder
« Reply #37 on: November 23, 2009, 10:13:33 pm »
I've never seen a skidsteer stuck that bad.  Generaly if one of those goes down then anything will go down. 
Always try it twice, the first time could've been a fluke.

Offline nas

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 879
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Gods Country, Milton Ontario
  • Gender: Male
  • Measure twice and cut aw DanG
    • Traditional forest products
Re: Forcat 2000 VS Conventional Log skidder
« Reply #38 on: November 24, 2009, 08:12:21 am »
The operator worked pretty hard at getting it that stuck :D

Nick
Better to sit in silence and have everyone think me a fool, than to open my mouth and remove all doubt - Napoleon.

Indecision is the key to flexibility.
2002 WM LT40HDG25
stihl 066
Husky 365
1 wife
6 Kids

Offline Warren

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 772
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Falmouth, KY.
  • Gender: Male
  • Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord.... Col. 3:23
Re: Forcat 2000 VS Conventional Log skidder
« Reply #39 on: November 25, 2009, 08:59:59 am »
I am with Ironwood.  If money is an issue, look for alternatives at a cheap price.  JJKane just had a utility company auction near where I work.  They had a Rayco stumper consigned.  Big machine, no attachmetn on the front, big hydraulic winch on the back.  All it needed to pull wood was to weld some type of arch above the winch.

They also had a smaller tracked Ditch Witch machine.  No winch on the back.  But more than enough hydraulic circuits to run a winch. Plus plenty of room in the rear for a winch and arch.  Already had a small blade in the front that would be useful for yarding and stacking.

Unfortunately, I was out of town the day of sale.  I know a good number of units went dirt cheap. Still trying to find out final selling prices on the track units...

-w-
LT40SHD42, Case 1845C, W&S Forklift, Baker Edger ...  And not near enough time in the day ...