Talk:Heavy equipment

message: Searched for the following terms:
'Yahoo!
*"Construction equipment" 
**6,430,000
*"Engineering vehicle" 
**20,200
*"Engineering vehicle" 
**41,800
Google
*"Construction equipment" 
**3,050,000
*"Engineering vehicle" 
**24,900
*"Engineering vehicle" 
**39,300
Websites: (from the top 8 leading global manufactureres)
* CAT: "construction and mining equipment"
* Komatsu: "construction and mining equipment, industrial machinery & vehicles"
* CNH Global: "construction equipment"
* Volvo Construction Equipment (the name says it all) "construction equipment"
* Deere & Company: "construction and forestry equipment" 
* Ingersoll-Rand: "industrial and construction equipment"
* Hitachi Construction Machinery: "construction machinery" 
* JCB: "construction and agricultural equipment"
WikiDon 02:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence

message: Are wheels and tires attachments? I think they are, based on the accounting practice of listing equipment and tires separately. When a piece of equipment is purchased the purchase price does not include the tires, these are priced separately as a consumable component. In asset accounting, the tires are again not listed as an asset as the equipment is. The tires are part of the maintenance and service of the equipment similar to hoses and belts.
The tires should be listed under the category of attachments in the same way as buckets, augers and cold planes are. The tire is chosen for a specific purpose on the job depending on terrain, haul distance and ground conditions. The selection of the tire to suit a particular task is similar to the selection of a tool or attachment for a particular task. 
A Wikipedia page dedicated to the selection of equipment tires and application to various project variables will prove to be valuable to project engineers and equipment managers in selecting to best tire for their application. 
I am adding tire back into the tool attachment list. A similar page dedicated to equipment/excavator buckets will also prove to be beneficial. Separate pages dedicated to loader buckets, excavator buckets, bobcat buckets, shovel buckets, backhoe buckets and dragline buckets is not practical. One page addressing buckets for all types of equipment should be possible as buckets share commonalities for application. For instance the teeth selected for buckets is universally the same for differing applications. For now the double listing of both excavator bucket and equipment bucket will remain. Granite07 02:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A TIRE is an OPTION, not an attachment, nobody calls a tire an attachment. And, every maker puts out a guide, Deere, Case, etc, etc.,,, Going to list them all? IP4240207xx 05:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attachments and tools 

message: Discussion of items in the Engineering vehicle#Types list
===Front shovel===
(Google search) looks like another name for excavator to me. So let's redirect front shovel to excavator. Done. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: looks like and is are two different thingsGranite07 (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, please put sourced (so it won't get speedy deleted by some WP hawk) info about the Front shovel in that page instead of the redirect. Thanks! --Roger Chrisman (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Is power shovel another name for front shovel? If yes, let's redirect front shovel to power shovel. Comments? --Roger Chrisman (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Power shovel, front shovel, steam shovel, are all names for Excavator, merge into one article. WikiDon (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking your are correct, but there is a huge difference between these specific types of excavator. Much like saying a NASCAR, dodge neon and corvette are all names for a racecar. It seems the front shovel is used more like a front loader while an excavator has multiple uses other than just loading out quarry material.  Steam shovel is a historical item no longer in use, unless someone knows of a new model containing a reactor. The Dragline excavator has not been mentioned here or the yarder, both of which could also be called excavators. The typical excavator e.g. CAT 345 would fit in the bucket of the typical power shovel. I doubt anyone would use a 345 for mining overburden removal in any serious manner. Just my opinion but I think do not merge. Granite07 (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Done. -- Roger Chrisman (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee Roger, adding a note to change something and then just changing it is just like changing it and not leaving a note in the first place. WikiDon (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to undo that edit, do and say why here. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I just want to scold you over procedure. :) WikiDon (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Be aware there are many different compactors and half a dozen applications. Not all are specifically represented on one page. Classification is by done by two methods 1)work type with reference to equipment 2)equipment type with reference to work application. An example is a page on asphalt may have a discussion on compactors used, e.g. breakdown and finish. While a page on compactors may discuss soil compactors, e.g. sheepsfoot and smooth drum. Classifying all compactors under a generic "compactor" is an oversimplification of the topic. The engineering, quality control and production planning involved in smoothing an asphalt roadway is complex. Granite07 (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just realized that I used the wrong terminology in the above comment. The reference to sheep's-foot roller should be pad-foot roller. Thought about it and realized the mistake is from reading this equipment page. This is a good example of why we must be accurate and precise with our terminology. The picture of the landfill compactor has pad-foot rollers not sheep’s foot rollers. This link describes the difference. http://www.vannattabros.com/iron7.html Granite07 (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types list 

message: (Google search) looks like another name for excavator to me. So let's redirect front shovel to excavator. Done. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: looks like and is are two different thingsGranite07 (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, please put sourced (so it won't get speedy deleted by some WP hawk) info about the Front shovel in that page instead of the redirect. Thanks! --Roger Chrisman (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Is power shovel another name for front shovel? If yes, let's redirect front shovel to power shovel. Comments? --Roger Chrisman (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Power shovel, front shovel, steam shovel, are all names for Excavator, merge into one article. WikiDon (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking your are correct, but there is a huge difference between these specific types of excavator. Much like saying a NASCAR, dodge neon and corvette are all names for a racecar. It seems the front shovel is used more like a front loader while an excavator has multiple uses other than just loading out quarry material.  Steam shovel is a historical item no longer in use, unless someone knows of a new model containing a reactor. The Dragline excavator has not been mentioned here or the yarder, both of which could also be called excavators. The typical excavator e.g. CAT 345 would fit in the bucket of the typical power shovel. I doubt anyone would use a 345 for mining overburden removal in any serious manner. Just my opinion but I think do not merge. Granite07 (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Front shovel

message: Air-track (machine) returned to Engineering_vehicle#Types list per this Engineering vehicle comment on my talk page (retitled for clarity by me) by User:Granite07. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Air-track (machine)

message: Compactor has its own page. I propose compactor in the types list link to that instead of to Soil compaction. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Roger Chrisman (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee Roger, adding a note to change something and then just changing it is just like changing it and not leaving a note in the first place. WikiDon (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to undo that edit, do and say why here. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I just want to scold you over procedure. :) WikiDon (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Be aware there are many different compactors and half a dozen applications. Not all are specifically represented on one page. Classification is by done by two methods 1)work type with reference to equipment 2)equipment type with reference to work application. An example is a page on asphalt may have a discussion on compactors used, e.g. breakdown and finish. While a page on compactors may discuss soil compactors, e.g. sheepsfoot and smooth drum. Classifying all compactors under a generic "compactor" is an oversimplification of the topic. The engineering, quality control and production planning involved in smoothing an asphalt roadway is complex. Granite07 (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just realized that I used the wrong terminology in the above comment. The reference to sheep's-foot roller should be pad-foot roller. Thought about it and realized the mistake is from reading this equipment page. This is a good example of why we must be accurate and precise with our terminology. The picture of the landfill compactor has pad-foot rollers not sheep’s foot rollers. This link describes the difference. http://www.vannattabros.com/iron7.html Granite07 (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Compactor

message: Granite07 has reverted my careful edits to Engineering vehicle#Types, first from an IP at Stanford University (171.66.40.26) and then logged in as Granite07, without explaining why my work needed reverting. I feel both were destructive inappropriate reverts. (This careful merge subsequently lost.) 
::I wrote most of the equipment operator page last year and can attest that it is outdated to the heavy equipment page and needs a through rewrite from someone who is an operator. I would not waste my time merging any content from that page.
I don't know how to proceed.  We need help. Granite07, please undo your revert. If something is not right, please fix it instead of whole sale revert. No one owns Wikipedia. Please help us all improve it. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Roger for allowing this opportunity to discuss your recent edits.  You are correct that explaining why work needs editing is important.  Please give the same courtesy to others when you edit.  I and many others have worked on this page for over a year and you arbitrarily deleted content with a noticeable lack of familiarity.  I am sorry to be so blunt but I am certain if you proceed in this way on other Wikipedia articles you will be meet with blanket reverts as well.  If you wish to edit syntax and add content then please do.  But please refrain from deleting content without proper discussion.  In the postings above there is no preliminary discussion prior to your major content edits. Once again if you have any questions about equipment or construction in general I am happy to discuss this with you.  Familiarize yourself with the topic a bit, it is not rigorous. Thank you, sorry for the blanket revert but... and I look forward to your future edits. 128.12.170.114 (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I'll add sections to this talk page to discuss specific editorial considerations and seek consensus. Any thoughts about Image suggestions, below? Thanks, --Roger Chrisman (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Please no destructive revert

message: ::;Example:
:::use Dump truck
:::not Dump Truck
:::(Lowercase second and subsequent words) --Roger Chrisman (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: You do not seem to fully appreciate the importance this book [CAT performance handbook] has within the construction industry. This is the book used as a text book in nearly every heavy equipment class taught. Most all equipment managers have one on their desk. You must understand this book might be produced by CAT but it is general to any equipment regardless of manufacturer. This is the de facto standard within the industry. If you spend much more time researching heavy equipment, you will quickly realize there are as many terms for equipment and ideas about equipment management as there are equipment operators. The CAT handbook provides an easily accessible standard. Personally, I do not care what brand of equipment I use and do not use CAT equip specifically unless the company owns it. The most important criteria for me is who is at the other end of the phone and how responsive is she to my needs. I only use the book for reference. Best advice I have is you do too, especially since I doubt very much you will be maintaining "different editorial goals and standards" in Wikipedia without this book. Maybe you should scope out the great selection of sourcable material available for heavy equipment and then see how much of that is not derived directly from the CAT handbook. Granite07 (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I can't read correctly anymore, which maybe true, the title of this section is "Images" [It was. So I have moved this here under "Common names" --Roger]. And all I said was maybe you might want to put in a gallery. So, what the heck? Been spending to much time in the shop with the doors closed and all the engines running? Try to keep discussions in there relevant sections and not jump on me about what I think of something else. Your credibility meter just went down, and this effects how I value your opinion on other topics. WikiDon (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, the comment is not for you so disregard. Sorry to disappoint you with my irrelevant ranting and arbitrary attacks. I am disappointed to hear my Wikipedia contribution net value is now lower as a result. The comment is directed at Roger’s image descriptions. Sorry for causing your confusion, I will use one less ':' next time. Granite07 (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I believe Granite07 was replying to my (Roger's) comment "Okay, added the thumbnail images..." above in #Images in which I explain why I did not use the CAT performance handbook names in the thumbnail image captions. This is indeed now about names of things. [So I've moved this part here from #Images.] --Roger Chrisman (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Common names

message: Proposal for content change:
*Adjust content to reflect this source http://www.constructionequipment.com/ in addition to CAT handbook.
*Several civil engineering researchers publish journal articles about equipment technology, these can be found on google scholar, using this source create section on GPS and equipment technology
Granite07 (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resources & Content 

message: There are about a half dozen entries in the big list to various kinds of dump trucks.  But, they are all redirectst to section headings in the dump truck article.  Dump truck#Standard dump truck, Dump truck#Semi trailer bottom dump truck, Dump truck#Truck and pup, Dump truck#Double and triple trailer bottom dump truck, Dump truck#Semi trailer end dump truck, Dump truck#Side dump truck.
This is, in my opinion, deeply, deeply broken.  
#If a topic is worthy of a wiki-link it is worthy of a whole article.
#This overly enthusiastic urge to merge is a serious disservice to reader for several reasons:
##It seriously erodes the utility of our watchlists.  When topics that can stand alone in small focussed articles readers can place those small focussed articles on their watchlists, and when their watchlist shows a change to that article, they can be confident it is a change they are interested.  But when mergists get their way, and their urge to merge is not restrained by cooler heads, this guarantees that they are going to get lots of bad hits on their watchlist due to edits related to topics they are totally uninterersted in.  I am interested in the big off-road ultra class dump trucks.  But I am not really interested in the road-capable dump trucks.  Why should I be forced to be advised of edits that concern trucks I am not interested in?
##The misplaced urge to merge erodes the value of the "what links here" button.
#The current version of the wikimedia software does not fully support wikilinks to subsection heading:
##The wikimedia software's bidirections wikilinks are very powerful.  They are much more powerful than the plain ordinary uni-directional links of the plain old world-wide-web.
##*Web-authors of plain old world-wide-web pages have no reliable way of telling how many other web pages link to them
##*Plain ordinary world-wide-web authors have no good way of knowing when links their pages point to are erased, or have been renamed.
##*Plain ordinary world-wide-web pages break if the links they point to are renamed, even by trivial spelling corrections in the URL.
##:With properly constructed wikilinks clicking on the "what links here" button instantly and reliably informs authors of how many other wiki articles link to the page.  If a page is deleted, it instantly shows up as a red-link.  If a properly constructed wikilink is renamed, the wikimedia's redirection mechanism makes sure the link continues to work.  -- But none of this is true to wikilinks to subsection headings within articles.  If the subsection heading is changed, even a minor change in spelling, punctuation, capitalization breaks the link -- silently, and without warning.  Authors have no way of knowing that a change to a subsection heading will break links.  They have no way of knowing that links point to that subsection heading.
There is a tradition of using links to subsection heading within the "Wikipedia:" name-space.  But, please, do not let this practice creep into article space.  Article space is more mutable than the "wikipedia:" name-space.  More people watch the policy documents in the "wikipedia" name space.  People will notice when the links to subsection headings break in wikipedia name space, but contributors are much less likely to notice when links to subsection heading break in article space.
I strongly urge the deprecation of this dangerous practice.  And I am going to repeat that if a topic is worthy of a wikilink it is worthy of a stand-alone article.  Geo Swan (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the above sounds like general WP policy discussion.  I'm trying to tease out what specifically you are advocating for the Engineering vehicle article, which is the topic of this page.  I don't see anything, so maybe you are arguing for a change to Dump truck--that it be split into multiple smaller articles?  If so it would seem that that discussion belongs on the talk page of that article.  Am I missing something?Ccrrccrr (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe dump truck should be split.  And, until dump truck is split, I believe this article should have just a single link to dump truck.  Geo Swan (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all of you, yes the multiple links to a single page are retarded and there should be multiple pages, who would like to write haul truck specific articles for each type. Specifically we are talking about haul trucks, not dump trucks. The page should remain as it is with the multiple links for this reason, if a field engineer new to the haul truck world looks here in Wikipedia for the differing configurations, a generic "dump truck" category is unfortunately not going to be very useful, same goes for anyone else looking up the topic. If we were discussing a topic better documented such as pokemon then I would agree with you, but we are working with the construction industry, a poorly documented industry with often tacit and implicit practices only learned through experience. Please maintain the multiple links as they are, unless you are aware of a haul truck met-category configuration not listed. Granite07 (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  deeply, deeply broken 

message: The article lead, as currently written, does not reflect the full content and scope of the article. In the lead, all emphasis is on heavy construction vehicles, however a broad variety of types of other heavy equipment is addressed in the article, as well. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article lead 

message: Title:
I think the title of this article should be changed to reflect that it is primarily about heavy construction equipment (or machinery), and not just heavy equipment.
Although the term "heavy equipment" is often used in relation to construction work, there are other types of "heavy equipment" that are not related to construction and which are not discussed.  This includes some agricultural equipment, military equipment and aerospace equipment (like the space shuttle transporter) as just a few examples.
Types:
Also under the "Types" heading there are references to equipment/machines that are not considered heavy equipment ... such as a "skid-steer loader" which is typically a small and relatively light weigh type of equipment.  
These types of light construction equipment should be removed, or if it is desired to retain a list of "standard equipment categorization" to then create a separate page (say "construction equipment types" with a link indicating that most types of heavy construction equipment are discussed there.
EagleRJO (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the "Heavy equipment" title and some of the "Types"? 

message: Such as the moving bridge spanning multiple lanes of a road that supports a vibrator/planer used to smooth down the concrete during a large continuous pour and the moving structure used to contain sandblasting activities while working on the roadbed.
Mccainre (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about adding the specialized equipment used in highway construction? 

message: I feel as if I’m too retarded to try and actually edit a Wikipedia article but this was just too retarded for me to let slip by. Come on. I can count. Dude says 5 and then lists 6 things. Come on man. I’m too retarded to properly edit this retarded shit but maybe someone can help a tard out and fix this retarded shit. Retarded 2600:1014:B042:440F:6CF6:B502:7D4C:80C9 (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does the introduction claim 5 equipment systems and then immediately list 6?