You have a machine, a job to do, and a doubt about the tool.

Suitable

in your situation

Limit

in your case, and I say why

Alternative

if one point changes

The “8 t excavator” was a backhoe loader.

• The machine A backhoe loader.
  The request spoke of an 8 t excavator.
• The need Lifting pallets with the rear arm.
• Checked The actual machine, over the phone.
  Then the dimensions of the coupling on the arm for this model:
  45 mm pins, 345 mm pin centres, 170 mm inside width.
• Proposed 1.8 t forks on a two-pin mounting plate, to the dimensions taken.
  Subject to three photos:
  the arm, the coupling and the machine's plate.
• The outcome The client found a more attractive offer elsewhere.
  He has the study in hand to compare.

A hedge trimmer requested, a rotary mulcher proposed.

• The machine A 1.2 t mini-excavator.
• The need A hedge trimmer, according to the request.
  The real job is clearing brambles.
• Checked Three photos from the client:
  the end of the dipper arm, the machine's plate and the pump's plate.
  The coupler, with 25 mm studs and 85 mm centres.
  A stated flow of 18 l/min on the auxiliary line.
  Two manufacturers consulted, same answer:
  for a hedge trimmer, this flow is not enough.
• Proposed A rotary mulcher with a 50 cm cut, designed for this class of machine, with its mounting plate.
  It needs less flow than the machine delivers.
  The back pressure on the return remains to be confirmed, 10 bar at most.
• The outcome Study delivered.
  The client has the proposal in hand, and the decision is pending.

A crusher bucket for hard rock.

• The machine A 22 t excavator, on a quick coupler with 80 mm pins.
• The need Crushing hard rock on site, in blocks of about 300 mm, to produce 0/15.
• Checked The models whose carrier range covers 22 t.
  The mounting plate for the 80 mm pins.
  The drain line required by the manufacturer.
  The hourly output and the finest output size, requested in writing from each manufacturer consulted.
  Transport to the site, outside mainland France.
• Proposed A crusher bucket sized for the machine, with its mounting plate.
  As an option, a screening bucket to sort after crushing.
• The outcome The client chose the crusher alone.
  The offer is being finalised.

A sweeper, but not an attachment.

• The machine None in the request, which arrived without a word.
• The need Sweeping a road and a car park.
  It was by answering my questions that the client clarified his request:
  a ride-on electric sweeper.
• Checked What he is looking for is not an attachment.
  It is a complete, self-propelled machine.
• Proposed I told him so clearly.
  And I proposed what I know how to study:
  a mounted sweeper, if he has a machine to carry it.
• The outcome Written reply.
  Nothing is closed:
  if he has a machine, the study starts.

Wear parts, checked against the plate.

• The machine An agricultural tractor, with a stone crusher.
• The need Replacing the crusher's hammers, which are wear parts.
• Checked The crusher's data plate, for the exact model.
  The fixing bolts, M24 × 240 mm.
• Proposed The crusher manufacturer's hard-faced hammers, available, delivered on site.
• The outcome The client has read the study.
  He will take the matter up again in early 2027, at his own request.