Subsidy policies or the rules of subsidies are fundamental, but not everything. There are also other reasons for the prevalence of small chassis. For instance, as the number of tractors in use keeps increasing, the average workload per tractor is seriously insufficient. Tractors can only do a few days of work in a year. On the one hand, it is more cost-effective for users to purchase small chassis. On the other hand, with insufficient workload, the frequency of malfunctions is low, and users are less likely to notice major problems with the machines. There are still many tractors that are only used for transportation, sowing, rotary tillage and field management operations. They do not need to carry heavy loads themselves, so they have greater horsepower but do not have high requirements for the engine body and are less likely to have problems.
Although small-chassis tractors have their social rationality for existence, they still cannot cover up their "original sin" of embezzling and overusing state subsidy funds, because this distorted industrial chain conceals many things that cannot be exposed to the light. For instance, the subsidy funds and prices were inverted. There were even cases where dealers had to give cashback to users when they purchased the machines. If these were the only issues, it would only be . The greatest "evil" of small chassis is "bad money driving out good money", that is, the existence of a large number of small chassis tractors has driven a large number of standard chassis and heavy-duty chassis tractors out of the market. This makes it impossible for manufacturers who want to make good products to survive, so they have no choice but to "go along with the flow".
