Quick Hitches Where to buy cat I and cat ll quick hitch?

[MtnViewRanch]

The problem with virtually all QA schemes is the extension of the 3ph arms and consequent increase of implement leverage on the tractor. This affects handling and causes more stress on tractor parts. We had an 1100# flail on an L3450 rated for 2000 pounds. The implement was on a Pats QC system. My wife hit a moderate bump with the implement up and it crashed to the ground. The internal arm that drives the rocker shaft broke. The price of convenience?
larry

Larry, can you truly say that if the Pats QA was not on there, that it would not have broken anyway? Surely the added 3" in length does not get the implement out to max weight? What if you had had 2000lbs right at the pins and did the same thing? Would it have broken then? All things to ponder, I think that there might have been a flaw in the internal arm and it was going to break sometime anyway or by chance did your wife hit that moderate bump a little faster than she had thought.

I have no idea and for some of these reasons and for the fact that I just don't need one, I have no quick change for my 3pt.

 

[huskerfarmer]

John Day Company offers both the Speeco and Warrior(Jeffers) Quick Hitches. See your local implement dealer or contact them at Home

Speeco is 25-30% cheaper and import vs. the Warrior (USA made)-used by Deere, etc.

 

[huskerfarmer]

Most of the Landpride ones fit only Landpride equipment specs, if you are looking for the best quickhitch go with a Warrior(Jeffers) this is the first quickhitch designed and also the best Made In USA. Deere and Case use this as their hitch.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Larry, can you truly say that if the Pats QA was not on there, that it would not have broken anyway? Surely the added 3" in length does not get the implement out to max weight? What if you had had 2000lbs right at the pins and did the same thing? Would it have broken then? All things to ponder, I think that there might have been a flaw in the internal arm and it was going to break sometime anyway or by chance did your wife hit that moderate bump a little faster than she had thought.

I have no idea and for some of these reasons and for the fact that I just don't need one, I have no quick change for my 3pt.

Well of course you cant say that, but you can say for certain that the extension of 4 not 3" made the situation significantly worse. The normal fulcrum/lift point is 12" out on the arms and the eyes are at 28". Extending the "eyes" to 32" as QAs do is a 14% increase in leverage on the lift links. Everything adds up-QAs just exact their share of the safety factor.
larry

 

[milkman]

Well of course you cant say that, but you can say for certain that the extension of 4 not 3" made the situation significantly worse. The normal fulcrum/lift point is 12" out on the arms and the eyes are at 28". Extending the "eyes" to 32" as QAs do is a 14% increase in leverage on the lift links. Everything adds up-QAs just exact their share of the safety factor.
larry

My brother has an IH234, was carrying a 4' rotary mower, hit a bump and the mower bounced and broke his lift at the splines inside the top cover, he didn't have any kind of QH so I wouldn't blame it on that.

 

[SPYDERLK]

My brother has an IH234, was carrying a 4' rotary mower, hit a bump and the mower bounced and broke his lift at the splines inside the top cover, he didn't have any kind of QH so I wouldn't blame it on that.

Are you saying that since you can break em w/o a QH the added leverage exerted by a QH wouldnt have an effect on breaking em?....
larry

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Larry, do you think that the manufacturers have a safety factor figured in, or do they list exactly what the tractor will lift? Maybe purposely have a certain weak point? Seems like everything will break at some point. I suppose that we should figure in a safety factor of our own? Or just take it real easy when we are at or close to the machines limits. My feeling is that the tractor should hold up to what ever the published ratings may be.

In your case, did the extra 14% put your tractor at or over its limits? If not, then in my view, you had a faulty part, and you are right, with the extra length, the leverage is greater and that bump exceeded the capacity and you ended up with a broken part.

Like you said convenience at what cost? Just another reason to have the factory extendable lower links. Do you know where I can find some at a reasonable cost that can be welded on to my 3215 lower links? I hate not having them.

 

[milkman]

Are you saying that since you can break em w/o a QH the added leverage exerted by a QH wouldnt have an effect on breaking em?....
larry

It does in effect make the implement heavier, put an implement on that weighs a couple of hundred pounds more than the one you had on with the QH and redo the same scenerio without the QH and see if it breaks, then what are you going to blame for the failure. The lift will only withstand a certain shock load then it will break, the culprit that broke your lift was shock load.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Larry, do you think that the manufacturers have a safety factor figured in, or do they list exactly what the tractor will lift?

In your case, did the extra 14% put your tractor at or over its limits? If not, then in my view, you had a faulty part, and you are right, with the extra length, the leverage is greater and that bump exceeded the capacity and you ended up with a broken part.

Like you said convenience at what cost? Just another reason to have the factory extendable lower links. Do you know where I can find some at a reasonable cost that can be welded on to my 3215 lower links? I hate not having them.

I dont blame Kubota altho when I was fixing it I saw a mistake in original design/setup that added another 1% or so penalty. [I corrected the internal alignment problem with shims.] The failure was just due to an amalgam of exacerbating circumstances. The flail is heavy and sits more than 24" back to start - add 4" - add loader - add filled tires - add exuberant wife on a mission over a bump - add prior bumps under similar conditions. I was already being careful with the tractor, so laden, due to the way it felt, but I hadnt thot it thru fully and expressed it to my wife. It was a wonderful counterweight for loader work! Im pretty sure it wouldnt have failed w/o the extension. If we use it on that tractor again it will be on the std lift eyes.

I dont know that there is a realized market for extendable links on tractors of all varieties. People just dont realize they need them until they dont have them. Due to factory choices on Kubs it would require fundamental mods to employ extendable links - the tractor pivot mounts for the arms are too close together. The little tractors often nudge a factory toward these design choices. Maybe your 3215 has wider set pivots and you could adapt extendable ends from another tractor if Mahindra doesnt have them available.

I am looking at cutting off the Kub eyes and welding on Pats. That would allow almost zero extension. The 2nd order cost of permanent relatively massive unarticulated paraphernalia in place of the eyes makes me resist tho.
larry

 

[SPYDERLK]

It does in effect make the implement heavier, put an implement on that weighs a couple of hundred pounds more than the one you had on with the QH and redo the same scenerio without the QH and see if it breaks, then what are you going to blame for the failure. The lift will only withstand a certain shock load then it will break, the culprit that broke your lift was shock load.

Yes, it was shock load. The lift is able to take some amount. Put a QH on and it will take less shock before failure with a given suspended weight. I have never implied differently.

The point is that a QH, particularly a 2pt one, derates your tractors 3pt implement capability. This is a performance and safety cost -- in certain cases it will be an expensive monetary one as well.
larry