Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11
    Platinum Member Henri88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    730
    Location
    Northern N.B.
    Tractor
    2008 JD 2305

    Default Re: MInimum engagement of driveline tubes?????

    Quote Originally Posted by sweettractors View Post
    I don't like extensions, as the wobble puts excessive wear on all bearings and seals in the entire drive system. May be ok for limited use, however, sooner or later they will catch up to you. Ken Sweet
    Well I guess time will tell, but I've been using this extension for 5 years now only for the tiller averaging maybe 4hrs per year. At 540 pto rpm I don't feel any vibration whatsoever. If there is one bearing or seal that I would worry about, it be the mid pto as that one has some vibration when using the blower and then again....

    Henri
    Henri

    How could you be told I was french?

    Rotary cutter 4' Howse , mid mount mower 54'' , f.e. loader 200CX , tiller RT1150 Frontier , cultivator PC1001 Frontier , middle buster PM1001 Frontier , JD 47'' front snowblower , pallet forks , 4' boxblade Agriease , grass-sweeper , quick hitch Speeco , trailer hitch , cab Jodale-Perry , trailer 16' galvanized Easy-Hauler ,

  2. #12
    Super Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    9,393
    Location
    somewhere usa
    Tractor
    Deere 110tlb, 4520, x749, L130

    Default Re: MInimum engagement of driveline tubes?????

    I asked this very question of a friend years ago who was an engineer/designer for Borg Warner. He told me a good rule of thumb was six times the shaft diameter, don't know if that applies only to the square shafts or the newer shafts designs. That was what he considered as a minimum, so if you have an application that extends the telescopic length that has to be add to it. It stands to reason that a larger diameter shaft would need more engagement than a small shaft imo but I don't know with certainty as I am not an engineer.

  3. #13
    Super Member greg_g's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,028
    Location
    Western Kentucky
    Tractor
    JD3720 Cab, 300X loader with 4-in-1 bucket

    Default Re: MInimum engagement of driveline tubes?????

    Quote Originally Posted by RickB View Post
    Couldn't agree more. Extensions also foul up the standardized dimensions between the end of the tractor PTO shaft and drawpin when using drawn implements rather than the more common (here) 3PT implements.
    No argument. But consider that the topic is about Pat's easy change and PTO extensions. With PEC in the equation, that assumes three point operation.

    //greg//
    USN (Ret)
    Former Chinese tractor owner (x4)
    Current John Deere owner

  4. #14
    Super Member RickB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Posts
    7,590
    Location
    Eastern NY
    Tractor
    Case 885, Ford 4000

    Default Re: MInimum engagement of driveline tubes?????

    Quote Originally Posted by greg_g View Post
    No argument. But consider that the topic is about Pat's easy change and PTO extensions. With PEC in the equation, that assumes three point operation.

    //greg//
    I got that. My comment was more about a consideration often overlooked when using extenders. The tendency may be to leave them on all the time. My tendancy is to avoid them because they are a Band-Aid that alters the intended geometry of hitch and driveline components. Even when used on mounted implements they have a negative effect on the front u-joint angle when the implement is raised when compared to a properly connected shaft. Shaft extenders are cheap, easy and almost never the best choice from a mechanical standpoint.
    Others are free to use them if they wish.
    Last edited by RickB; 05-09-2013 at 08:01 PM.
    We have too much gun control.
    What we need is more idiot control.

  5. #15
    Super Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    8,629
    Location
    VA
    Tractor
    JD2010, Kubota3450,2550, Mahindra 7520 w FEL w Skid Steer QC w/Tilt Tatch, & BH, BX1500

    Default Re: MInimum engagement of driveline tubes?????

    Quote Originally Posted by jenkinsph View Post
    I asked this very question of a friend years ago who was an engineer/designer for Borg Warner. He told me a good rule of thumb was six times the shaft diameter, don't know if that applies only to the square shafts or the newer shafts designs. That was what he considered as a minimum, so if you have an application that extends the telescopic length that has to be add to it. It stands to reason that a larger diameter shaft would need more engagement than a small shaft imo but I don't know with certainty as I am not an engineer.
    [Engagement] Length/Diameter ratio is an effective gage on resistance to cocking and binding. 6 is on the safe side, allowing tolerance for more slop before problems develop.
    larry
    This side of 40
    JD2010, Kubota L3450/FEL w SK QC, L2550 w FEL
    Mahindra 7520 [Pinky] /FEL w Skid Steer QC/w Tilt Tatch & BH, BX1500 [Mighty Mouse]
    IH37 Baler, CCM165 Drum Mower, JD Rake
    JD 127 bushog, Flail, SK Tilt Tatch , KK tiller, Rhino rear blade, Post driver, post auger, chipper, pallet fork, Grapple/Loader Buddy, Homemade Splitter/DC Welder

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. bx tubes
    By D902 BX PILOT in forum Kubota Owning/Operating
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-01-2010, 07:37 PM
  2. Tubes in tires
    By Kenneth in Texas in forum Kubota Owning/Operating
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-12-2010, 09:50 AM
  3. 20 years old inner tubes.
    By tvr383 in forum Owning/Operating
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-28-2009, 03:39 PM
  4. Tire Tubes
    By Bedlam in forum Tires
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-22-2007, 10:57 AM
  5. Minimum PTO hp
    By Ronster in forum Owning/Operating
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-26-2005, 10:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
© 2014 TractorByNet.com. TractorByNet is a registered trademark of IMC Digital Universe, Inc. Other trademarks on this page are the property of their respective owners.