FEL bucket attachment

[schmism]

So i noticed that within the past "few" years most bucket design has gone from one were the bucket was mounted directly to the arm and the curl cylinder, to one that had "extra" linkage connected to the curl cylinder.

is there some mechanical advantage thats gained? or do they get away with useing a smaller curl cylinder this way?

what gives?

vs

 

[OrangeGuy]

The parallel linkage provides two advantages; 1) it gives the bucket cylinder more leverage for breakout work and backdragging, and 2) it eliminates the pinch point created when the bucket cylinder rod is attached directly to the bucket. With the bucket cylinder rod attached directly to the bucket, material (especially small stones) can spill over the bucket and "pinch" between the rod surface and the bucket causing damage to the rod which eventually damages the seals in the cylinder causing them to leak.

Generally economy built loaders use the direct connect while a high quality loader will use the parallel linkage.

I hope this answers your question.

OrangeGuy

 

[EquipmentJunkie]

Generally, the industry uses the term "4-bar linkage' to describe the additional linkage between the bucket and the loader arms.

Actually, 4-bar linkage works because it is non-parallel linkage. The distance from the dump cylinder to the pivot on the loader is greater than the distance from the top and bottom holes on the bucket. This yields two performance gains:
1. Greater breakout force
2. Additional rollback and dump for the bucket.

Like OrangeGuy said the end of the bucket cylinder is also further away from items which can cause harm to the cylinder rod and seals.

 

[N80]

I have a Kubota L4400, which is an economy model, and it does not have the 4-bar linkage and because of that the bucket does not roll back very far. With the loader arms in a low position the bucket is tilted forward and it is easy to spill stuff. To get the edges of the bucket level with the ground you have to lift the bucket above the hood line. That's no big deal unless you are on uneven ground which makes the tractor less stable.

I'm very fond of the L4400 but not being able to roll the bucket back a little further is a drawback.

 

[Soundguy]

So i noticed that within the past "few" years most bucket design has gone from one were the bucket was mounted directly to the arm and the curl cylinder, to one that had "extra" linkage connected to the curl cylinder.

If by 'few years'.. you mean about 50.. then yeah.. here is a pic of my 55 ford 660 with ford 722 1-arm loader...

Soundguy

 

[schmism]

not EXACTLY the same FEL design

 

[Soundguy]

Not the same fel design.. however.. since we were talking about the method of curling, that is.. direct bucket attachment.. or attached thru scissor bars.. well then.. As you can see.. back in the 50's the scissor bar setup was used.. so it's not like it was some 'new' idea in the last few years..

That's what i was trying to illustrate.

Soundguy

 

[N80]

Both of my B-I-L's Deeres have the 4 bar linkage and they are both from about the mid 1970's.

 

[Gig]

Generally, the industry uses the term "4-bar linkage' to describe the additional linkage between the bucket and the loader arms.

Actually, 4-bar linkage works because it is non-parallel linkage. The distance from the dump cylinder to the pivot on the loader is greater than the distance from the top and bottom holes on the bucket. This yields two performance gains:
1. Greater breakout force
2. Additional rollback and dump for the bucket.

Like OrangeGuy said the end of the bucket cylinder is also further away from items which can cause harm to the cylinder rod and seals.

The linkage only provides greater curl and dump. Breakout force is reduced because of the reduced lever arm from the bucket pivot point to the point where force is applied.

 

[JerryG]

The four-link design seems to have started in the compacts because of competition. At one time, all most all four-link loaders were industrial. Then the design went to larger Ag tractors. Now we have it on several compacts. If one company starts using a design that promotes sales, the rest will follow. I am sure that most have held off as long as possible, because it adds cost to the loader.