3 pt fork set up

[arrow]

This is a picture of how I move logs to the splitter. This oak one weighs about 900Lbs and is as far as my fel would lift. I can easily get under a log like this with my front tine bar but I know with all the wigglin and wagglin the fel goes through moving to the splitter, this cannot be a good way to move this very spread out weight without the fel, front axle and tires getting beat up in some form or fashion. The question I have: does anyone use their 3 point forks such as pictured, to get under a log such as this or do the straightness or shape of the forks inhibit this manuerver. I carry them up in the air so I can buck them right at the splitter without the stem being on the ground.

 

[jeffinsgf]

Arrow,

I have a set of rear forks just for those times when I need to pick something up that my FEL struggles with. I split my wood and stack it in pallets where I have built frames on the sides. My FEL won't break one off the ground, so I know that it is well over a thousand pounds. The rear forks will pick it up just fine, and I have no problem with control while moving.

While a set of rear forks is somewhat functional in a normal 3 point hitch, the addition of a hydraulic top cylinder really makes a difference.

As someone else who brings trunks up to the barn to process them, I'll pass along that I cut the sections into 4' lengths in the field and have a grapple on my FEL. The 4' sections move through the woods easier than 6 or 8. I've been known to have the rear forks stacked full and the front grapple loaded, too, coming out of the woods. I cobbled together a saw buck and throw the 4 footers in the saw buck to cut them into 16" pieces. This is done from a comfortable stance and with a Husqvarna electric chainsaw (fast and quiet). I then split it and stack it into the pallet racks and don't have to touch the wood again until it is going into the stove.

 

[beenthere]

I almost could have written the same post as jeffinsgf. Do it about the same way, but buck logs to 90" length in woods (gives me 18" firewood lengths), move them to the shed using forks on FEL, but buck to 18" while stacked in log pile (faster) at the shed, then split and stack directly on pallets. Stack the pallets two high in rows, but move the pallets to the house after two years drying with forks on the 3 ph. Really a great, efficient way to make firewood.

Looks to me like the manure tines on the bucket work fairly well. Forks would be easier to get under a log though. A top thumb to drop over and hold the log is what I would like to add (thinking on it).

 

[arrow]

The observation that forks are easier to snake under a log is what I am looking for. I did not think as such as the ones I'm looking at are made of angle iron. With the ground frozen, the dropped edge wouldn't be able to dig under the log as the ground is like cement presently. Also, I did not have the success of flipping a log into the bucket until I bent the front edges of the tines. Before that, the logs just kept rolling off and was wondering if this happens with the straight forks as well.

 

[JB4310]

Also, I did not have the success of flipping a log into the bucket until I bent the front edges of the tines. Before that, the logs just kept rolling off and was wondering if this happens with the straight forks as well.

With the forks much longer than the tines, it shouldn't happen as easily or at all since you would be all the way under and beyond the diameter of the log.

Having a hydraulic top link would make for much easier picks, w/o HTL it would be harder, you'd have to have them rolled back a little which would make it tuff to get under log in some/most spots.

JB.

 

[jeffinsgf]

Arrow,

I think the presence or absence of a hydraulic top cylinder will be the difference in whether or not you can slip under a trunk. If you can angle the forks down, I'm pretty sure that even the most frozen ground will give to the pressure of your entire tractor moving against it. If the log tends to just roll along the ground, you could dismount (oh, the horror) and one easy roll with a peavey would have the trunk on the forks.

Take a look at the King Kutter 3 point forks. They're 2 x 4 tube instead of angle. I think they might hold up to moving those big trunks better, and might take the abuse of attempting to slip under a log better.

Both you guys must have your wood lots a bunch clearer than mine. If I tried to bring an 8' trunk out of the woods, I'd have to pick it up 5 times from getting knocked out.

 

[jeffinsgf]

JB,

That is a fine looking set of forks. Does that by any chance fit both 3 point and FEL?

 

[52wej]

You guys are correct about the benfits of a hydraulic top link and rear forks. It makes all of the difference to enable one to get under the log. Once the log is loaded, being able to angle the forks up just a bit keeps the log very stable. I find it also helps with the pallets of firewood. w jones

 

[JB4310]

JB,

That is a fine looking set of forks. Does that by any chance fit both 3 point and FEL?

Yup, they were originally bought with tractor for use on loader.
I modded them to attach to JD I-match 3pt QH. Made by Horst, JD sells them.

There use on 3 pt is what convinced me to do the 3rd scv and get the HTL.

JB.

 

[beenthere]

I did the same as JB4310, and for the same reason added the 3rd scv.
So quick to drop the ballast box and hook to the forks to move pallets of wood.

The thin forks are very helpful when sliding under a log or into a pallet.