Bucket capacity vs carrying height.

   / Bucket capacity vs carrying height. #1  

Reg

Elite Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
3,337
Here's something to consider.
Front end loader rule is to carry as low as possible, for stability.
Low enough to see OVER it not high enough to see UNDER it (-:

There is a problem with that, low buckets don't hold much.
Howeverrrrrr, there is a temptation;
If the pile is big enough you can drive in, roll back and lift to get a level and mounded bucket.
This is why we see SO MANY loaders with the bucket mounded high and carried high.

My opinion ?
Most compact tractor loaders need a lot more roll-back, say enough to get the cutting edge
level with the top edge when a foot off the ground.
Possible with current designs, it would take some intelligent repositioning of the bucket pivots,
mustn't lose out on dump angle - we need the bucket bottom vertical when loading
high into trucks, so can't just shift the range of travel from dump to roll-back.
 
   / Bucket capacity vs carrying height. #2  
I sure agree. I wish someone had mentioned that to the guys who designed mine: that's rolled all the way back.
 

Attachments

  • image-4264897753.jpg
    image-4264897753.jpg
    749.5 KB · Views: 216
   / Bucket capacity vs carrying height. #3  
I have to agree. I was going to scoop pond muck into my BX loader with a pail but it does not have enough rollback to hold much.

Wonder if a QA setup on the loader would give one a bit more.
 
   / Bucket capacity vs carrying height.
  • Thread Starter
#4  
I doubt it, it seems to be a generic problem.
My smallest tractor has the SSQA and that doesn't roll back far enough.

I have been trying to hack around with Autodesk Inventor Fusion to see what might work - roughly as I outlined above, need about 40 degrees more roll back while keeping all the dump travel.
Just need to move pivot points and to get more travel use longer cylinders.
Moving cylinder end closer to the pivot point increases travel but loses force and SOMETIMES you want all the curl/roll-back force you can get.

It gets ugly, longer stroke means longer cylinders, means they have to be set back farther... on and on.
Bell cranks ? Maybe, but I would need access to tools and skills I don't have.
I could get sucked into this as a "project" that has all the linkages to maintain the same dump/curl angle regardless of lift height - I've always wanted that anyway (-:
 
Last edited:
 
Top