Snow Push vs FEL for snow removal

[beenthere]

The side slip just limits what one can push with the blade at an angle. It would be too much limitation for the snow I normally have to move. I get some with the blade back on the frame. Wouldn't want any more.
But agree there is a place for a blade out front on a bucket, and those who want the convenience.

 

[Rob-D]

Hi Rob, Good question. Thanks for asking.

The side load that can be applied to the loader frame is limited by the lateral traction of the front wheels. Granted the leverage is greater, so the force required at the blade to slide the wheels sideways is less, but the maximum side force on the loader arms is limited by tire traction and remains the same. I suspect the traction of the tire with no load on a snow covered or wet surface would be far less than that of a tire weighted with a full bucket of dirt on dry pavement. Who hasn't scooped a bucket of dirt while turning slightly?

Thanks for your response,
Here's the problem, we don't know what the lateral force on the loader mounts is. Yes true, ideally we can talk about the difference on snow or ice for both systems but there are variables. What happens if the tires are in a slight ditch or something on the ground prevents their lateral exit while the tractor is being forced out of alignment with the front blade from the driving force of the rear tires?

Rob

 

[RoyJackson]

Thanks for your response,
Here's the problem, we don't know what the lateral force on the loader mounts is. Yes true, ideally we can talk about the difference on snow or ice for both systems but there are variables. What happens if the tires are in a slight ditch or something on the ground prevents their lateral exit while the tractor is being forced out of alignment with the front blade from the driving force of the rear tires?

Rob

It's a neat system, in some respects, and probably relatively low cost.
As long as it's used for light, dry snows (less the 6", for example), it'll probably work well and do no damage to the loader. If a guy has chains on his front tires (thus, increasing the traction), I could see how RobD's concerns could become a rather expensive reality.

 

[BXpanded]

Thanks for your response,
Here's the problem, we don't know what the lateral force on the loader mounts is. Yes true, ideally we can talk about the difference on snow or ice for both systems but there are variables. What happens if the tires are in a slight ditch or something on the ground prevents their lateral exit while the tractor is being forced out of alignment with the front blade from the driving force of the rear tires?

Rob

Rob, The loads are no more than can be encountered during normal operations with the FEL. I see from your profile you are an engineer. Look at the direction of forces when the loader bucket encounters a rock on one corner. The resultant forces are in exactly the same direction and no larger in magnitude than could be encountered from the side forces of the angled blade even if all traction differences were ignored.

Roy, I'm sorry, no disrespect intended, but you have no basis for your statement about 6" of light dry snow. Many TBN members use bucket mounted blades with good success and no damage to their machines.

 

[Rob-D]

Rob, The loads are no more than can be encountered during normal operations with the FEL. I see from your profile you are an engineer. Look at the direction of forces when the loader bucket encounters a rock on one corner. The resultant forces are in exactly the same direction and no larger in magnitude than could be encountered from the side forces of the angled blade even if all traction differences were ignored.

Thank you,

A bucket that encounters a rock places less force (torque) on the loader mounts than one 12" or 24" inches in front of it encountering the same rock, all other criteria being equal. F=MD (force = mass x distance)
So the arms do see greater force with the bucket in your configuration. That's my point about extending the plow in front of the loader which is already extended from the loader arms.
In my view the best configuration is with a QA mount and the blade replacing the bucket.

Rob

 

[RoyJackson]

Roy, I'm sorry, no disrespect intended, but you have no basis for your statement about 6" of light dry snow. Many TBN members use bucket mounted blades with good success and no damage to their machines.

Oh...no problem.
I'd just like to see some kind of trip mechanism for when one does hit an immovable obstruction.
I'm the kind of owner that sees the value of a low cost, easily mounted (and dismounted) blade which still leaves easy access to the bucket. With 150-170 feet of gravel drive, I don't want to spend the money on a high dollar Curtis or Western plow...not for my short drive. And, I'd be OK for a pinned angle, rather then hydraulics.
But with a heavy wet snow, those constant sideloads (assuming the blade is angled), could cause a problem, ultimately...unlike an occasional sudden shock (hitting a rock). My opinion, of course...and this would be applicable to any bucket or frame mounted blade (including the ones Deere sells).

 

[Rob-D]

Roy,
My point is that the closer to the loader mounting arms an attachment is the less lateral forces exist.
Switching the loarder bucket for a blade, in my view, is a better option. I do realize not all loaders are QA.

Rob

 

[yooper68]

Originally Posted by Rob-D  
You can definately do some 3PH damage going in reverse. It's made to pull not to push.

I have done a lot of pushing snow backwards with my back-blade. I do it at the beginning of the winter when the ground is still soft & then later for some of the 1-2" lighter snows. I've never had any trouble, but then I try not be be rough on my equipment.....

 

[Rob-D]

Originally Posted by Rob-D  
You can definately do some 3PH damage going in reverse. It's made to pull not to push.

I have done a lot of pushing snow backwards with my back-blade. I do it at the beginning of the winter when the ground is still soft & then later for some of the 1-2" lighter snows. I've never had any trouble, but then I try not be be rough on my equipment.....

I don't remember the threads but there have been guys who did do damage going in reverse. Maybe someone who has less senior moments than me might be able to point you in that direction.
Rob

 

[RoyJackson]

Roy,
My point is that the closer to the loader mounting arms an attachment is the less lateral forces exist.
Switching the loarder bucket for a blade, in my view, is a better option. I do realize not all loaders are QA.

Rob

I agree with you...extending out (as being attached to the bucket) would be a bigger "lever" therefore increasing mechanical advantage (or, in our case, "disadvantage").
But, for light duty work (6" of light dry snow), the ease of rigging the bucket blade would be worthwhile...at least for me. The operator would just have to use enough sense to know when that bucket mounted blade is not the right tool.