Top and Tilt Float Option

[Aguanga]

I'm putting my plan together to add top and tilt hydraulics to my tractor. Mostly it'll be used with a box blade although I'd like to get a landscape rake as well. My intent was to use a joystick style valve so I could more easily perform two movements at once for finish grading on the move. However, I've been debating which cylinder to plumb the float spool to. I was thinking on the side (tilt) cylinder. This way if I wanted to easily smooth rolling terrain with the box (or rake), I could float the side to side while having a "nonaggressive" (nose up) attack angle on the blade. Essentially, I could float both the box up/down and the side to side. Does anyone have experience with how easily floating a side cylinder would actually follow the terrain? However, I may also eventually obtain a "bushhog" rear rotary mower and had read somewhere that using the float on the top link would help in this application and when making a connection to different implements. Has anyone else been down this road?

 

[jinman]

If you center your tilt adjustment and put your 3PH lever all the way down, the boxblade will float with no other adjustment for the most part because both lift arms float. I don't think you will gain that much with side-to-side float.

Most rotary cutters have some type of float adapter on the toplink, but if yours does not, I'd float the toplink. I'm not sure how well that would work in really rough ground where the cutter might cause the hydraulic cylinder to bottom out or extend to the end of the rod. I'd think that hammering would not be good for a cylinder's innards. Maybe an orifice would allow some fluid damping and keep the cylinder from slamming into its limits.

 

[bjcsc]

I think you'll run into far more situations where you would need to use the loader and the TNT than ones where the TNT needs to float. I would plumb it to my rear SCVs and leave my loader intact...

 

[jinman]

I think you'll run into far more situations where you would need to use the loader and the TNT than ones where the TNT needs to float. I would plumb it to my rear SCVs and leave my loader intact...

I'm not sure, but I believe he is thinking of adding an additional joystick valve to his tractor instead of rear SCVs. If he has remotes already and was considering using the FEL joystick for a TnT valve, I would sure agree with you that he would be better off leaving his FEL joystick intact.

 

[Aguanga]

Jinman's correct... I'm planning to add the valve in addition to the loader valve in order to operate the TNT independent of the loader (and without a diverter) - two joysticks = stock loader and another joystick for the TNT with float detent on the side link.

"If you center your tilt adjustment and put your 3PH lever all the way down, the boxblade will float with no other adjustment for the most part because both lift arms float. I don't think you will gain that much with side-to-side float."

I'm following you with the 3ph float, but both links will raise and lower the same amount on each side (unless you get off and manually adjust or use a tilt cylinder). What I'm curious about is if the side cylinder is put in a float situation, would it allow the box to follow the terrain easily (tilting side to side). In other words imagine if the box was connected to the draw bar (instead of 3ph) with some sort of modified trailer type tongue/ball/receiver and angled so that it would not bite in. Floating the 3PH and tilt cylinder would in theory enable the box be used to "backdrag" undulating terrain, right? This is a little hard to explain... has anyone else done this or maybe have a better explanation of what I'm saying?

 

[harwill]

Seems to me like the float plan would not work if you were using double piloted check valve cylinder(s) like the CCM since they require pressure to unlock. Just in case you were a quart low on things to worry about!

 

[jinman]

Harley, you are exactly right. The DPOCVs will not allow float. If he does not use DPOCVs on his cylinders, they will float all by themselves a certain amount. I sure would not sacrifice the rigidity of the cylinders to allow them to be float-able. While it sounds good in theory, it just does not work well in practice. It's better to have a float adapter on the rotary cutter and not try to float the lift arms either. I have a CCM toplink and a cylinder with no DPOCV on my tilt cylinder, so I get some flexing on that. If Aguanga wants to put an extra float function on a non-DPOCV tilt cylinder, it will work, but I don't think the benefit will be significant.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

I have top and tilt. I have float on both. I usually only use float on the side link. Yes the blade will move side to side a lot and if you are just trying to get a smooth finish it works much better than not using it. You cannot have dpocvs. If you have good valves, you do not need dpocvs. I do not wish to argue with anybody about this, it is what it is. I don't think that you will find any dpocvs on commercial 3 point hitches. Oh, yes my t"n"t rams move, about 1/8 - 3/16". All flex in the hose, if it was that critical for me, I would get better hose.

I'm thinking that if you are going to be using a loader joy stick type of valve, it may be of better quality than what the typical remote valves seem to be.
A few more things regarding dpocvs, the last time that I looked, John Deere, Kubota and Gearmore do not use them on their Top and tilt hydraulics. Now if some day I am able to get a smaller tractor and the remote valves are of poorer quality, then maybe I would get dpocvs, but most likely I would change the valves. I like having detents and float mode.

Just my take on things, I'm sure that others feel differently.

 

[harwill]

Interesting comments guys! I'm about to embark on the T & T project and was agonizing over whether to use piloted check valves or not. I assume the NH remote kits are good enough quality that the check valve is not necessary? And does double wire hose provide enough rigidity to overcome the cylinder 'bounce'? So if I don't go with the C&C cylinders, can anybody suggest an alternate?

 

[jinman]

Interesting comments guys! I'm about to embark on the T & T project and was agonizing over whether to use piloted check valves or not. I assume the NH remote kits are good enough quality that the check valve is not necessary? And does double wire hose provide enough rigidity to overcome the cylinder 'bounce'? So if I don't go with the C&C cylinders, can anybody suggest an alternate?

If you decide to not get your system from CCM, buy a 3" cylinder with the stroke you need and use the best and shortest 1/4" hoses you can find. The 3" diameter cylinder displaces more fluid for the same amount of movement compared to a 2" cylinder. That means the cylinder will move a lot less under load. I think our remote valves are just fine.

Having said all that, I don't know why anyone would go with a toplink other than CCM if they have them in stock. They are the best and if you buy their hose kit, all you have to do is put the hoses on the cylinder and hook it up. Save the experimentation for your sidelink.