Top and Tilt Regrets?

[slowrev]

Bill,
Do try it. If you don't like it you can give it to me, wouldn't want you to keep it around cluttering up your place if you did not like it /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[jinman]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I am thinking of using two tilt cylinders, operated by independent control valves, so I guess that would even be better...the thought being that when both 4" stroke cylinders are pulled fully in the 3PH will be at about the normal mid point...also plan on leaving the cylinders on the tractor all the time...
)</font>

Henro, I would strongly recommend you reconsider putting hydraulic cylinders on both sidelinks. Not only is it not needed, you will have another control to have to "mess with" when trying to get the adjustment right. I'd say go ahead and get three remote valves, but only one HTL and one HSL. IF you are not happy with only one, you can add the other later.

Remember, a small adjustement at the sidelink is multiplied a lot by the time it gets to the end of a blade. If the blade is tilted too much, you will tend to dig in and kink your lift arms due to the excessive stress. You just don't need a lot of movement in the sidelink to make your blade do "magic tricks." /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

...just my opinion.

 

[JerryG]

Henro,
If you are thinking about two tilt cylinder, who about running a dead line from the in-side of one cylinder to the out-side of the other. If you do it this way, the tilt center is always the same. Plus, you only need on valve for both.

 

[_RaT_]

I agree Jim. After having used double tilts on Industrial loaders for years, I'm sticking too a single tilt. There are a few times being able to tilt in the opposite direction has benefits, but having a single is bonus enough and the ability to have things in aligment are easier. The lower links can also be placed at such odd angles it raises fears of lower destruction.

 

[OkieG]

<font color="blue"> Remember, a small adjustement at the sidelink is multiplied a lot by the time it gets to the end of a blade.</font>

Right! I love hydraulics. But, since 99.9% of the time I want my implement level with the tractor, I opted not to install a hyd. side link (hsl) at all. I figured the rare instance (for me) that side tilt would be helpful is more than out-weighed by my desire for level. My feel is that with a hsl you will just be waving at level as you go past it either too high or too low. My tractor has 3 sets of OEM and non-OEM valves and cylinders. All suffer from drift down to some degree or another, so once I got my implement level, it would need tweaking before too long.

Anyway, I'm not trying to talk anyone out of anything. I've never had the pleasure of trying a hsl, so maybe I don't know what I'm missing. My comments are just conjecture. And if you're going to do it, doing the install along with the toplink makes sense. I am just a small voice saying that I could have installed a hsl, decided not to, and no regrets so far. Of course, I'm always looking for a reason to install more goodies. So, let me know if I'm off base.

Now the hyd toplink is another story. Unbelieveably good decision for my tractor.

OkieG

 

[Henro]

Jinman, Jerryg, RaT, and OkieG,

I am glad you picked up on the two-cylinder idea for tilt. I really do want feedback on this idea before I spring for the extra valve and cylinder.

I realize that the one cylinder can do a lot. But two four inch cylinders could do the same as one eight-inch cylinder on one side. And maybe not flex the system as much.

But more than that, I don't want to keep taking off and replacing my tilt cylinders. I have a backhoe and use it a lot. So if I have tilt, I want that to be there all the time, even though it would never be used with my backhoe. Guess I am lazy! /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Now the advantage of two cylinders with check valves somewhwere in the system, that would prevent drift, or at least really minimize it, is that if both were retracted the 3PH would be leveled wothout any need to measure or look at anything.

I think this would be an advatage with my backhoe, which is a Kubota unit and attaches to the 3PH.

So I am getting close to ordering what I need to make what I think I want happen. Please do your best to shoot holes in my logic, as putting my tail between my legs will be easier than crying about the money I spent buying parts that I don't need or want... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[Gary_in_Indiana]

<font color="blue"> "But two four inch cylinders could do the same as one eight-inch cylinder on one side. And maybe not flex the system as much." </font>

Bill,

How about combining that idea (which I happen to like) wiith Jerry G's idea about;

<font color="blue"> "running a dead line from the in-side of one cylinder to the out-side of the other. If you do it this way, the tilt center is always the same. Plus, you only need on valve for both."</font>

The combination of those two sound like they might be everything you want. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Be sure to let us know what you decide to do and include lots of pictures and a thorough description. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[jinman]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( How about combining that idea (which I happen to like) wiith Jerry G's idea )</font>

The only problem I have with linking two cylinders together is that the fluid passing between cylinders is trapped. How do you initially fill that area without getting trapped air? If there are leaks, how do you replenish the fluid? For that system, the trapped fluid is the "gotcha" in my opinion.

Two 4" cylinders... hmm... If it doesn't work well and you take one of the cylinders off, what do you have? You have a single HSL that only adjusts 4". If you use two 8" cylinders and it doesn't work out, at least you still can fall back to a single 8" cylinder and have the other as a spare or sell it on TBN. I'm thinking the possibility would make me go to 8" cylinders and just be careful not to overadjust. That way I always have a "fall-back" plan of action.

Those are just my thoughts. I understand Bill's reasons, but I keep thinking about keeping those cylinders attached while the backhoe is on and I keep getting lost in all the hoses and connections. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

 

[OkieG]

<font color="blue"> But two four inch cylinders could do the same as one eight-inch cylinder on one side. </font>
At first glance, your thought sounds somewhat plausible. But, the only way two 4s will equal an 8 re: total amount of tilt available, is if one 4" cylinder is fully extended and the other fully collapsed when the implement is level.

OkieG

 

[MadReferee]

Two tilt cylinders is expensive $$$ overkill in my opinion.

On the B-series the 3pt linkage geometry limits the tilt to about 3" in each direction. My TCC cylinder with its 5" stroke gives 2.5" of tilt. This is plenty of tilt (see this pic) and is more than enough to do anything that will ever come up on your property. If you need more tilt then you need a different machine!!

The real key though is to get the correct size tilt cylinder. A cylinder with a 4" stroke and a 10"-11" retracted length BEFORE adding the end forks would be ideal for the B-series. My experiments indicate that this would give pretty much an even tilt in both directions.

The TCC cylinder is generic and they only change ends for different tractors. Its retracted length is 4" too long for the B-series so I now have a situation where I had to lengthen the forks on the non cylinder side. This has the effect of making the max tilt in one direction less than the other with the limiting factor being the 3pt geometry. However, it is still plenty of tilt (see next pic).

Bottom line, based on my experience, is that a single, correctly sized tilt cylinder is the way to go. I can see no advantage to dual tilt cylinders. Adjusting the tilt cylinder to make the implement level takes 2 seconds and one lever.

Don't waste your money on a second cylinder. Spend it on beer instead.