You need balast or you will trash your front axle!!!! really?

[4570Man]

Interesting. ...but as soon as you move the forklift backwards, doesn't Newton's First law say you're much more likely to tip the fork truck off it's rear wheels (that is: the horizontal force required to move the raised load backwards has a torque effect about the front axle that is multiplied by this raised height?)

Yes, but you can simply tilt the mast backwards. I forklift has pretty a decent tilt back angle which also moves the load reward as it raises. My forklift still has 2600 pounds on the rear axle with the rated capacity on the forks. On flat ground it would be pretty unlikely the you could move backwards hard enough to tip. Now, the forklift will lift more than the rated capacity which would make this possible. You would be more likely to tip it if you were moving forward and hit the brakes.

 

[AxleHub]

S219 stated:

F is the load on the front loader
LF is the horizontal distance from the front loader's load to the rear axle
R is the load on the three point
LR is the horizontal distance from the three point's load to the rear axle


But that is exactly what I was saying in my post of 2 additional points (point 1). Glade 's calculation specified wheelbase as the front side from rear axle to front axle. And I indicated that the distance from where the front load was located was much further than just front axle. . . . All the way out to point of load. Thus requiring much more weight to effect the front axle down pressure to decrease. In other words the lever is less efficient than Glade stated.

Isn't s219's formula merely agreeing with my viewpoint ?

 

[GManBart]

No you can't. The only truly flat surface you can have is a point on a rounded object. Anything larger than a point will follow the surface of the 'ball' taking it's curved shape.

If you have a 'flat' surface at point X and another 'flat' surface at point Y, a 90 degree point at each location, projected upward, or downward, will not be parallel to each other so they are in effect not perfectly vertical. They will come together going down and spread apart the higher they go.

It's not possible to have a perfectly flat surface? A level or straight edge would prove you wrong. The underlying shape of the earth has nothing to do with it. Taken to the extreme you could cut a perfect sphere in half, and have the cut half be perfectly flat.

It's this kind of exaggerated, ridiculous discussion that ruins threads, wastes space, and does absolutely nothing constructive.

Ignore....

 

[murphy1244]

Talk about wasted space ..This whole thread could have been settled with less than 10 posts. No need to get feisty.

 

[gladehound]

Talk about wasted space ..This whole thread could have been settled with less than 10 posts. No need to get feisty.

I've been laughing my tail off as this comes back to the same things over and over again!

 

[gladehound]

S219 stated:

F is the load on the front loader
LF is the horizontal distance from the front loader's load to the rear axle
R is the load on the three point
LR is the horizontal distance from the three point's load to the rear axle


But that is exactly what I was saying in my post of 2 additional points (point 1). Glade 's calculation specified wheelbase as the front side from rear axle to front axle. And I indicated that the distance from where the front load was located was much further than just front axle. . . . All the way out to point of load. Thus requiring much more weight to effect the front axle down pressure to decrease. In other words the lever is less efficient than Glade stated.

Isn't s219's formula merely agreeing with my viewpoint ?

Others have explained both the math and the physics very well. I do not think I can add anything to clarify. My request to you is that you attempt to understand my posts (both in this thread and others) before making claims about what did not consider. You arn't bringing up any points that havn't already been discussed at length. I discused horizontal load distance from front axle in Post # 1

 

[ovrszd]

It's not possible to have a perfectly flat surface? A level or straight edge would prove you wrong. The underlying shape of the earth has nothing to do with it. Taken to the extreme you could cut a perfect sphere in half, and have the cut half be perfectly flat.

It's this kind of exaggerated, ridiculous discussion that ruins threads, wastes space, and does absolutely nothing constructive.

Ignore....

Whoa Skippy. Calm down, this is a relaxed discussion. No competition. It's all just casual debate. No conquering allowed.

 

[jenkinsph]

I've been laughing my tail off as this comes back to the same things over and over again!

Very entertaining thread as I mentioned many pages back.

 

[ovrszd]

Very entertaining thread as I mentioned many pages back.

And none confrontational so far!!!!

 

[4570Man]

Anyone care to calculate the load on this front axle? Don't forget to account for the mast being tilted behind the axel. The forklift weighs 11,800 pounds. Let's assume the load weighs 1500 pounds and is held 30 inches from the back of the fork.