3-Point Hitch Fundamental 3-point hitch question

[la200o]

Hi Tractor guys,

Now that it's spring and we're all hooking up various implements, there've been quite a few posts about how to hook up a 3-point, the value of quick hitch systems, etc.

I've hooked up mowers (sickle bar and rotary), blades, etc. on my hitches over the years and now do use Pat's. It's great.

My question is, why in the world don't 3-points just come standard nowadays with some kind of built-in spring-loaded quick hitch hook system instead of the old rotating captive ball, which in fact certainly can be a pain in the neck to hook up, especially if you're all by yourself?

Must be some reason why what seems to be an obsolete system persists. What obvious thing am I missing?

Bill

 

[newbury]

Hi Tractor guys,

<snip> certainly can be a pain in the neck to hook up<snip>

Bill

For me it's more of a pain in the lower back.

 

[bruceatlam]

"What obvious thing am I missing?"


The cost of adding a better system ---- I think.

 

[shine]

The old style three point works for me. Its a two or three minute job. I would like to try out Pat's system to see just how much easyer it is.

 

[jesseb3@att.net]

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I was just looking into this myself. Seems to be a few more variants than the last time I looked. Was going to ask everyone if they had experience with any of these other than Pat's system, which looks to be the Cadillac, including the price tag.

My issue is where they position the implement. Some position it behind the lift arms, some position it above the arms. Sometimes I wish my implements would go lower, so I'm not wild about having them sitting on "top" of the arms.

All of these were found just by doing a search on Ebay for "Kubota", except for Pat's, which is easy to find on this site.

Getting back to Bill's original question... is there a downside to having these? Anyone ever take theirs off in order to use a particular implement?

Jesse

 

[JOHNTHOMAS]

I've had Pat's (30 day satisfaction or money back guarantee) for over 4 years and I also have a set from Ebay as pictured for other tractor. Guess that shows how much of a believer I am. The down side is they set implement back a few inches which can make upper arm to short. Did for me so went to TSC and got another longer upper arm under $30. Also makes the need for drive shaft to be able to extend a few more inches for implements with drive shafts which has been no problem for me. Some have expressed the increased power needed to lift an object a few inches further back but that has never been a problem for me.

 

[la200o]

OK. And so WHY DOESN'T SOMETHING LIKE THIS COME STANDARD ON NEW TRACTORS? Seems to me like the old hitch is obsolete. The added expense would be trivial, a few hundred bucks, maybe.

Bill

 

[MarkLeininger]

OK. And so WHY DOESN'T SOMETHING LIKE THIS COME STANDARD ON NEW TRACTORS? Seems to me like the old hitch is obsolete. The added expense would be trivial, a few hundred bucks, maybe.

Bill

If you made a list of all the things you could ask yourself this same question about (like backup lights, canopy, cup holder, bucket level indicator, etc), the cost of the tractor would probably go up about $1000 and then they wouldn't be competitive with brand X. I'm surprised more dealers don't push this kind of stuff as an add on. They'd make more money and customer would be happier. Hey, start your own tractor company, if you can build one at a good price with quick hitch and all the stuff I want, then I'll buy one from you.

 

[Harvest Moon]

Seriously though, how much more could it cost to cut a hook at the end of the arm instead of drill a hole? And weld a clip latch instead of a free swivel ball?

I think they are just afraid to take the leap, playing it safe with the old standard. Bet as soon as one manufacture does it and is successful, getting the old ball on new tractors will be an expensive after market option.

Everyone will be saying, it's about time, what took so long?

 

[SPYDERLK]

Hi Tractor guys,
I've hooked up mowers (sickle bar and rotary), blades, etc. on my hitches over the years and now do use Pat's. It's great.

My question is, why in the world don't 3-points just come standard nowadays with some kind of built-in spring-loaded quick hitch hook system instead of the old rotating captive ball, which in fact certainly can be a pain in the neck to hook up, especially if you're all by yourself?

Must be some reason why what seems to be an obsolete system persists. What obvious thing am I missing?
Bill

When you consider the full set of functions required at the joint and add in reliability under virtually uncontrolled conditions you see that there is no system as good as the ball and socket. All the QHs are harder on the tractor and sacrifice ruggedness and reliability for the convenience you get.

It is not necessarily a good idea. Altho a few avoid the problem by allowing the balls to work, on most you lose the articulation on one end of your lift arm. This causes more stress in sway and tilt, and especially when you need to run one arm at a different height to tilt the implement. Also, most of the quick attaches extend the implement further to the rear giving it more leverage on the tractor. The extension can be convenient or not, but is seriously bad with heavy implements that are anywhere near the tractors specd capacity.
larry

 

[kthompson]

I think Larry did a good job in his answer. One concern is there is so much equipment that has been built for so many years to work with the current set and the low clearance needed around the ball and end of the lift arm. To me the best way to make hooking up easy next time is to be sure and set it solid and level before unhooking. I do find the telescoping ends are a help at times.

 

[la200o]

When you consider the full set of functions required at the joint and add in reliability under virtually uncontrolled conditions you see that there is no system as good as the ball and socket. All the QHs are harder on the tractor and sacrifice ruggedness and reliability for the convenience you get.

It is not necessarily a good idea. Altho a few avoid the problem by allowing the balls to work, on most you lose the articulation on one end of your lift arm. This causes more stress in sway and tilt, and especially when you need to run one arm at a different height to tilt the implement. Also, most of the quick attaches extend the implement further to the rear giving it more leverage on the tractor. The extension can be convenient or not, but is seriously bad with heavy implements that are anywhere near the tractors specd capacity.
larry

This is a thoughtful answer, and I hadn't thought about the sway and tilt issue. But as far as the increased leverage is concerned, this could be negated if the hooks were built into the lift arm, not added to an existing ball hitch.

Bill

 

[SPYDERLK]

This is a thoughtful answer, and I hadn't thought about the sway and tilt issue. But as far as the increased leverage is concerned, this could be negated if the hooks were built into the lift arm, not added to an existing ball hitch.

Bill

That is true, and would be a welcome option. After that [neglecting tilt], the next issue would be to make them less bulkly and sleek enuf so that they would have universal back compatibility and total reliability. You run into interference and snagging issues in various uses. Its hard to foresee them all. There are times when the nice features provided by levers and springs end up biting you back when youre knee deep in something.

I have a set of Pats, whose I consider the best, but all the things hanging out from the main unit have snagged and bent or broken themselves or something else. A major inconvenience. -- When the lock release levers break, the spring goes with it and the locks retract. By the time I [my wife] broke the second one and came back dragging the implement sideways, I redesigned the spring attachment to connect directly to the lock. Next time Ill fix the other the same way.
Often, the alternatives become complex when you need full function.
larry

 

[SGStriglos]

Must be some reason why what seems to be an obsolete system persists. What obvious thing am I missing?

Bill

My guess is that there is a Lawyer involved in some way.

 

[JOHNTHOMAS]

I finally took a picture of my Pat's on my tractor for those that want to see the 2 types I own installed.

 

[RadarTech]

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I was just looking into this myself. Seems to be a few more variants than the last time I looked. Was going to ask everyone if they had experience with any of these other than Pat's system, which looks to be the Cadillac, including the price tag.

My issue is where they position the implement. Some position it behind the lift arms, some position it above the arms. Sometimes I wish my implements would go lower, so I'm not wild about having them sitting on "top" of the arms.

All of these were found just by doing a search on Ebay for "Kubota", except for Pat's, which is easy to find on this site.

Getting back to Bill's original question... is there a downside to having these? Anyone ever take theirs off in order to use a particular implement?

Jesse

Jesse,
I have the 3rd one from the left-- the quick hitch version..
I like it, but wonder if PAT's would be better..
on my set, the cost was $65 plus shipping..

they work pretty good-- the only problem I've seen is with my bent and mangled box blade... It is difficult to hook up depending on how I dropped the box off..

but still alot better than without....


Later,
J

 

[shine]

Kubota premier tractors-B2630 B3030 have telescoping lower link ends that slide out to hook up attachment then you back up to lock the lower link ends in place. It looks like a pretty good set up and it wouldnt lengthen the lower links. Is there any one that has used them that could make a comparison with Pats or any other system?

 

[JOHNTHOMAS]

Kubota premier tractors-B2630 B3030 have telescoping lower link ends that slide out to hook up attachment then you back up to lock the lower link ends in place. It looks like a pretty good set up and it wouldnt lengthen the lower links. Is there any one that has used them that could make a comparison with Pats or any other system?

As pictured above, I have Pats and the ebay cheapos. My L3240 had the extendable arms. They are handy but not really competeters. The QA/s have the open top instead of the round hole to wrangle over pins. With extendable arms you can get into position and then the arms will easily slide back and forth to line up holes but the height issue is still there. If the arm is to high or to low you still have to manipulate the implement to get it in the hole. Pat's or other with extendable arms is fantastic.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Kubota premier tractors-B2630 B3030 have telescoping lower link ends that slide out to hook up attachment then you back up to lock the lower link ends in place. It looks like a pretty good set up and it wouldnt lengthen the lower links. Is there any one that has used them that could make a comparison with Pats or any other system?

As pictured above, I have Pats and the ebay cheapos. My L3240 had the extendable arms. They are handy but not really competeters. The QA/s have the open top instead of the round hole to wrangle over pins. With extendable arms you can get into position and then the arms will easily slide back and forth to line up holes but the height issue is still there. If the arm is to high or to low you still have to manipulate the implement to get it in the hole. Pat's or other with extendable arms is fantastic.

If your only aim is easy hookup then the QH hooks win out, however extendable links offer what is needed to proceed with minimal difficulty without introducing any performance limitations. The pictures referred Post 15 above show the problem of unarticulated end links. Move the arms off center or off the setup spacing or to different respective heights and the slots dont line up whereas the balls would just swivel into line. There are certainly situations where the tractor is always used the same way and it is w/i the range the QH can be set up to match. Life remains good until you need the versatility to connect something significantly narrower or wider or to an off center or off level pull point. These instances will at minimum present inconvenient adjustments to the setup in order to accommodate. There will be cases where alternate setups are impossible. Wel-l-l... theres always the tractor without the QH. Life is good...
larry