Loader Bobcat CT 235 Loader Lifting Capacity

[SSdoxie]

A couple things to keep in mind about the loader capacity specs are; the ratings are with correct rear ballast which is either 880# on 3 pt without loaded tires or loaded tires and 646# on 3 pt for the 200 models with 7TL loader. Personally I run loaded tires and about 750# on the rear. The specs listed in the operation manual are net load. Loader rated with a 60" bucket on the older style (Rhino) loader and 62" bucket on the Bobcat built loader and the spec at 20" in front of pivot pin is only 60# lower on the new loader. If you have ever compared the 2 loaders and buckets it is pretty easy to see that given the additional 2" width plus more steel in the bucket the Bobcat built will out weigh the Rhino bucket by at least 60#.
For those that may have bought your tractor before the new loader came out I have attached the loader capacity charts from the op manual I got with my tractor. It's the newer manual but I have the old loader.

 

[Fred Barbour]

My Ct235 is a 2009 model and corresponds with the Ser# stated on your spec sheet with the larger load capacities. My tractor came with a 68 inch bucket and the larger bucket for my purposes is just fine. I move mostly manure and sawdust ( we have horses). It has the Bob Tach and I will be looking for bale forks that are light.

I would be using the bale forks to take the squares off of a flat deck and moving them a short distance on flat ground into a shed for storage. I would be interested in hearing from someone who is using this type of tractor moving this type of bale (4x3x8 foot, 1,100 lbs approx) in this type of application.

Thanks in advance, Fred

 

[tcartwri]

Mine has the later loader as well. You have to remember that the center of mass for the bale is well out in front of the loader pins. Your capacity drops like a rock the farther out this is. You also have to subtract the weight of the bale spear or forks from the loader capacity. The skids I was trying to move were large and their center of mass was probably 30in out from the pins. It would not pick them up, and this is sitting static. I have moved alot of smaller loads with my ballast on, and you would be surprised how little weight you need to get the tires bouncing on irregular ground.

 

[SSdoxie]

When you take the bucket off and use the same pallet fork on either loader the capacity is almost identical, 12# difference, with the newer Bobcat loader having the higher capacity.
I handle 4X4 rounds of mixed grass, guessing they weigh about 600#, and handle them with ease without any wieght on 3 pt just loaded tires. I did need loaded tires because the first 2 times I picked them up with unloaded tires it seem tohandle them fine until I went feed the 3rd bale and forgot I was in 2wd. Picked the bale up and tractor wouldn't move, rear tires were spinning. I'm sure I could handle 4X5s but skeptical about 5X5s, putting extra weight on and out another foot.
Fred, I think the only weigh you might be able to handle these 3X4X8s is with light set of hay forks and spear the bale through the 3' side, keeping the mass as close to the loader pins as possible. Does the person you would begetting these from live close to you? and have a set of QA forks? Just wondering if you could take your tractor there and try lifting some first.

 

[IndyIan]

My Ct235 is a 2009 model and corresponds with the Ser# stated on your spec sheet with the larger load capacities. My tractor came with a 68 inch bucket and the larger bucket for my purposes is just fine. I move mostly manure and sawdust ( we have horses). It has the Bob Tach and I will be looking for bale forks that are light.

I would be using the bale forks to take the squares off of a flat deck and moving them a short distance on flat ground into a shed for storage. I would be interested in hearing from someone who is using this type of tractor moving this type of bale (4x3x8 foot, 1,100 lbs approx) in this type of application.

Thanks in advance, Fred

Maybe a trick of last resort but maybe an option if you really don't want to get a bigger tractor.
I was looking at the curl cylinders on my tractor and they are set up shaft side down, so on the up curl there is less piston area exposed than there is on the down curl motion.
If you flipped the cylinders you could get a stronger up curl, so you maybe able to just curl the bale even though you can't lift it with the loader arms?
You'd have to check if this is easily done, equal pin sizes, etc, and you probably have to get longer hyd hoses as now the the cylinders are farther away and now move with the bucket.

 

[LD1]

Maybe a trick of last resort but maybe an option if you really don't want to get a bigger tractor.
I was looking at the curl cylinders on my tractor and they are set up shaft side down, so on the up curl there is less piston area exposed than there is on the down curl motion.
If you flipped the cylinders you could get a stronger up curl, so you maybe able to just curl the bale even though you can't lift it with the loader arms?
You'd have to check if this is easily done, equal pin sizes, etc, and you probably have to get longer hyd hoses as now the the cylinders are farther away and now move with the bucket.

That is incorrect. Even if you flip the cylinders over, they STILL have to retract to curl the bucket, and thus STILL using the rod side of the pistion. So it dont matter what way the cylinder is oriented, it wont change a thing.

The only way to change it would be to put the cylinder UNDER the loader arm. That would make it extend to curl and give maximum power. But would require ALOT of fabbing. Some loaders were set up this way. There are also linkages, like commonly found on heavy industrial loaders and/or backhoe tractors that allow the bucket to curl when the cylinder is extended. But none of these is really a viable option for his tractor.

Easiest way would either be to slightly bump up the pressure, or go to a slightly larger diameter cylinder if they can be found in the right extended and retracted lengths. But either way, you are putting more stress on things that werent designed for it.

 

[lilranch2001]

But either way, you are putting more stress on things that werent designed for it.

This is the MOST important part of this post

:thumbsup:

 

[IndyIan]

That is incorrect. Even if you flip the cylinders over, they STILL have to retract to curl the bucket, and thus STILL using the rod side of the pistion. So it dont matter what way the cylinder is oriented, it wont change a thing.

Oops, I had to draw a picture of the two orientations as I couldn't get my pea brain to visualize what happens when you flip the cylinder... :confused2:
Good thing we have some folks that know what they are talking about eh!:laughing::thumbsup:

 

[powerscol]

As for upgrading the lift arm cylinders, had anyone done this to get a bit extra? I know this may lead to other problems, but has anyone done this.

 

[tcartwri]

As for upgrading the lift arm cylinders, had anyone done this to get a bit extra? I know this may lead to other problems, but has anyone done this.

You don't need to. The system has enough pressure in it to significantly increase the hydraulic force. It takes about two minutes to adjust.... not that I would know on my still warrantied 235....