Tractor Sizing How Much Can A Sub Compact Tractor lift?

[gladehound]

:mur::mur::mur::mur::mur::mur:

I understand how someone could get to this point by participating in this thread.

If anyone has real questions please ask. Someone on TBN can usually explain things. When people either play dumb, or act smarter than they are... this is the result. Let's try to keep the questions honest, and games to a minimum.

 

[AxleHub]

From the op's approach most scut's will be found lacking in reach when loading or unloading. Ie, there may be problems dumping into a PU box like I found with my B7100.

Greetings Egon

Recently I was dumping full buckets into a dump trailer that had extended wood sides on it . . so I was at max height. However my unit with a bucket filled with mud/wet dirt isn't even breathing hard compared to the load of concrete edgers I had on the fork lifts.

On the situatio above I was at maybe 6 feet 4 or 5 inches as I had to bring the bucket as a V and then get past the wood extensions to tip/dump.

I don't seem to notice any difference in lifting that concrete load weight in the 1 foot to 4 foot off the ground . . But I never tried going above 4 foot.

 

[AxleHub]

I understand how someone could get to this point by participating in this thread.

If anyone has real questions please ask. Someone on TBN can usually explain things. When people either play dumb, or act smarter than they are... this is the result. Let's try to keep the questions honest, and games to a minimum.

Glade, while I also think questions should be asked freely, I'm wondering who referees what is a "real question". A "real question" to a pure rookie might seem a ridiculous question to a veteran.

Also, it would be nice o see more scut tests of different brands and modelsfrom veterans and rookies alike.

 

[gladehound]

Axle,

In the quote below you state that you are intentionally asking naive questions and that you are doing this for others. You ask these questions as if they are your own. If you don't have these same naive questions, the way you ask them is deceitful because you mislead the reader to believe it is your question (which I don't believe because you have failed do demonstrate even a very basic understanding of the physics being discussed). If you do have these same questions, then what you wrote below is deceitful. If you could be up front and portray yourself honestly, you wouldn't frustrate so many of the good people on TBN.

You are either playing dumb, or acting smarter than you are.

Greetings Gman...

...Or maybe you think I ask naive questions or very "green" thinking . . . then conrats again because it is my exact purpose. I want everyone to participate but often readers are afraid to ask because they might be ridiculed. Or they aren't confident at this point to stand up to negative posts . . so sometimes I ask or state it for them....

AxleHub

 

[LD1]

I am all about helping someone out that truly does not understand. That's what this forum is all about. I'll go to great lengths to help someone gain knowledge and understanding about how things work, as evident by my doing just that many many times in the past.

However, this thread just seemed to take a different tune. It didn't feel like some were even making an attempt to understand. Rather wanting to rebutt ever minor thin I didn't explain or account for to the nth degree.

Can I explain why pi is 3.14........

Prolly not. But it is and accepted as fact.
Can I explain why my thumbnail is bigger than my I dex fingernail? No. But I can see that it is.

I can see first hand that my loader may lift something real heavy off the ground but only so high. If I remove some weight, it can go a bit higher. Remove some more weight, little higher yet.

I can see the same thing on my gauge. Lifting a full bucket of whatever might register 1500psi just off the ground. Maybe 1900psi at 4'. Maybe 2300 at max.

I can also see the same thing in my loader manual where they give a graph of lift height vs lift capacity.

Deere also publishes their capacities at two places, 59" and max height. The 59" spec being much higher.

Not to mention many many people on this forum saying they have experienced the same thing. Where they could loft something heavy, but not very high before they ran out of power.

So while I may not be able to explain the "why" to your satisfaction, does NOT mean that I am incorrect. It's a FACT that our loaders geometrg allows for more lifting power at lower heights.

The mfg rating at max height is a good for comparing tractors. But certainly don't tell the whole story. Ideally they should publish a capacity vs height graph. But how many average tractor shoppers aren't gonna have a clue what it even means. And heaven forbid if they say it can lift 1000# to 42" and you can only get it to 41".

 

[jenkinsph]

I completely understand that. I'm certainly surprised your unit would vary such a large amount between 3 foot height and 6 foot height . . 40 % of payload ??? Is that due to your tractor size?

How does that number compare to manufacturer's numbers?

I can pick the full pallets (3400lbs.) up a couple of inches just enough to move them. I can pick the pallets up with two layers removed (2300 lbs.) to full height which Is 10ft. IIRC Deere rates it for about 2780 lbs. to full height at the pins. My pallet forks weigh about 400 lbs. If I am close to the rated lift specs it has been my experience that I can handle the load with out any problems.

 

[sd455dan]

Glade, now that is a nice description.

Now if you could explain why so many care about maximum height weight. If I'm interested in picking up a heavy load and transporting it to another location . . Im going to transport at 1 foot or 2 foot or 3 feet above ground and then setting it in a truck or in a building or wherever. Nobody transfers a heavy load at max height . . They might pivot a few feet to dump at max height but thats it.

Yet evey brochure and most posters are always concerned about weight handling at a height they use the least.

no they don't transfer at full height - but Many people do take a loaded FEL bucket to say a dump truck that has sides near the max lift height and it is necessary to lift that high to load the dump bed...

Unloading and stacking large square and round hay bales is another reason to have lifting power rated at full lift.

These are jobs that Knowing a ballpark full load lift has helped me , I am sure others as well .

It also caused problems for the gentleman we bought our square hay bales from.

the last person he delivered to before we got ours told him-

( sure I can unload those bales and apparently Quoted a lift # of about 1350lbs..)

the hay shows up and low and behold he couldn't budge the bales ...

The hay seller had to leave the trailer at the guys house for 3 days until his neighbor could come over with his utility tractor and unload the bales...
So it cost the hay seller 3 days- loss of use of his trailer and an extra trip to retrieve his trailer.

There are other reasons to be concerned with lift at full height but these are two I have seen recently

Sure larger tractors can pick up and move more weight,

but the same reasoning for rating the full height lift is just as important for the SCUT and it's operator/ owner my :2cents:

 

[check]

Exactly my thinking. I can't speak for max load at max height via personal experience but I am lifting far more than advertised in the spec granted only 4ft or so off the ground with my BH on as counterweight.

Dragoneggs, did you ever measure how much you can lift with the FEL on your BX 25D?

 

[gladehound]

Sorry to belabor the discussion on loader geometry, but I was looking at some pictures of the MF GC1715 and found it interesting that when the loader is at ground level the lift cylinder looks to be lower in the front than towards the back of the tractor and the angle formed between the lift cylinder and the lift arms is more acute that it would if the loader were a foot off the ground. My LB1914 also had a slightly more acute angle between loader and lift cylinder at ground level than at 1 foot above ground level.

So what does this mean for actual lifting. It is very well possible that the max lift force that the loader can generate occurs slightly above ground level (~1-2ft above). However, the tangent of the arc at 1ft is more vertical and this could prevent the loader from having more lift at slightly above ground level than ground level. On the GC1715, the breakout is 920 pounds and full lift is 870 pounds (manf. specs at the pin). This indicates that the decrease in lift arm to lift cylinder angle is almost entirely offset by the increase in angle between the tangent of the arc and verticle. This is very unlike my lb1914 which had the cylinder mounted much lower on the loader frame toward the rear of the tractor. Because it mounted lower in the back and higher in the front, the breakout force was much higher to start with, but the angle between the cylinder and lift arms more rapidly decreases as the lift arms are raised. The results was ~1600 pounds of lift at pins at ground level but only 850 pounds at full height. (nearly a 50% loss in lift!)

My current tractor is in between the examples above. Because the forward part of the lift cylinder attaches a little lower on the lift arms (favorable for keeping the angle between the cylinder and lift arms large as the arms are raised) compared to the cylinders on the LB1914, it conserves a greater percentage of lift at full height (break out ~3800, full lift ~2800) compared to the lB1914 but does not conserve as much lift % as the GC1715.

Every loader is a little different. The geometry determines the lift curve and I have only touched on the geometric possibilities here. I could design a loader geometry that would lift more at the top than the bottom or have >10x the break out compared to full height lift, but that would be silly, because you could never move a max load through the bottom portion of travel to use max lift at the top. I imagine that the loader geometry for the GC1715 was chosen to maximize lift throughout the range of motion without overwhelming whatever front axle was chosen for that machine. The breakout could have been easily and dramatically increased simply by mounting the rear of the cylinder lower with minimal impact on other specifications - this leads me to believe it was intentionally designed to limit breakout to protect the front axle.

 

[AxleHub]

Axle,

In the quote below you state that you are intentionally asking naive questions and that you are doing this for others. You ask these questions as if they are your own. If you don't have these same naive questions, the way you ask them is deceitful because you mislead the reader to believe it is your question (which I don't believe because you have failed do demonstrate even a very basic understanding of the physics being discussed). If you do have these same questions, then what you wrote below is deceitful. If you could be up front and portray yourself honestly, you wouldn't frustrate so many of the good people on TBN.

You are either playing dumb, or acting smarter than you are.

Greetings Glade,

Thank you for your recent response.

In that response you stated : " You (Axle) are either playing dumb, or acting smarter than you are. "

So you claim either I'm smarter than I act or dumber than I think I am ??
Wouldn't that be a very large percentage of the population Glade ?

Anyway, as a brief history:

I had written to another poster

"Now if you sense this thread is about scut capabilities . . then congrats . . because thats exactly how its titled.
Or maybe you think I ask naive questions or very "green" thinking . . . then conrats again because it is my exact purpose. I want everyone to participate but often readers are afraid to ask because they might be ridiculed. Or they aren't confident at this point to stand up to negative posts . . so sometimes I ask or state it for them.
Why do I do that? Because there is knowledge needed. Sometimes on threads you'll even notice I encourage posters to stand their ground because someone might be trying to dominate."


And you responded that people should post "real questions" and not anything else . . and I responded people should feel free to post questions on my thread on scuts, but I was concerned what defined only "real questions" or worthy questions and that being a referee to determine a question's value would not be appropriate.


And then of course you responded with the post highlighted at the top.

Glade, the reason I'm thanking you for that post . . is your example spoke volumes about what I was talking about. Your response was both mean and an attempt to control others. You want to not only determine the quality or need for posts but accuse.

And that is exactly what I had written is why many readers don't feel comforyable posting . . because a few try to intimidate or control or confront in unkind methods.
That's what bullies do . . and we already have too many people in this country with something to offer or contribute . . that stay silent because of it. Neither you or I have the power or ability to try to bad mouth or determine things for others.

I don't know why people email me as much as they do . . but they often have good questions that might be not valuable to you . . but may have value to many others . . but they are intimidaed they will be attacked or ridiculed by posts like the one you sent to me.

If being called "deceitful" is the cost of letting their voices be heard . . then I guess its a cost I'll bare whether its deserved or not by your standards.

After all . . nobody is forcing you to hear their questions . . are they?

The day I forget to be open minded and encouraging of others and humble . . you can be justified in lambasting me . . until then . . you're on your own

I'm not here to argue . . but I'm certainly determined to defend readers' right to be heard whether I agree with it or not, or to defend my opinions and viewpoints.

P.S. Glade wrote: "If you could be up front and portray yourself honestly, you wouldn't frustrate so many of the good people on TBN."

Exactly how many is "so many" . . and how are they communicating it to you?