Tractor Sizing How Much Can A Sub Compact Tractor lift?

[AxleHub]

I also wanted the ability to safely load things into my truck bed. Thus the reason I sold it.

Chris

CDenny,

I'm a bit confused as to why you couldn't load things in your truck bed with a scut ? What was limiting ?

 

[CDennyRun]

CDenny,

I'm a bit confused as to why you couldn't load things in your truck bed with a scut ? What was limiting ?

I have a stock height Ford F-150 4x4, and with the front of the tractor a few inches from my bed, and the bucket fully dumped it would hit the inside of my fenderwell. Height and reach limitations was the problem. I could load my wife's Ford ranger no problem. Loading my father in-laws F-350 would be impossible.

The height to pin was 69.6" and height dumped was 49.4". The tractor was simply too small.

Edit: Just as a notation, the height of my truck bed is 56". I feel much more comfortable dumping a bucket full of dirt, now that my max height is 99" to the pin. I can actually mound the bed with whatever material needs to be transported.

 

[sd455dan]

I have a stock height Ford F-150 4x4, and with the front of the tractor a few inches from my bed, and the bucket fully dumped it would hit the inside of my fenderwell. Height and reach limitations was the problem. I could load my wife's Ford ranger no problem. Loading my father in-laws F-350 would be impossible.

The height to pin was 69.6" and height dumped was 49.4". The tractor was simply too small.

Edit: Just as a notation, the height of my truck bed is 56". I feel much more comfortable dumping a bucket full of dirt, now that my max height is 99" to the pin. I can actually mound the bed with whatever material needs to be transported.

Just a thought on the above post- a temporary loading area can be set up with dirt rock or other filler using a SCUTs loader .
from it's elevated position the job can still be accomplished....:thumbsup:

i really enjoy the equipment that i have now- but someday would like a SCUT also for working in the tight areas.

 

[TomSeller]

Ireally enjoy the equipment that i have now- but someday would like a SCUT also.

I recently bought a used B21. While not technically a SCUT, it is little for me. I really like this size tractor for around the house and can really see the value of a SCUT for even more maneuverability.

 

[CDennyRun]

Just a thought on the above post- a temporary loading area can be set up with dirt rock or other filler using a SCUTs loader .
from it's elevated position the job can still be accomplished....:thumbsup:

i really enjoy the equipment that i have now- but someday would like a SCUT also.

Not a bad idea. If loader height was the only setback, that would have helped a lot! Having only one place to load trucks would be a bummer, but would make things doable. Not that I'm loading trucks all day or anything. It was a general capacity problem that made me go with a CUT.

I had a temporary t-post fence for our horses, that I needed to move, and they stuck in the summer clay REALLY bad. I almost couldn't pull them out, without tipping. It was a chore. That was my tipping point. I think SCUTS are outstanding machines, and don't get the recognition they deserve. I just needed something bigger, plain and simple.

 

[gladehound]

I took a picture of the lift vs height graph in my manual and figured I share.

All loaders will have a similar curve, weather or not there is one in print somewhere.

View attachment 446427

Notice that at ground level, lift at the pins is in the 1200kg range (2640lbs) Which is over double its 1100lb rating to max height.

And the 500mm forward point (bucket edge) is in the 850kg range (1870lbs), again, alot more than its 850lb rating to full height.

To a height of about 1000mm (40" truck bed height) it looks to still be good to ~650kg(1430lbs) at 500mm bucket edge and ~800kg (1720lbs) Not hard to see why I can lift a 1200# pallet with clamp on forks to load in the bed of a truck, especially with my relief set 300psi over spec. And able to lift some pretty good logs just high enough to be out of the dirt to cut.

All this on a loader only rated for 850# at the bucket edge to max height.

Loader underrated? No. Just the geometry of the design and where the ratings are taken from. The MFG ratings IMO are probably pretty close. Just understand that it is able to lift alot more at lower heights.

This image shows the difference in angles from ground level to max height.
View attachment 446426

Since the formula for cylinders on an angle is the power of the cylinder times the sine of the angle

My cylinders are 1.77" diameter and factory spec is 2347psi each cylinder can push with 5775# of force, or 11,550# for the pair.

On an 20 degree cylinder to arm angle, only 0.342 (or 32.4%) of that is used for vertical force. That gives 3950# upward push at the cylinder mounts at ground level. (Loader cant actually lift that obviously, cause factors such as the dead weight of the bucket and frame, plus the leverage effect. Bucket is pretty far out in front of the cylinder pushing points.

At max height, the angle is closer to 5 degrees. Thats 0.087 (8.7%). So that 11,550# available translates into 1006# pushing vertically.

Those of you questioning the fact that as the loader goes higher, the movement becomes less vertical and more horizontal (travelling around the arc) and "should not" cause a reduction. THIS is your answer. The lift height vs capacity curve accounts for that. Notice that on the curve the lift capacity at the pin goes from ~1200kg down to 500kg. Thats a reduction of 58%. You have 58% less capacity at the top than at the bottom of the loaders range of travel.

All that was done though, while loosing 75% of its push from the cylinders.

So...loose 75% power out of the cylinders, only loose 58% of the lift capacity.

Any questions?

This is a great explanation of how reduced angle between lift cylinders and lift arms more than offsets any gain in lift force one might expect due to the vertical component of travel decreasing when a loader is high in its lift arc.

I just want to note for clarity, that not all loaders have this extreme difference between ground level lift and full height lift. And some like the MF GC1700 have so little difference between ground level (920 pounds) and full height (870 pounds) that owners may not experience being only able to lift a few feet. They more likely will be able to lift all the way up or not at all, because it has slightly different loader geometry than the example that you showed.

 

[paulfun9]

Just a thought on the above post- a temporary loading area can be set up with dirt rock or other filler using a SCUTs loader .
from it's elevated position the job can still be accomplished....:thumbsup:

i really enjoy the equipment that i have now- but someday would like a SCUT also.

So more work and time spent to get the job done and what happens when you don't have the luxury of being able to build a loading ramp?

One of the biggest reasons my small tractor hasn't left the garage in over a year is the limitations on lift height and weight.

 

[sd455dan]

So more work and time spent to get the job done and what happens when you don't have the luxury of being able to build a loading ramp?





Well it was just an idea for people who have (one) tractor, a SCUT, at least it may make it possible to do the loading mentioned.


as said I don't have a SCUT or even a CUT- both of my tractors are utility tractors and my skid steer is a construction style machine. just thought it was a possible way to do a job with the machines mentioned in the thread title.

i would still like to eventually own a small CUT or SCUT- but it would be an addition to my existing tractors






(One of the biggest reasons my small tractor hasn't left the garage in over a year is the limitations on lift height and weight.)

I think somebody may be new tractor shopping soon... or just selling the unused one?

 

[paulfun9]

I didn't think you intended it any other way. Problem for me is that for a few years my bigger machines were never close enough to my new property to actually bring them home when I needed to get work done so I pushed my little JD to its limits and beyond trying to get jobs done when I had time so I have built loading ramps and dug out ditches to load it. No matter what the task was I found a way to do it but it always took more time to get it done and time is something I was limited on for many years with my work. EVne dragging something across the yard that a SCUT cant lift turns into a bigger chore as you have to clean up and fix the tracks you made while dragging it.

Basically I was just pointing out that ones needs, need to be figured carefully as there are sometimes drawbacks to even the simple solutions that sometimes can not be overlooked.

 

[TomSeller]

I didn't think you intended it any other way. Problem for me is that for a few years my bigger machines were never close enough to my new property to actually bring them home when I needed to get work done so I pushed my little JD to its limits and beyond trying to get jobs done when I had time so I have built loading ramps and dug out ditches to load it. No matter what the task was I found a way to do it but it always took more time to get it done and time is something I was limited on for many years with my work. EVne dragging something across the yard that a SCUT cant lift turns into a bigger chore as you have to clean up and fix the tracks you made while dragging it.

Basically I was just pointing out that ones needs, need to be figured carefully as there are sometimes drawbacks to even the simple solutions that sometimes can not be overlooked.

Very good reminder. Maybe in some situations a purchase of a B series (staying with Kubota for the sake of the discussion) is more appropriate than a BX series. Either way, in my opinion, a small tractor is valuable to any land owner. I for years did without a small tractor until I bought my little used B21. That mighty mouse may be my most often employed tractor out of my fleet of 11 come year end.