Valve that detents only one direction

[RickB]

Yea, that makes sense.

Maybe I could make something like that work.

But that would require another two sets, both male and female couplers.

What you propose leaves the backhoe aux circuit in tack and adds a remote.

Wasn't really wanting that..was wanting to use the existing backhoe couplers and minimize cost.

Would also require sufficient presence of mind to loop the circuit when detaching the hoe.
A simple manual valve with one set of couplers as discussed above would be the simplest, least expensive solution that I can come up with.

 

[LD1]

Would also require sufficient presence of mind to loop the circuit when detaching the hoe.
A simple manual valve with one set of couplers as discussed above would be the simplest, least expensive solution that I can come up with.

Yes....looping the circuit, no different than they are doing right now.

I am liking the idea of a simple cheap valve, with some sort of manual locking device to keep it on when the backhoe is attached.

~$100 for a valve, ~$150 for a toplink cylinder....and maybe $100 worth of hoses and fittings. Would only need a Tank hose, two going from the work ports to existing couplings, and two going to the cylinder.

Would reuse the male quick disconnects that are currently being used on the loop hose. Saves trying to figure out what series of quick coupler they are.

 

[Michael In Tennessee]

Yea, that makes sense.

Maybe I could make something like that work.

But that would require another two sets, both male and female couplers.

What you propose leaves the backhoe aux circuit in tack and adds a remote.

Wasn't really wanting that..was wanting to use the existing backhoe couplers and minimize cost.

You don't need extra couplers. Just an extra hose or two.

You just put the valve in the Backhoe loop before the backhoe. If not in use, the backhoe works normally. You remove the QD from the existing BH supply line and hook that hose to the new valve "P" port. (You will likely need to extend that line). You then use the new valve "PB" port to power the backhoe. Maybe you have enough slack to just put the old OD directly on the new valve or maybe you need a short length of hose, but it doesn't matter.

I would not run the backhoe through the work port of the new valve. Its just not necessary. Also, I'd use a 3 spool valve. Maybe a two spool valve if you have to cheap out. A one spool valve just whets one's appetite for more functions.

 

[LD1]

You don't need extra couplers. Just an extra hose or two.

You just put the valve in the Backhoe loop before the backhoe. If not in use, the backhoe works normally. You remove the QD from the existing BH supply line and hook that hose to the new valve "P" port. (You will likely need to extend that line). You then use the new valve "PB" port to power the backhoe. Maybe you have enough slack to just put the old OD directly on the new valve or maybe you need a short length of hose, but it doesn't matter.

I would not run the backhoe through the work port of the new valve. Its just not necessary. Also, I'd use a 3 spool valve. Maybe a two spool valve if you have to cheap out. A one spool valve just whets one's appetite for more functions.

The extra couplers would need to be on the end of the work ports for new valve to power the toplink cylinder

So flow would go loader valve > new valve(with existing hose) > Backhoe QD (new short hose)>through the backhoe valve or loop hose if backhoe is off> then back though the other QD to feed 3PH.

Thats easy. Nothing changes thus far.....basisically "inserting" the valve before the backhoe loop.

I think what you are forgeting is the work ports of this "new" valve that will have a couple short hoses that go to female QD's. Then a couple more short hoses and male QD's for the toplink cylinder

Thus....if hoses are long enough currently (and I think they would be)....to go your route would require 5 new hoses. And 2 sets of QD's.

But none of that matters. Im ruling out an electric valve (like a 3rd function valve) for back there and having to buy new couplings.

If its gonna happen at all....its gonna be a simple plane-jane (cheap) valve with PB. With a way to manually lock the valve.

 

[Michael In Tennessee]

The extra couplers would need to be on the end of the work ports for new valve to power the toplink cylinder

So flow would go loader valve > new valve(with existing hose) > Backhoe QD (new short hose)>through the backhoe valve or loop hose if backhoe is off> then back though the other QD to feed 3PH.

Thats easy. Nothing changes thus far.....basisically "inserting" the valve before the backhoe loop.

I think what you are forgeting is the work ports of this "new" valve that will have a couple short hoses that go to female QD's. Then a couple more short hoses and male QD's for the toplink cylinder

Thus....if hoses are long enough currently (and I think they would be)....to go your route would require 5 new hoses. And 2 sets of QD's.

But none of that matters. Im ruling out an electric valve (like a 3rd function valve) for back there and having to buy new couplings.

If its gonna happen at all....its gonna be a simple plane-jane (cheap) valve with PB. With a way to manually lock the valve.

You already know, excluding the cost issue that my proposed solution is correct. Its how everyone does it and, if I recall correctly, you have given exactly that advise to others. You didn't say what tractor, but if it like your and my MX tractors, its a ISO 7241 B QD for the backhoe loop. One set of those in 1/2" will set you back $75 for the halves on the top cylinder and you would re-use the ones for the BH.

Doing it the correct way:

3/8 ag QDs are $20/set or $40 for all you need for the top link. The backhoe QDs are re-used for the backhoe.

If you mount your valve right, you only need two hoses for the top cylinder. Just mount your ODs directly using NPT nipples (or whatever nipples you need). Then you need just one pair of about 3 ft 3/8 hoses to get to the top cylinder. Surplus center sells NPT/NPT 3/8 hoses for $10 each.

In fact, if the top cylinder can stay installed with the backhoe attached, you can just skip the QDs and directly plumb the top cylinder.

You would need probably one 1/2" line to extend the fixed end of the backhoe loop to the new valve. That is another $12.

There are a few fitting and such required too. But the cost of the system is low. The spool valve costs the same either way, so the increase is just a couple of hoses and fittings.

If you are doing this for hire, you have wasted more labor time "optimizing" this design than it is worth. If not, of course, labor is moot.

We haven't discussed the tank line, but its moot as it doesn't change regardless of your choice of system.

A single spool 10 GPM valve is $80 at Surplus center, a two spool is $120. Would it be money well spent to provide a second spool?

Ask your customer if he is willing to spend a tad more for a better system.

 

[RickB]

Any system that functions properly without damaging components is correct so far as I am concerned.
There is no one "correct" way to configure a backhoe and remote valve installation. The key is to avoid the incorrect ways.

 

[LD1]

You already know, excluding the cost issue that my proposed solution is correct. Its how everyone does it and, if I recall correctly, you have given exactly that advise to others. You didn't say what tractor, but if it like your and my MX tractors, its a ISO 7241 B QD for the backhoe loop. One set of those in 1/2" will set you back $75 for the halves on the top cylinder and you would re-use the ones for the BH.

Doing it the correct way:

3/8 ag QDs are $20/set or $40 for all you need for the top link. The backhoe QDs are re-used for the backhoe.

If you mount your valve right, you only need two hoses for the top cylinder. Just mount your ODs directly using NPT nipples (or whatever nipples you need). Then you need just one pair of about 3 ft 3/8 hoses to get to the top cylinder. Surplus center sells NPT/NPT 3/8 hoses for $10 each.

In fact, if the top cylinder can stay installed with the backhoe attached, you can just skip the QDs and directly plumb the top cylinder.

You would need probably one 1/2" line to extend the fixed end of the backhoe loop to the new valve. That is another $12.

There are a few fitting and such required too. But the cost of the system is low. The spool valve costs the same either way, so the increase is just a couple of hoses and fittings.

If you are doing this for hire, you have wasted more labor time "optimizing" this design than it is worth. If not, of course, labor is moot.

We haven't discussed the tank line, but its moot as it doesn't change regardless of your choice of system.

A single spool 10 GPM valve is $80 at Surplus center, a two spool is $120. Would it be money well spent to provide a second spool?

Ask your customer if he is willing to spend a tad more for a better system.

Not sure what you are trying to say?

I am not sure Id agree with that assessment.

Not sure why I get the feeling your post is a bit condescending and argumentative?

WHat makes you think your system is "correct" and none of the other options are? You say that an electric valve is the way "everybody" does it.......and that I have given that advise to others"???

I dont know anyone who has used an electric valve with NO PB for a rear remote. And have certainly never advised anyone else to do that. So not sure where you are coming from?

You put me in the mind of one of them persistent salesmen that just cannot take no for an answer. Quit trying to sell me on an electric valve. Not doing it. They are expensive (~$200 for valve and backplate). Bout double what a manual valve is. Not sure where you are seeing $80....but that dont matter

There is no where to mount it convenient that I could have couplers DIRECTLY attached....so yes it would be FIVE hoses.

And havent even talked about a the cost of a joystick with buttons....or worse... hicking up a switch.

Not to mentioned the added complexity of electric/wiring. I want simple, robust, and problem free for idiot users.

Bottom line is (someone else suggested a solenoid valve, not you) and I gave my reasons for not wanting. Yet you are still trying (I have no idea why) to sell me on something I dont want.....you started by saying I only need a couple extra hoses. But as it turns out, its 5 extra hoses, 2 sets of Q'ds, a joystick with buttons, and some wiring.

 

[Michael In Tennessee]

First of all, let me apologize for the tone of my post. Sometimes what we wish to convey in words comes out less well than we would like. I was not trying to be condescending nor argumentative.

Your write-up on your own MX5100 rear remote installation, I feel, is the gold standard on adding rear remotes on Kubotas and was my example when I did my rear remotes (though I have a backhoe). I am curious though, why you don't use that type of system for this particular installation?

No where have I suggested an electric valve. I agree with you that electric is a non-starter.

I was (in an apparently failed attempt) just trying to point out that there is really no need to run the backhoe through the rear remote work ports. It doesn't result in much of a discount, if any, in cost to do that. Just adding the rear remote valve in series with the backhoe loop preserves the existing plumbing for the most part. The only thing that need be run through the rear remote valve is the top link.

Again, if my tone was in anyway imprudent, I apologize.

 

[LD1]

First of all, let me apologize for the tone of my post. Sometimes what we wish to convey in words comes out less well than we would like. I was not trying to be condescending nor argumentative.

Your write-up on your own MX5100 rear remote installation, I feel, is the gold standard on adding rear remotes on Kubotas and was my example when I did my rear remotes (though I have a backhoe). I am curious though, why you don't use that type of system for this particular installation?

No where have I suggested an electric valve. I agree with you that electric is a non-starter.

I was (in an apparently failed attempt) just trying to point out that there is really no need to run the backhoe through the rear remote work ports. It doesn't result in much of a discount, if any, in cost to do that. Just adding the rear remote valve in series with the backhoe loop preserves the existing plumbing for the most part. The only thing that need be run through the rear remote valve is the top link.

Again, if my tone was in anyway imprudent, I apologize.

K5lwq is the one that suggested an electric valve.

It was my reply to him about not wanting to add an extra set of couplers in which you had quoted. So I was under the impression that you were going with his suggestion to add the electric valve.

Further when you stated just putting the female couplers right on the valve to save a few hoses...I was further under the impression you were talking about electric. Because locating a valve that is ergonomically comfortable to actuate, yet still easy to get to for hooking up the QD's seems an impossible proposition with a manual valve.

This tractor is 8 years old. IT is owned by a landscaping company with ~15 employees in which I am friends with the owner. The ONLY attachments that are used on a regular basis are a tiller, box blade, and a backhoe. With once-twice a year being a sickle mower for mowing under solar panels.

That said, the ONLY use for a remote is a toplink with the box blade. And want it to be as idiot proof as possible.

The owner asked me if there was any way to do a toplink. His thinking was it would be easy since the backhoe hydraulics were already established. overlooking the fact that a valve still needed to be added.

There are already TWO couplers back there for the backhoe. I would really rather NOT add another two (again...idiot proof). And would use the two hoses ALREADY going to those couplers for the P and PB ports of the new valve. Only having to add a T hose Tee'd in and two hoses connecting the work ports back to the existing couplings.

My though was to have a SINGLE detent valve, again to make it idiot proof so they dont try and feed the backhoe backwards. But after the feedback here....I like the idea of a regular ole valve with a mechanical way to keep it activated so as to not bump a lever in detent and toast a pump....again, idiot proofing it.

The whole idea of running the backhoe through the rear remotes....is to save having to buy another set (since the backhoe ones are already there) and again....to idiot proof it so they dont try to hook the TL cylinder to the backhoe ports or vice versa. One set of couplers...of different sizes as they are now....eliminates any other way to possible hook anything up.

So, I hope that explains why I am not doing a setup like mine....or adding multiple sets of remotes. The owner of said landscape company has said, its not a huge deal to get off and adjust toplink...but thought if it wasnt super expensive....it would be nice to have a hydraulic toplink. And with a simple valve ~$100, and a few hoses and fittings ~$100....then whatever a cylinder costs. (another issue as this is a tractor that "should" use a 2.5" cylinder but is cat 1. And all the cat 1 cylinders are 2"). But I have said...Under $500 should be doable. Dont want to have to eat ~$100 to buy a couple sets of ag couplers to "add" remotes and leave the backhoe circuit intact.

Hopefully that will clarify some things.