Cheap FEL cylinders keep bending

[rScotty]

That’s what I said in my first post in this thread. Poor design or not a tractor FEL isn’t designed for stump buckets.

Of course not. In this case it looks like a poor loader design, a poor bucket choice, and an inexperienced operator all at the same time.

But even so, there is no absolutely no excuse for any bucket being able to bend the bucket cylinders when a simple change in geometry would prevent it.

A quality design would either stall the motion or trigger the relief valve before damaging the loader. That one fails the test.
rScotty

 

[LD1]

Of course not. In this case it looks like a poor loader design, a poor bucket choice, and an inexperienced operator all at the same time.

But even so, there is no absolutely no excuse for any bucket being able to bend the bucket cylinders when a simple change in geometry would prevent it.

A quality design would either stall the motion or trigger the relief valve before damaging the loader. That one fails the test.
rScotty

I'm pretty sure the loader in question would stall or trigger the relief before bending if the tractor owner didn't already bend them beforehand by back dragging with a 4' bucket.

Bad design... yes. Would geometry change have prevented this....probably not. They should still end up bent being careless with a stump bucket ...but harder to do so.

 

[JWR]

LD1 said
"You directly said "These failures will NEVER occur if a 4-bar link is in place" and THAT is your misconception."

Yes, very directly I said that, but the misconception is yours, not mine.

We simply disagree. Any other interpretation is your misconception.

The burden is on you. Show us one case of a 4bar MF loader bending cylinder rods, ever, regardless of what bucket or tool is on the loader. You can't.

 

[JWR]

Of course not. In this case it looks like a poor loader design, a poor bucket choice, and an inexperienced operator all at the same time.

But even so, there is no absolutely no excuse for any bucket being able to bend the bucket cylinders when a simple change in geometry would prevent it.

A quality design would either stall the motion or trigger the relief valve before damaging the loader. That one fails the test.
rScotty

Exactly, rScotty. Agree 100%. And if the 4 bar version of linkage on this loader frame from MF were in use the cylinders would not be awkwardly overextended as they are and no bending would have occurred regardless of bucket.

 

[LD1]

LD1 said
"You directly said "These failures will NEVER occur if a 4-bar link is in place" and THAT is your misconception."

Yes, very directly I said that, but the misconception is yours, not mine.

We simply disagree. Any other interpretation is your misconception.

The burden is on you. Show us one case of a 4bar MF loader bending cylinder rods, ever, regardless of what bucket or tool is on the loader. You can't.

There have been several posts of bent cylinders of both direct pin and 4-bar.

Maybe not specifically Massey, but so us one other case of this Massey non-4-bar loader with bent cylinders.

Operator abuse and nothing more.
The manufacture didn't design it as stout, or with as much margin of error as some....but doesn't change the operator error aspect.

I have already said....the 4-bar like on the sister 2814 loader WOULD resist the buckling to a greater extent, but it WONT prevent it.

I don't think anyone else is stupid enough to use a 4' stump bucket and abuse their loader like this one.....if I had millions of dollars to burn, I'd buy the same tractor with the 4-bar loader, but the same bucket on it, and prove to everyone that it's possible. But I don't, and I'm not that stupid

 

[rScotty]

There have been several posts of bent cylinders of both direct pin and 4-bar.

Maybe not specifically Massey, but so us one other case of this Massey non-4-bar loader with bent cylinders.

Operator abuse and nothing more.
The manufacture didn't design it as stout, or with as much margin of error as some....but doesn't change the operator error aspect.

I have already said....the 4-bar like on the sister 2814 loader WOULD resist the buckling to a greater extent, but it WONT prevent it.

I don't think anyone else is stupid enough to use a 4' stump bucket and abuse their loader like this one.....if I had millions of dollars to burn, I'd buy the same tractor with the 4-bar loader, but the same bucket on it, and prove to everyone that it's possible. But I don't, and I'm not that stupid

OK. So a couple of us disagree. Nothing wrong with that. We all know how to make it better than the manufacturer did - which is a not surprising given the kind of experience we have here on TBN. What is surprising is that the manufacturer didn't know the same thing. At the end of the day, it's a manufacturing foul up. IMHO. Not ops.

Or maybe the manufacturer did know. The original designer certainly did. That's got to be why the bushed holes are there in the arms in the first place. Then somewhere along the line someone who didn't know better thought they could do without them. Nope.

What's really good is that those bushed holes in the loader arms are the difficult parts and those are already done for the owner. Given those holes already being there, all it takes is some strap iron, a drill press, and a hacksaw for owners of similar loaders to make up a set of bars to correct the problem. That's something valuable that has come from this discussion? A legitimate fixit.

Something I'm not sure we are on the same page is "backdragging" with the bucket lip angled somewhat down, front wheels up, and steering with the brakes. I think of Back Dragging as a good quality technique & do it to put a smooth finished surface on loader work. Everybody I see working a TLB bucket does the same thing. Has anyone had a problem doing that?
rScotty

 

[Torvy]

So tell me this...if the design is so poor and the methods of use are so common, why, praytell, are there not a bevy of threads and news articles about the mis- designed equipment?

Occam's razor. The design flaw explanation makes no sense given the evidence.

We don't know what the operator did to really bend the cylinders. We only know they were bent before the video.

 

[rScotty]

I don't believe that the design is in question. It's not a good design. The geometry is wrong.
We even know that the original design was questioned. Those holes in the arms make it clear that at some point someone did try to make it better.

As for your other questions, I have no idea. You are asking "why" questions & those always confound me. It's easier for me to just stick to engineering.
rScotty

 

[ruffdog]

Another story of bent curl cylinders, on a bigger tractor, with the extra "linkage", by back dragging:

Bent Hydraulic Cylinders - Now what?

 

[rScotty]

It's a big country. I wonder if we mean the same thing about backdragging.

When I say "backdragging" what I mean is to set the bucket down either flat on the ground or at an shallow angle of less than about 30 degrees....usually a lot less ....and then putting enough downpressure to lighten the front end. Then backing up slowly to smooth the dirt. Sometimes while swinging the bucket a little side to side with the wheel brakes.
rScotty