Need Help With Hole Spacing On 3-point Stabilizers Please.

[s219]

I know on the Kubota telescoping stabilizers, the swivel joint prevents the stabilizer from acting in compression. So only one side at a time is handling the load, when in tension.

 

[ovrszd]

Richard--I'm wondering about the necessity of having both stabilizers "locked in". Consider that, on a turnbuckle stabilizer system, only one of the lift arms at a time is carrying the side load. That would be the side in tension as the turnbuckle is non-functional in compression.

I'm not saying it'a necessity necssarily. Just saying the strength of the system is diminished. And then the structural strength of each stabilizer alone comes into play.

 

[ovrszd]

I know on the Kubota telescoping stabilizers, the swivel joint prevents the stabilizer from acting in compression. So only one side at a time is handling the load, when in tension.

Yes, design increases or decreases this issue. What's most important is minimizing the distance of the slack. The farther the load is allowed to swing before being stopped the more force is placed on the single stabilizer that stops it.

 

[RalphVa]

You do not want any looseness. That allows the implements to bang one way or the other and do some damage. I broke 2 parts of the lift assembly on my 4010 and bend the lift pin that holds the bottom lift arms when I left the turnbuckles a little bit loose.

I gave up using those little pins to secure the turnbuckles and just use tension cords. That way, you can get them tight and don't have to give up anything to get the little pins into place.

 

[s219]

I was always taught to leave at least a little slack in the stabilizers, because over the range of motion of the lift arms, the distance along the stabilizer will vary (ultimately depends on the linkage layout compared to the arc of the lift arms). If you make the stabilizers perfectly snug at one position, they could bind when the lift arms move to another position. The behavior even changes depending on the width of the implement and how it spaces the lift arms. Basically, anything that affects the two relative arcs that the stabilizers and lift arms make when the lift arms swing through their range will play into this.

You want at least a teeny little slop in the 3-pt linkage over the whole range of motion. Doesn't matter where it comes from, but be careful snugging the stabilizers down too much as then you shift the need for slop to the ball ends of the lift arms and the pins on the implement. What I do, after hooking up an implement, is move it to extremes and make sure it still has a little jiggle.

 

[npalen]

I've noticed that working on sidehills can produce a lot of stress on the stabilizers. Pulling an implement in the ground and then raising it with the tractor tilted tends to whip the tractor front end sideways a bit.

 

[Baby Grand]

I was always taught to leave at least a little slack in the stabilizers, because over the range of motion of the lift arms, the distance along the stabilizer will vary (ultimately depends on the linkage layout compared to the arc of the lift arms). If you make the stabilizers perfectly snug at one position, they could bind when the lift arms move to another position. The behavior even changes depending on the width of the implement and how it spaces the lift arms. Basically, anything that affects the two relative arcs that the stabilizers and lift arms make when the lift arms swing through their range will play into this.

You want at least a teeny little slop in the 3-pt linkage over the whole range of motion. Doesn't matter where it comes from, but be careful snugging the stabilizers down too much as then you shift the need for slop to the ball ends of the lift arms and the pins on the implement. What I do, after hooking up an implement, is move it to extremes and make sure it still has a little jiggle.

I think that's exactly right. The 3pt geometry isn't exact, so pinning it tightly runs the risk of binding/overloading something, especially over the full range of raising & lowering the implement. A little slack allows all the bits & pieces in the load path to adapt without developing too much stress. Keeping the slack low also minimizes the momentum that the implement can develop before the stabilizer checks its motion.

 

[WantItDoneRight]

I'm in the same boat (needing to replace one or both garbage-designed threaded turnbuckles with either another one or set of garbage-designed threaded turnbuckles or a cobbled together telescoping version) and wondering what the ultimate outcome of this stabilizer fabrication project was.

So, npalen, what did you end up doing? Did you suck it up and just spend money on another set of crappy OEM threaded turnbuckles or did you instead fabricate your own telescoping version (perhaps along with increasing the effective axle length with the use of spacers an approach I fond referenced in another set of comments)? Photos please, if possible (or it didn't happen ).

In summation, it appears like the limiting factors are a) how short the stabilizers need to be (a factor of a given implement and, in the case of implements featuring wide attachment widths, how wide the lower arms need to be positioned to fit said implement) given the available real estate and b) the short length of the rear axle which creates the narrow stance of the tractor and which creates the limited real estate issue to begin with.

In my case, the widest the lower arms (of the 3-point hitch) - Kubota calls them each a "lower link" (67800-71214) need to be positioned is for a "Bush Hog"-brand rear blade (which I typical use for maintaining a gravel driveway and for plowing snow in the winter in conjunction with a clip-on snow plow that attaches to the front bucket) and which has an effective "attachment width" of about 32-inches. I only own two other implements for the three point hitch: a Bush Hog-brand "Squealer" and a tow hitch triangle (the latter of which I don't think I've ever used). The "Squealer" has a narrower attachment width of about 28", neccesitating that the stabilizers be lengthened (to faciltate attachment). IOW the wider the implement's "attachment width", the shorter the stabilizers need to be adjusted (and, conversely, the narrower the attachement width, the longer the stabilizers need to be adjusted).

As was pointed out earlier, the stock OEM stabilizers are, in their shortest configuration, only about 9-1/2" long and, I might add, only offer maybe an inch of two of travel. Said another way, in their longest configuration, they are only about 11" long (Note: I don't have a spare stabilizer in my hand - the only two I own are currently mounted on the tractor - so I can't give a perfect measurement; I'm just estimating here. But the point is that, compared to the telescoping stabilizers for the L-series, which appear to be really long by comparison (judging from this video:

...and which appear to offer many more inches of total adjustment, any stabilizer fitted to a B9200 needs to be very diminutive in length, thus limiting the options.

That said, I'm considering the option of modifying a set of the telescoping stabilizers (OEM or after-market - whichever model/version/iteration makes the most sense in terms of their stock length and design) - essentially cutting a set down in length - just so I can avoid having to throw good money after bad by buying another of the dreaded threaded-style stabilizers. Truth be known - I only currently need one stabilizer or, actually, part of one stabilizer - the male threads are shot on the 67830-71820-end (and by the time I've spent ~$60 to replace that component I might as well spend twice as much on an entirely new stabilizer 67830-71500) but the aftermarket telescoping stabilizer kits are ~$140 for a set of two so that's what has me exploring the idea of modification (along with being sick and tired of fighting with the threaded turnbuckles to begin with).

Hoping we can continue this thread and bring it to some kind of resolution.

 

[WantItDoneRight]

After some thought I don't see why, at least at first glance, why I can't mount stabilizers inboard of the two lower arms of the three point hitch.

Here's an example of inboard mounting of turnbuckle-style stabilizers on what I believe is a model of TYM tractor (at least the dreaded turnbuckles are easier to get to/easier to access in this location):

 

[WantItDoneRight]

And here's what I believe is a Kubota BX with telescoping stabilizers mounted inboard of the two lower arms. As you can see some allowance is made to clear the area where the upper arm connects to the lower arms.