42" light duty forks or 48" heavier duty forks?

[LarJea]

I sure like the Land Pride 42 inch forks I have. I use them all the time and they have held up great. Also most of the pallets I use are 42 inches long so I don't have to worry about punching a hole into anything on the other side of the pallet. I think to bend these would take a whole lot more abuse than normal.

 

[Poopdeck Pappy]

I don't have any pallet forks . . . yet. But one thing that might sway me towards the 48" is that the tips would be easier to see from the tractor seat.

OP, cut a board or something 42" long and stick it up against your bucket and see if you can see the end of it while sitting in your tractor seat. If you can't, that would help you decide on the 48" ones.

I haven't done this yet, but I intend to before I get serious about buying some forks.

 

[WM75Guy]

I have the Land Pride PFL3048 forks, 3000# rating 48" long. I do like them. The weight difference between mine and the PFL2042 forks, 2100# rating and 42" long, is only 28#, 330# vs 358#. One advantage to a little longer forks is when I put 2 pallet loads onto my trailer from the rear I have the TSC folks use the second to push the first further up over the axles to balance the load. The longer forks allows me to reach the furthest forward pallet to lift it and drag it back to the rear of the trailer. Keeps me from getting out the chain and pallet puller.

 

[TomSeller]

With a L3800 I would go with the 42" forks. I have more lift and like my 48" forks. I think I would damage the 42s, but they would be a nice fit for a L3800

 

[rbtjr]

Thanks again to everyone for the feedback. No, George, my FEL can't lift anywhere close to 2200#, so the weight rating of the forks themselves is not a factor that would eliminate the lighter-duty 42" forks. And Pappy, I will check out my ability to see the tips of both 42" and 48" forks from the seat of the tractor.

Everyone's responses drove me to check my memory about the weight of other attachments I have. The grapple weighs about 400# and the 4-N-1 bucket weighs 456#. I have been used to a larger tractor than our current L3800, but I have been pleasantly surprised at what I can lift even with this heavy bucket on the L3800. Our FEL is the Kubota LA524. If I am reading the FEL manual correctly, the rated lifting capacity of the FEL is a max of 1182# about 5' off the ground about 20" in front of the pins of the FEL, and a load of 855# to the max height of the FEL. (I don't much care about what the max-height capacity is, since I won't be lifting any load anywhere close to the max height.) So, if this is accurate, if I subtract the 238# weight of the lighter 42" forks, I would be able to lift over 900# 5' off the ground, and if subtract the 340# weight of the heavier 48" forks I would be able to lift over 800# 5' off the ground. I very much doubt that I will be lifting this much weight. And I think I would have a ballast problem if I did try to lift as much as the 1182# (I do have loaded rear tires but my box scrape, which I use for ballast, is not very heavy).

 

[gwdixon]

Sounds like you have things well thought out.

Whichever path you choose will result in the question, "How did I live without these?".

 

[WM75Guy]

You will need ballast. If I try to pick up something past capacity it just sits there when the bypass kicks in. But I have gotten a rear wheel off the ground trying to move my horse trailer when I attempted to turn it into it's parking stall. I did not have the arena drag on the back for ballast. Same thing happened moving a pallet load of shavings right at capacity and turned a little on a slight slope. The uphill tire lifted until the pallet touched down on the downhill corner. I always try to carry the load as low as possible just for such occasions.

 

[rbtjr]

Yes, GW, that message is coming through loud and clear.

 

[rbtjr]

RE, I have been pondering the ballast issue. I have had a rear wheel raise off the ground a couple of times--once when I was using a couple of 4X4s held in front of the 4-N-1 bucket sort of like pallet forks would be, and I quickly learned that having the load farther out front creates more of a ballast issue than I had expected. I will do something for more ballast but I haven't decided what yet.

 

[LD1]

I think you are WAY underestimating your loader. Especially if these are SSQA pallet forks and not clamp on forks.

Here is 14 bags of mortar @ 75# each plus pallet, so about 1100#



Only took 2400# to lift, which is about the max for a loader that hasnt had pressure tweaked up a bit (mine is 2650psi).

So imagine how much it could lift if I lost the weight of the bucket, and moved the load that ~2' closer to the arms.

I am guessing your figures are about 1/2 of what it could actually do. I am betting closer to 1700-1800# with a SSQA forks.

Still well within the range of the forks, but it all depends on what you do. Pallets only (nice uniform load) the lighter ones will be just fine. But if you use them at all for other things, like lifting and prying on rocks with just a single tip, or using a 10' boom off the end, then I might suggest the heavier ones.