A couple of hydraulic line-related questions...

[rback33]

That's a good way to put it JPM! Half inch too cumbersome. Quarter inch too weak & weeny. Three-eighths... just right!

So you vote for "keep all the... ahem... congestion in one place"... heh? Reminds me of the song "Alice's Restaurant"! One pile of garbage is better than two... heh?

But to put you on the spot... what would you be accessing on that left side that a couple of 3/8" hoses neatly wire-tied together (and easily disconnected and moved aside) would pose a problem? I just don't see any problems with that "left side" approach... fully acknowledging that no one else in the known world seems to go that route.

Dougster

As backwards as you are from the rest of us u must be left handed too...
I see no reason not to put them on that side other than you may have to think harder about where to run them under the platform for getting on and off the tractor. As it is you can run them just about anywhere on the right because you probably can't climb on and off that side easily anyway.
As for the 3/8" hose... have no clue... that path was taken long before I came along to the company 4 1/2 years ago.

Note on the LH jab.... not meant to offend those of u who think you are in your "right minds"... My mom, my dad's baby brother and my sister's longtime boyfriend are all left handed. I am thankful to be normal.

 

[Dougster]

I see no reason not to put them on that side other than you may have to think harder about where to run them under the platform for getting on and off the tractor. As it is you can run them just about anywhere on the right because you probably can't climb on and off that side easily anyway.

Ahhhhhh... that's where you are wrong my HD loader bucket friend! There is plenty of room on the right even for a hideous, overweight old man like moi to climb aboard! It is not like some of the larger machines where the FEL control valve must be brought back to where the operator can reach it... effectively blocking off that side. The 4110/ML112's control valve position still allows for very easy access from the right!

Shame on you for not knowing that!

Meanwhile, I will reconsider using the right side even though the wide open left-side makes FAR more sense to me. I'll do a test routing with my old temporary hoses and see how it looks. I had no choice but to use the left side with my temporary "bungie cord" arrangement as the old hoses I had were too short to reach otherwise.

Dougster

 

[rback33]

Actually... since that loader was designed before I came a long, I have never actually seen one here at our plant. I have looked at them on dealers lots, but not that close.

 

[Dougster]

Actually... since that loader was designed before I came a long, I have never actually seen one here at our plant. I have looked at them on dealers lots, but not that close.

Speaking of which... I did see a new 2006 4110/ML112 with the front mounting bracket made to accept your new brush guard. Looks like I'd have to replace my old style front bracket... it's too much for me to modify the existing bracket without making an ugly mess... and probably not worth the extra cost to swap out. Oh well.

Dougster

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Thanks for clearing that up, Jeremy. I could have sworn the hoses going from under the tractor to the loader valve were larger diameter than the ones going from the loader valve to the front end. I've been wrong before... once, I think.



Thanks,

BR

I was wrong once, I thought that I was wrong.

 

[jpm]

dougster,it really does not matter what side you run them on.my personal pref is to get on the left side,my valve on the right side with hoses makes it tite

 

[Dougster]

I have yet to complete the mechanical linkage only because I was hoping to find a 4110 or 3510 to look at with the kit already installed. Remember that I've got the original remote set being used by the 509... and to do so, the original remote's control lever is locked in place (rearward) by a big hook-like bracket. That bracket covers the second slot into which the new (second) lever must sit. I've either got to use the third/last slot (by bending the new lever?) or I'll have to get a new hook bracket made that doesn't cover the second slot. Those two hideous, poorly-positioned remote levers are truly a classic piece of work!!! Even on a brand new 4110 I saw on Sunday, the single lever could not be thrown with the right-side arm rest down. Very uncool.

Well, the plot thickens here. I finally found a new TYM 450 to examine (virtually the same tractor as the 4110 but with a Kubota engine and two rear remote sets stock) and it does use the first and second slots for the remote set control levers. Despite some differences in lever design to accommodate the bulky seat belt gizmo on the 4110's seat, this clearly means I need to fashion a replacement for the "big hook-like bracket" described above to keep my 509 BH working while having access to the second lever. It does not look like I can use that third slot for the second remote's control lever. Dang!

On the plus side, when picking up my new Bradco fixed thumb today, I got to examine a 509 BH with a fixed thumb converted to hydraulic with the factory kit. The added hydraulics are VERY complicated and crowded! No wonder the hydraulic add-on kit is so expensive! It is designed to work without an independent source of hydraulic flow (e.g., another remote set) as I had always thought. The new plumbing is completely self-contained within the BH and uses a nifty right foot pedal for control. I love it, but could never even begin afford it.

But the VERY good news is that with the new second remote set, I don't need the costly Bradco factory kit. Just a suitable cylinder and another set of hydraulic hoses & couplings! And the best part of all? I tested it tonight when I got home and I can easily and comfortably reach the second remote's "kicked back" control lever with my left hand while sitting normally in the BH seat! Smokin!!!

Sometimes things actually work out right for me!

Dougster

 

[dfkrug]

Dougster, don't write off getting a hyd PHD....they are great. The
Worksaver 714H requires only 5-10 GPM and even comes with
the brackets needed to mount to an FEL bkt. I use them off
backhoe dipper sticks myself. Other hyd implements for the
FEL? How about a hydraulic concrete mixer. I use a PTO mixer,
but hyd would be much better (reversible), and using the FEL
adds other big advantages.

As for hose sizes, I agree that constant flow applications should
use larger diameters (usually 1/2") to reduce fluid heating. This
includes power beyond connections, backhoes, and constantly
running hyd motors. But 1/4" hoses for valve work ports are
often preferable to larger sizes. The restriction of 1/4" hoses
acts to cushion the moverment of cylinders, which can be
desirable.

 

[Dougster]

Dougster, don't write off getting a hyd PHD....they are great. The Worksaver 714H requires only 5-10 GPM and even comes with the brackets needed to mount to an FEL bkt. I use them off backhoe dipper sticks myself. Other hyd implements for the FEL? How about a hydraulic concrete mixer. I use a PTO mixer, but hyd would be much better (reversible), and using the FEL adds other big advantages. As for hose sizes, I agree that constant flow applications should use larger diameters (usually 1/2") to reduce fluid heating. This includes power beyond connections, backhoes, and constantly running hyd motors. But 1/4" hoses for valve work ports are often preferable to larger sizes. The restriction of 1/4" hoses acts to cushion the moverment of cylinders, which can be desirable.

Second point first... Tightness of space and bends notwithstanding, I believe that I will increase the FEL hydraulic supply and power beyond hoses to 1/2" next time I order up some hoses. It will just make me feel better. The FEL dump to tank can stay 3/8" as will all of the FEL lines themselves. If memory serves me right, that FEL interface point below the right step requires a special thread. I've have to fish through the archives for that info to make sure I get it right! I hear you on the dampening effect of 1/4"... but 3/8" for the FEL itself is still okay with me and I'm not going to mess with the BH plumbing (even though my technique could use some smoothing out at times!).

In regard to PHDs... I must admit that I had not been paying much attention to hydraulic PHDs until recently. PTO-driven ones are so cheap and I only have about 60 holes to dig for a stockade fence I'm putting in this summer. Who knows when I'll need it again? Seems wasteful to spend the extra money for hydraulic unless I see some demand from my clients... but I must admit that using the BH or FEL would make this fence project 10 times quicker and easier.

I guess it comes down to whether or not I can rent a hydraulic and what the rental cost would be vs. the cost of simply buying a basic (read: "cheap") PTO-driven one from TSC. I've already got those 14-ft long 1/2" hoses and couplings I could use for another temporary "bungie cord" hook-up... and even some skid-steer type couplings if necessary to match up with a rental unit... so no expense there. On the other hand, would a rental unit work at ~8 GPM?

Sounds like I better ask around at the local rental places.

Dougster

 

[dfkrug]

The rental place I know best around here has CUTs and skidsteers.
The skidsteer implements that use hydraulic motors usually require
higher (10 GPM or more) flow rates that many skidsteers provide.