Loader bending metal on loader

[SPYDERLK]

It appears that few tractor builders are making their own loaders. I mourned the weakness of the LS loader on my 41 HP as compared to the Woods/Cub Cadet I had on my 27 HP. I later got a 30 HP CC with a down-powered Woods loader. But, I can attribute my killing the front drive axle on the 27 HP to the loader overkill it had. One must be careful when making a battle between the loader structure and the pulling or pushing power of four wheels with traction and a pile of horsepower behind it.

Even though the curl seemed very weak to me on the LS, when the salesman suggested I manipulate the relief pressure, I resisted. In my estimation, the LS' loader is weak and certainly has a smaller reach than the one I had on my Cub Cadet. It seems clear that beefing up one thing increases the chances of failure in a different place, to be determined later. I am sure that tractors break less often for row-crop flat-landers than for big tree hill people. You just gotta learn to be smart (it's taken me some time).

The curl is weak because of the design having close spacing of force application point and the carrier pivot. It gives a lot of movement with a cheaper cylinder. Doing it right would cost more and they thot they could get away with it. The only way itll get better is if the customers give them lots of grief for long enuf that they notice its costing them money to go cheap.
larry

 

[Short Game]

The curl is weak because of the design having close spacing of force application point and the carrier pivot. It gives a lot of movement with a cheaper cylinder. Doing it right would cost more and they thot they could get away with it. The only way itll get better is if the customers give them lots of grief for long enuf that they notice its costing them money to go cheap.
larry

I agree that this is the issue with the weak curl on LS loaders. I discussed this at length a long time ago on this forum. The difference in the spacing of the pivot point spreads between the Woods/Cub loader and the LS was huge. If memory serves, it was something like 8.25 inches on the woods compared to 5.25 inches on the LS. But as we have seen here, with the geometry as it is on the LS, given the right configuration of bucket positions and forces, the cylinder is plenty strong to bend four steel bars at once when applied as you have described here. I believe you nailed the cause of these failures.

 

[bbbmgo]

I checked out a slightly smaller John Deere with a similar set-up and notice the "dog leg's" are reinforced with a piece of metal at 90 degrees along the length of the piece. I'm not sure if it's worth having the new parts reinforced or leaving it weak so something else doesn't break.

This is how I could see the dogleg getting bent. See arrows in pic as to direction of force.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

1) Bucket is in dump position.
2) Tractor is moved up to a solid structure like a tree with bucket cutting edge touching tree.
3) Operator tries to curl the bucket up, bucket or tree do not move, resulting hydraulic pressure pulling piston in will bend dogleg as shown in previously posted pics.

The loader relief valve should have prevented further damage. With 1/2" thick steel its pretty tough to bend one piece let alone bending two pieces.
Is it possible the owners of the bent doglegs have boosted or turned up their loader relief pressure setting?

 

[SPYDERLK]

I checked out a slightly smaller John Deere with a similar set-up and notice the "dog leg's" are reinforced with a piece of metal at 90 degrees along the length of the piece. I'm not sure if it's worth having the new parts reinforced or leaving it weak so something else doesn't break.

It is not a fuse, but you could treat it as such if your are ok with its nuisance value.