Bucket Selection Issues

[monkeybreath]

Some Bucket issues. As I am soliciting prices on tractors and combinations of features, I came to the point of deciding if I need a HD bucket and a QA.

In the course of considering a HD bucket vs regular bucket, it seems that it would be important to determine the per cubic weight of the heaviest material you would ever want to move, and multiply that times the cubic foot capacity of the regular bucket. If that bucket will easily handle the material you might move, would there be any reason to get a HD bucket? The only reason which comes to mind then for the HD bucket is that with the rounded back it has a greater cubic foot capacity and thus you could move more material per load.

Next, the only other FEL utility I would want would be a pallet fork attachement - needed only infrequently, but then really needed. But if I get a pallet fork attachment, do I really need a QA, and if not, what is involved with substituting the bucket and forks ? A RPITA or just a little time involved ?

I assume a tooth blade (bolt on) can be used with either the regular and HD buckets.

Still learnin' here. THX

 

[Glenn9643]

I just traded for a Massey Ferguson 1455v 4wd with FEL and opted for the HD 72" bucket. The loader had a 60" bucket on it and it wouldn't cover the tracks. Don't know about other brands, but the MF HD bucket isn't but a couple of hundred more than the standard and I think that eventually I'll get into something where the standard bucket might be bent or damaged easier than the HD. My reasoning had nothing to do with the capacity of the bucket, but the stresses I may put on it down the road. I'm strictly the new kid on the block here, having never operated a loader before this tractor, but it's really proving it's worth around the place.
The bucket on the loader was a "pin" type. I also got the quick attach kit from Massey for the FEL and it will work with pin type buckets, etc. or the hook type. The QA was pretty cheap and is well worth the money if you intend to change out implements on the FEL. To remove the bucket pull two locking pins (no tool required) and back away. To hook up, lower your FEL arms, drive up to it, hook in and raise the implement. Put the two locking pins in place and go to work. Without the QA kit you have to align the FEL arms perfectly with the pin holes in the bucket, put the pins in place, and fasten lockbolts with wrenches. Watched the people at the dealership preparing my rig, so I'm well convinced of the value of the QA kit. I've found that the bucket blocks my view when bushhoging near small trees, etc. and I remove my bucket when using the bush-hog.
Not sure, but it's my understanding that the tooth bar can be used with either bucket.
I too would like to have pallet forks, but the ones from Massey are a little pricey. I'll wait a while and see what I can find to make some with.
If you use a box blade or back blade you might consider hydraulic top and tilt cylinders. If you think you'll ever have a need you should get dual rear remotes on the tractor when you buy it, as it's cheaper than having it done later. It's great to be able to adjust your blade angles from the seat instead of stopping, getting off, etc. If you decide to get the dual rear remotes I recommend that you have the control levers installed where you can reach them easily from the ground behind the tractor. When hooking up implements you'll need to be able to adjust your linkage with the levers and those on the New Holland I had were too far forward. You didn't mention what size or brand of tractor you were looking at, but I'll just recommend you look at the Massey Ferguson line. AGCO/Massey does a poor job of marketing but I really like their little tractors.

 

[OkieG]

<font color="blue"> If that bucket will easily handle the material you might move, would there be any reason to get a HD bucket? </font>
Trying to persuade anything that is held tightly to the ground to come loose is what I've found puts the greatest stress on my loader bucket. Effects are magnified when the bucket forks are used. The thinner metal of a "regular" bucket will more likely yield (ie bend) to those stresses than a HD bucket. Heaven knows mine sure has. Many times has a good solid stump been used to help straighten out a bent cutting edge.

The tradeoff is the HD bucket limits lifting power because it's heavier. Once again, it's not that the HD bucket can't lift a bucket full of dirt. But, the weight of the HD bucket can make it more difficult to coax a bucket full from the pile.

The lower weight of my "light materials" bucket is nice to maximize payload, but it sure gets bent with minimal abuse. If I were buying a mid to larger sized compact tractor, I would really look hard at the HD model bucket. Good luck!

OkieG

 

[Henro]

Hi,

As indicated by the other posters, a heavy duty bucket is nice because it will bend less easily.

I am pretty sure on my Kubota B2910 the loader can lift more than the rating...but the rating may be there to indicate the safe lifting capacity before the rear tires come off the ground....

I would get the heavy duty bucket and maximize the chances that I would not bend it the first time I tried to so something heavy duty with it. Also consider a good tooth bar...they really do make the bottom lip of the bucket stronger...I love my toothbar.

It only takes about three minutes to remove the toothbar if I want to use my palet forks...no big deal. I have the clamp on palet forks.

Good luck in you tractor purchase decision!

Bill in Pgh, PA

 

[JohnMiller3]

<font color="blue">...the only other FEL utility I would want would be a pallet fork attachement ... </font>

Hi Ron,

Instead of spending the extra money for "Bobcat like QA" mounts that you don't plan on ever using... go with the optional HD bucket (within reason*) and also buy a set of clamp on/chain on forks for a few hundred dollars (~$300-400.) (as Henro uses)

*On a compact tractor FEL... What you don't want is a heavy duty bucket that weighs say an extra 300 lbs. and in essence takes away from the max lifting capacity of the loader... defeating some of its purpose...

Most of today's loaders will have a proprietary "quick attach" method and some other in-house attachments they make for their particular loader assembly, so that you wouldn't have to pay extra for...

 

[monkeybreath]

I had not considered the clamp on type of forks which you and Bill have now mentioned - those would seem to be a possible choice - I will see what is out there - one use for forks would be to move brush and limbs around. The last few week ends I have been busy with a chain saw and have quite a pile of debris - It is amazing what a little determination and a chain saw can do. I will cut up some of it for firewood but I thought that with forks (and a plywood back drop - so I won't scratch my new tractor too soon- if I ever get one) I could move some of that around and move it out of the way - also could use it for hay bales and moving lumber and pallets of material / and railroad ties I use for my landscaping projects. . . Given those uses, would the clamp on forks do the job ?

 

[rancar]

Ron...

<font color="blue"> In the course of considering a HD bucket vs regular bucket, it seems that it would be important to determine the per cubic weight of the heaviest material you would ever want to move, and multiply that times the cubic foot capacity of the regular bucket. </font>

See following link for information on common weights of various materials. This may assist you in your decision on what type of bucket you need.

Material Common Weights

...Bob

 

[OkieG]

<font color="blue"> Given those uses, would the clamp on forks do the job ? </font>
It depends on your tractor/loader combo and the weight of what you're moving with the forks. Bucket forks are the best for moving brush, cuz you've got the bucket there to throw smaller pieces into. Works great. Plus, with some clamp-on styles, you can generate down pressure with the forks, which is nice for managing an unruly brush pile.

The main drawback to bucket forks is that the load can get no closer to the loader arms than the cutting edge of the bucket. As I mentioned in my earlier post, bucket forks magnify stresses. This is because of the leverage they have. That leverage also limits the load that bucket forks will carry. They will carry less than forks attached directly to the loader arms, via a dedicated loader fork frame. A fork frame may also weigh less than the loader bucket, but the change in leverage is what will mostly allow for greater payload.

My bucket forks get used alot, but if I had a QuickAttach system I would build a fork frame to lift/move pallets that are too heavy for my bucket set-up to handle. Forks are amazingly useful. Having a set of bucket forks and a set of "frame" forks sounds like kind of a luxury, but their uses would not be a redundant as it might seem. There is plenty of overlap, where either style works fine. But, each will shine in some uses where the other falters. I wish I had both.

OkieG

 

[JohnMiller3]

<font color="blue">...also could use it for hay bales ..., would the clamp on forks do the job ?... </font>

Hi Ron,

Very <font color="red">DANGEROUS</font> to move bales with "fork lift forks"... with the bale not properly secured... it could creep up and over... and roll back toward the operator... crushing him/her... /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Maybe you should consider QA and these separate attachments for safety sake... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[DennisArrow]

Just an option........have you considered a carrier type attachment for your 3PH arms that can easily slide under pallets, be used for a counter balance to your FEL, carry more (dead) weight than the FEL, and is easy to get off and on.......I made one in the automotive lab across from my classroom at school..........has easily detachable hickory floor, back, and sides...........use it for sliding under a pallet, hauling firewood (some in the bucket and more here), and just as a good counter weight when moving around with the FEL.....anyway just a thought.....Dennis