OK. So a couple of us disagree. Nothing wrong with that. We all know how to make it better than the manufacturer did - which is a not surprising given the kind of experience we have here on TBN. What is surprising is that the manufacturer didn't know the same thing. At the end of the day, it's a manufacturing foul up. IMHO. Not ops.
Or maybe the manufacturer did know. The original designer certainly did. That's got to be why the bushed holes are there in the arms in the first place. Then somewhere along the line someone who didn't know better thought they could do without them. Nope.
What's really good is that those bushed holes in the loader arms are the difficult parts and those are already done for the owner. Given those holes already being there, all it takes is some strap iron, a drill press, and a hacksaw for owners of similar loaders to make up a set of bars to correct the problem. That's something valuable that has come from this discussion? A legitimate fixit.
Something I'm not sure we are on the same page is "backdragging" with the bucket lip angled somewhat down, front wheels up, and steering with the brakes. I think of Back Dragging as a good quality technique & do it to put a smooth finished surface on loader work. Everybody I see working a TLB bucket does the same thing. Has anyone had a problem doing that?
I am not even sure what the argument and/or disagreement is anymore.
It's not as simple as adding the 4-bar link. The cylinder also has to be shortened.
Speculation on my part....but I assume the 4-bar loader came first on this model.....and somewhere along the line in a cost (or supply issue these days) it was decided to go to a longer cylinder.
Could it have been implemented better....sure. But we don't have all the details to automatically say it's a design flaw. With regards to engineering.....there are specific formulas to follow based on rod diameter vs rod length for column loading. The cylinder is only capable of a given force based on its diameter and operating pressure. While not ideal....I suspect that even the current setup is within allowable column loading.
The problem arises when a bucket is tilted down...jambed in the ground....then the tractor is out in reverse. You can easily double or triple the column loading force that the tractors hydraulics are capable of. That is exaggerated with the stump bucket that is basically twice as long a lever as the stock bucket.
When I am referencing "back dragging"....the above is what I am talking about. Visualize someone trying to pluck a stump with that bucket. The very design of it necessitates dumping the loader darn near all the way. Add that to trying to rock and pop a stump out of the ground....this is the end result.
To "most" people....backdraging is simply as you describe. Slightly dumped bucket and leveling out a pile. Or even curled all the way back and using the heal. The "forbidden" backdraging is with the bucket dumped all the way....and trying to use it like a bulldozer in reverse. Not many loaders can handle that.
My issue in this thread arises when people say things like "always" or "never"....followed by an unfounded opinion. Example....to say that this "never" would have happened with a 4-bar link is just a plain false statement. And continued argument to the contrary is frustrating.
We can all have our own opinions and can disagree at times. But there is a difference in simply having different opinions.....and saying something that is just plain false.