Cheap FEL cylinders keep bending

rScotty

Super Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2001
Messages
5,721
Location
Rural mountains - Colorado
Tractor
Kubota M59, JD530, JD310SG. Restoring Yanmar YM165D
That’s what I said in my first post in this thread. Poor design or not a tractor FEL isn’t designed for stump buckets.

Of course not. In this case it looks like a poor loader design, a poor bucket choice, and an inexperienced operator all at the same time.

But even so, there is no absolutely no excuse for any bucket being able to bend the bucket cylinders when a simple change in geometry would prevent it.

A quality design would either stall the motion or trigger the relief valve before damaging the loader. That one fails the test.
rScotty
 
  • Good Post
Reactions: JWR

LD1

Epic Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
21,023
Location
Central Ohio
Tractor
Kubota MX5100
Of course not. In this case it looks like a poor loader design, a poor bucket choice, and an inexperienced operator all at the same time.

But even so, there is no absolutely no excuse for any bucket being able to bend the bucket cylinders when a simple change in geometry would prevent it.

A quality design would either stall the motion or trigger the relief valve before damaging the loader. That one fails the test.
rScotty
I'm pretty sure the loader in question would stall or trigger the relief before bending if the tractor owner didn't already bend them beforehand by back dragging with a 4' bucket.

Bad design... yes. Would geometry change have prevented this....probably not. They should still end up bent being careless with a stump bucket ...but harder to do so.
 

JWR

Elite Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
2,858
Location
So MD / WV
Tractor
MF 2660 LP, 3 Kubota B2150, Kubota BX2200, MH Pacer, Gravely 5660, etc.
LD1 said
"You directly said "These failures will NEVER occur if a 4-bar link is in place" and THAT is your misconception."

Yes, very directly I said that, but the misconception is yours, not mine.

We simply disagree. Any other interpretation is your misconception.

The burden is on you. Show us one case of a 4bar MF loader bending cylinder rods, ever, regardless of what bucket or tool is on the loader. You can't.
 

JWR

Elite Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
2,858
Location
So MD / WV
Tractor
MF 2660 LP, 3 Kubota B2150, Kubota BX2200, MH Pacer, Gravely 5660, etc.
Of course not. In this case it looks like a poor loader design, a poor bucket choice, and an inexperienced operator all at the same time.

But even so, there is no absolutely no excuse for any bucket being able to bend the bucket cylinders when a simple change in geometry would prevent it.

A quality design would either stall the motion or trigger the relief valve before damaging the loader. That one fails the test.
rScotty
Exactly, rScotty. Agree 100%. And if the 4 bar version of linkage on this loader frame from MF were in use the cylinders would not be awkwardly overextended as they are and no bending would have occurred regardless of bucket.
 

LD1

Epic Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
21,023
Location
Central Ohio
Tractor
Kubota MX5100
LD1 said
"You directly said "These failures will NEVER occur if a 4-bar link is in place" and THAT is your misconception."

Yes, very directly I said that, but the misconception is yours, not mine.

We simply disagree. Any other interpretation is your misconception.

The burden is on you. Show us one case of a 4bar MF loader bending cylinder rods, ever, regardless of what bucket or tool is on the loader. You can't.
There have been several posts of bent cylinders of both direct pin and 4-bar.

Maybe not specifically Massey, but so us one other case of this Massey non-4-bar loader with bent cylinders.

Operator abuse and nothing more.
The manufacture didn't design it as stout, or with as much margin of error as some....but doesn't change the operator error aspect.

I have already said....the 4-bar like on the sister 2814 loader WOULD resist the buckling to a greater extent, but it WONT prevent it.

I don't think anyone else is stupid enough to use a 4' stump bucket and abuse their loader like this one.....if I had millions of dollars to burn, I'd buy the same tractor with the 4-bar loader, but the same bucket on it, and prove to everyone that it's possible. But I don't, and I'm not that stupid
 

rScotty

Super Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2001
Messages
5,721
Location
Rural mountains - Colorado
Tractor
Kubota M59, JD530, JD310SG. Restoring Yanmar YM165D
There have been several posts of bent cylinders of both direct pin and 4-bar.

Maybe not specifically Massey, but so us one other case of this Massey non-4-bar loader with bent cylinders.

Operator abuse and nothing more.
The manufacture didn't design it as stout, or with as much margin of error as some....but doesn't change the operator error aspect.

I have already said....the 4-bar like on the sister 2814 loader WOULD resist the buckling to a greater extent, but it WONT prevent it.

I don't think anyone else is stupid enough to use a 4' stump bucket and abuse their loader like this one.....if I had millions of dollars to burn, I'd buy the same tractor with the 4-bar loader, but the same bucket on it, and prove to everyone that it's possible. But I don't, and I'm not that stupid

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?
rScotty
 
  • Good Post
Reactions: JWR

Torvy

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,846
Location
North East Texas
Tractor
Looking to purchase a Compact Tractor in 30-50 HP range.
So tell me this...if the design is so poor and the methods of use are so common, why, praytell, are there not a bevy of threads and news articles about the mis- designed equipment?

Occam's razor. The design flaw explanation makes no sense given the evidence.

We don't know what the operator did to really bend the cylinders. We only know they were bent before the video.
 

rScotty

Super Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2001
Messages
5,721
Location
Rural mountains - Colorado
Tractor
Kubota M59, JD530, JD310SG. Restoring Yanmar YM165D
I don't believe that the design is in question. It's not a good design. The geometry is wrong.
We even know that the original design was questioned. Those holes in the arms make it clear that at some point someone did try to make it better.

As for your other questions, I have no idea. You are asking "why" questions & those always confound me. It's easier for me to just stick to engineering.
rScotty
 

rScotty

Super Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2001
Messages
5,721
Location
Rural mountains - Colorado
Tractor
Kubota M59, JD530, JD310SG. Restoring Yanmar YM165D
It's a big country. I wonder if we mean the same thing about backdragging.

When I say "backdragging" what I mean is to set the bucket down either flat on the ground or at an shallow angle of less than about 30 degrees....usually a lot less ....and then putting enough downpressure to lighten the front end. Then backing up slowly to smooth the dirt. Sometimes while swinging the bucket a little side to side with the wheel brakes.
rScotty
 

ruffdog

Super Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
7,770
Location
southern wisconsin
Tractor
Bobcat Toolcat 5610G Deere X744
It's a big country. I wonder if we mean the same thing about backdragging.

When I say "backdragging" what I mean is to set the bucket down either flat on the ground or at an shallow angle of less than about 30 degrees....usually a lot less ....and then putting enough downpressure to lighten the front end. Then backing up slowly to smooth the dirt. Sometimes while swinging the bucket a little side to side with the wheel brakes.
rScotty
No scotty, the problem occurs when the bucket is curled all the way down and then backed up using the bucket to scrape or pull backwards. Once there is a very low amount of overlap between the inner rod/piston and outer tube of the cylinder, then it is very easy to buckle the two parts.

You on the other hand are back dragging correctly by not extending the cylinders all the way. (y)
 

5030

Super Star Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
14,803
Location
Somewhere, but not there....
Tractor
M9000 HDCC3 M9000 HDC
Oh, i never roll it 100% over than go backwards. That would be foolish. My idea of backdragging is to lay bucket flat, put down pressure on it and drive backwards to flatten ground.
Exactly how I do it as well and I use the heel of the bucket with the joystick in float to level with instead of any down pressure.
 

LD1

Epic Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
21,023
Location
Central Ohio
Tractor
Kubota MX5100
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?
rScotty
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.
 

JWR

Elite Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
2,858
Location
So MD / WV
Tractor
MF 2660 LP, 3 Kubota B2150, Kubota BX2200, MH Pacer, Gravely 5660, etc.
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?
rScotty
I agree with your opinion. I said earlier I suspect the decision to omit the extra pivot lever set was possibly to save a few bucks/increase profits on this model loader. I'd like to talk to my older long-experienced dealer about his choices while ordering them. I'll get around to it eventually.

It never (oops, I mean had not yet...) occurred to me to think about making a set of the extra pivot levers. Neat idea if on a tight budget or just like to tinker and fabricate metal things. Might even open ways to customize the mechanics. Otherwise surely one would just order the parts and install factory ones. One obvious benefit of your homebrew (and of the factory parts) would be to prevent the extreme extension of the rods in the bucket cylinders during full dump. Also the situation where the sharp tip down (prohibited type back dragging) has the worst potential. That's the awkward position where the bucket cylinders are most vulnerable. Using the extra pivot lever hardware means those cylinders are less extended by around a foot or so at full dump position. I'm fumbling for a good picture and the best-found is of a FLx2407 which I'll insert below. Fine for illustration. Just to show the much lesser extension of the cylinders for a given amount of dump. That's a huge help when heavy compression forces are put on those cylinders be they approved or prohibited large forces.

OBTW -- just noticed by studying this photo that the bucket cylinder has a much greater mechanical advantage in forcing the the bucket tip down (or resisting it coming up) in the exact position shown here than it would if attached direct to the SSQA hitch adapter hardware. This has not been mentioned in 114 posts so far has it ? At least a 2:1 mech advantage at the angle shown. That translates to twice the compression force on the cylinders in a given circumstance without the red levers ... like in any badass backdrag, or maybe pulling the tractor forward when stuck in the mud (which I have done on both JD and MF in axle deep tough spots ) , right? AND the same MA of 2:1 or better applies when digging forward putting the cylinders in tension rather than compression. Hmmm. I think I strongly prefer the extra pivot lever version.


FLx2407 loader.jpg
 
Last edited:

JWR

Elite Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
2,858
Location
So MD / WV
Tractor
MF 2660 LP, 3 Kubota B2150, Kubota BX2200, MH Pacer, Gravely 5660, etc.
Take a look at the nasty disadvantage the overextended bucket cylinders are in in this photo from a TractorHouse sale ad. This is an FLx2815 FEL like the one in the OP and without the pivot linkage at the tip of the loader frame at the SSQA interface.
Just letting this image soak in, I see 2 or 3 hazards. 1) driving forward if the standard bucket tip catches on something (edge of concrete, stump, pipe, etc.) the rods are already down against the loader frame and will see force tending to bend the rods. The bucket folding further up under the front of the tractor. 2) If the bucket tip in position shown is forced downward on some object like a rock or log by lowering the loader frame that also puts bending pressure on the rods. 3) If there is any hydraulic "dump range" left at this point that can also add to bending force on the rods that are already against the frame.
To me this is an oddball circumstance that really should not happen BUT it obviously can happen. And Murphy's law says it will. The rods would be protected from all 3 of these hazards (raised up away from the loader frame) if the pivot linkage were in place.

No pivot link extreme MF loader.jpg
 

Torvy

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,846
Location
North East Texas
Tractor
Looking to purchase a Compact Tractor in 30-50 HP range.
And yet, despite all of the complaints and second guessing of actual engineers, there have not been large numbers of these failing.
 

cdaigle430

Veteran Member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
1,986
Location
Maine
Tractor
MF GC2410
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.
Isnt that the point? It looks like those suggesting the missing 4 bar link will not only offer more stability but it will shorten the cylinder travel length. I tend to agree that bucket was not designed for this type tractor-it was designed for a skid steer. This setup offers way to much twisting-its way to much torque for those cylinders especially with a stump bucket.

I think thats the only way your going to resolve this anyway-your not going to get bigger cylinders from the dealer or Agco because your using an "after market" product. I can almost guarantee some number cruncher said - hey maybe we can take this skid steer attachment and sell it to the tractor guys.....and not test it.

Yup thats what happened and I agree with others...it just plain makes sense to me.
 

ptsg

Elite Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
4,277
Location
Portugal
Tractor
Branson F36Rn
And yet, despite all of the complaints and second guessing of actual engineers, there have not been large numbers of these failing.
Whoever makes the loaders for Branson 15 series, did the same exact thing on removing the 4 bar linkage and extended the rod of the cylinder to make up for the extra length need. I wonder if it's the same manufacturer for MF too. There have been quite a few complains of bent rods, some here on TBN but most on Facebook. I don't follow any MF group, but it's possible that there are more related cases there, plus this kind of looks like a very new loader that came out recently.
 
  • Good Post
Reactions: JWR

LD1

Epic Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
21,023
Location
Central Ohio
Tractor
Kubota MX5100
I am not even sure I like the implementation oi the 4-bar linkage on this particular loader.

Look at JRW's post of the 2815 loader and its direct pin then look at how much closer the 4-bar pin on the SSQA is in comparison to the direct pin.

Looks like with a flat bucket.....the direct pin has alot more mechanical advantage......which means more rollback force.

2814.jpeg
 

Torvy

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,846
Location
North East Texas
Tractor
Looking to purchase a Compact Tractor in 30-50 HP range.
Whoever makes the loaders for Branson 15 series, did the same exact thing on removing the 4 bar linkage and extended the rod of the cylinder to make up for the extra length need. I wonder if it's the same manufacturer for MF too. There have been quite a few complains of bent rods, some here on TBN but most on Facebook. I don't follow any MF group, but it's possible that there are more related cases there, plus this kind of looks like a very new loader that came out recently.
I am a data person at heart. Too many people base their opinions on what people complain about on social media. One of the big problems with that is amplification. The same person complains multiple times about something on different forums. That anecdote gets repeated and people think a significant problem exists where it really does not.

I am not saying it is not a problem, but I would want to see 2 pieces of data. First, failure rates of the two design types, all else equal. Second, and harder to prove, what work was being done when they failed.

In my experience, way too many people with an FEL think they bought a commercial bulldozer.
 

ptsg

Elite Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
4,277
Location
Portugal
Tractor
Branson F36Rn
I am a data person at heart. Too many people base their opinions on what people complain about on social media. One of the big problems with that is amplification. The same person complains multiple times about something on different forums. That anecdote gets repeated and people think a significant problem exists where it really does not.

I am not saying it is not a problem, but I would want to see 2 pieces of data. First, failure rates of the two design types, all else equal. Second, and harder to prove, what work was being done when they failed.

In my experience, way too many people with an FEL think they bought a commercial bulldozer.

Exactly!!! They see a FEL and a backhoe on a tractor and expect them to behave like a skidsteer or an excavator. A tractor was never meant to have any of those implements attached to it in the first place. Sure the FEL is super handy to have but it's really meant to move loose material or lift something slightly heavier, not digging, pulling stumps, etc, specially with the oversized attachments like people use in the US with those ridiculous heavy grapples or stump buckets.
 

ruffdog

Super Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
7,770
Location
southern wisconsin
Tractor
Bobcat Toolcat 5610G Deere X744
The rods would be protected ..... if the pivot linkage were in place.
But then, in 2 of my previous posts, there were examples of "pivot linkage" loaders having bent cylinder rods.
 

LD1

Epic Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
21,023
Location
Central Ohio
Tractor
Kubota MX5100
But then, in 2 of my previous posts, there were examples of "pivot linkage" loaders having bent cylinder rods.
Im still baffled as to why this is all such a mystery.

The pivot links offer NO protection from bending a rod if it is overloaded. Its just a different way to design a loader. You can design either way poorly. Or you can design either way like a tank.

The rods alone offer no resistance to twisting, buckling, keeping the rod straight, or any of the other mythical things I have heard people claim on this thread.
 

JWR

Elite Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
2,858
Location
So MD / WV
Tractor
MF 2660 LP, 3 Kubota B2150, Kubota BX2200, MH Pacer, Gravely 5660, etc.
But then, in 2 of my previous posts, there were examples of "pivot linkage" loaders having bent cylinder rods.
Wow, I missed that. What post numbers were those ?
 

LD1

Epic Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
21,023
Location
Central Ohio
Tractor
Kubota MX5100
Wow, I missed that. What post numbers were those ?
Can happen on any cylinder. The 4-bar doesnt prevent it. Its simply a function of length vs rod diameter and exceeding what is allowable. If you have a 1" rod sticking 20" out of the cylinder barrel.....a given force will make it buckle regardless of what its attached to.

bent.jpg

bent1.jpeg


bent2.jpg
 

JWR

Elite Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
2,858
Location
So MD / WV
Tractor
MF 2660 LP, 3 Kubota B2150, Kubota BX2200, MH Pacer, Gravely 5660, etc.
Yikes!
 

npalen

Elite Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
3,059
Location
Beloit, KS
Tractor
Kubota B9200 HSTD and Mahindra 3015
Can happen on any cylinder. The 4-bar doesnt prevent it. Its simply a function of length vs rod diameter and exceeding what is allowable. If you have a 1" rod sticking 20" out of the cylinder barrel.....a given force will make it buckle regardless of what its attached to.

View attachment 721920
View attachment 721921

View attachment 721923
"a given force will make it buckle regardless of what its attached to."

I certainly agree with that statement. It's interesting how all the cylinder rods bend "down" as if the weight of the cylinder is the determining factor but I think friction in the front pivot joint also contributes.

I do think, however, that the extra link keeping the cylinder rod farther from the pivot joint allows it to take more torque without buckling. I say this because the force produced by a given torque diminishes as the lever arm length increases.

Without the extra link, the cylinder rod will almost fall down on top of the pivot point when it is fully extended. The cylinder rod doesn't stand much of a chance when this close to the pivot.
 
  • Good Post
Reactions: JWR

ROUSTABOUT

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
1,186
Location
Luther Willis Hill, AR
Tractor
Pettibone, Ford, Massey Ferguson, International, JD, David Bradley, home mades

npalen

Elite Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
3,059
Location
Beloit, KS
Tractor
Kubota B9200 HSTD and Mahindra 3015
i agree, even pressure relief should be stopping them before allowing them to get to that point
Yes, the pressure relief should be protecting the cylinders IF the valve is being used. The relief valve won't protect, however, in the case where backdragging is being done with the valve closed. What I mean is that the relief on the valve only protects when the valve spool is in other than the centered position.
 

4570Man

Super Star Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2015
Messages
16,059
Location
Crossville, TN
Tractor
Kubota M59, Kubota L3800, Grasshopper 428D, Topkick dump truck, 3500 dump truck, 10 ton trailer, more lighter trailers.
Oh so many things jumps out at me after seeing all the images…

Notice the holes… why are they unused?

View attachment 721429

When it should have these brackets in place like these…

View attachment 721430

Somebody screwed up at the dealership.

Nobody screwed up at the dealership. The cylinders are non interchangeable. Some bean counter at the manufacturer made a deliberate effort to do this.
 

JWR

Elite Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
2,858
Location
So MD / WV
Tractor
MF 2660 LP, 3 Kubota B2150, Kubota BX2200, MH Pacer, Gravely 5660, etc.
"a given force will make it buckle regardless of what its attached to."

I certainly agree with that statement. It's interesting how all the cylinder rods bend "down" as if the weight of the cylinder is the determining factor but I think friction in the front pivot joint also contributes.

I do think, however, that the extra link keeping the cylinder rod farther from the pivot joint allows it to take more torque without buckling. I say this because the force produced by a given torque diminishes as the lever arm length increases.

Without the extra link, the cylinder rod will almost fall down on top of the pivot point when it is fully extended. The cylinder rod doesn't stand much of a chance when this close to the pivot.
Yep, concur. Making the failure less likely is worthwhile I would think. My second photo in post #116 shows the extremely extended cylinders right down against the tip end of the loader frame. You'd think some forward scraping, hitting an object like concrete, or down force by the loader while the tip of the bucket is on a rock or log , etc. that I mentioned earlier could potentially bend the cylinder rod upward (arched down over the end of the loader frame) but the cases seen so far are bent in the other direction -- downward.
 

npalen

Elite Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
3,059
Location
Beloit, KS
Tractor
Kubota B9200 HSTD and Mahindra 3015
Yep, concur. Making the failure less likely is worthwhile I would think. My second photo in post #116 shows the extremely extended cylinders right down against the tip end of the loader frame. You'd think some forward scraping, hitting an object like concrete, or down force by the loader while the tip of the bucket is on a rock or log , etc. that I mentioned earlier could potentially bend the cylinder rod upward (arched down over the end of the loader frame) but the cases seen so far are bent in the other direction -- downward.
My second photo in post #116 shows the extremely extended cylinders right down against the tip end of the loader frame.

Yes, that picture definitely shows the issue. Assuming a distance of 24" from bucket tip to the pivot pin and 4" from the cylinder rod to the pivot pin gives a ratio of 6:1. So, assuming a point load on the bucket tip of 1000 lbs would produce six times that or 6000 lbs compressive load on the cylinder rod. The load on the cylinder would be reduced by half if the rod was 8" from the pivot pin. Might still bend the rod if too small of diameter.

The rod diameter is, as several mentioned, very important. A 1-1/4" diameter rod, for example, is 56% stronger than a 1" diameter rod.
 
  • Good Post
Reactions: JWR

LD1

Epic Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
21,023
Location
Central Ohio
Tractor
Kubota MX5100
My second photo in post #116 shows the extremely extended cylinders right down against the tip end of the loader frame.

Yes, that picture definitely shows the issue. Assuming a distance of 24" from bucket tip to the pivot pin and 4" from the cylinder rod to the pivot pin gives a ratio of 6:1. So, assuming a point load on the bucket tip of 1000 lbs would produce six times that or 6000 lbs compressive load on the cylinder rod. The load on the cylinder would be reduced by half if the rod was 8" from the pivot pin. Might still bend the rod if too small of diameter.

The rod diameter is, as several mentioned, very important. A 1-1/4" diameter rod, for example, is 56% stronger than a 1" diameter rod.
Actually if you look at the direct pin bucket for this same loader frame....it looks to be about twice the pivot distance as the 4-bar. Reference pics in post # 116 and #120.

So they did account for the longer cylinder by giving the bucket LESS mechanical advantage over the cylinder that now has a longer rod.

Looking at the two loaders side by side....its tough to tell which one would buckle easier, since that is a function of length vs rod diameter as already been discussed...(and hopefully that horse is dead).

Obviously the rod without the 4-bar will buckle under LESS compressive load since it is LONGER and presumably the same diameter.

BUT, the mechanical advantage of the loader over that 4-bar link appears to be about twice that of the direct pin. So as in your example...point load the bucket in the 4-bar with 1000 pounds and you are putting 6000 on the cylinder. Do the SAME thing with the direct pin and you are only putting about 3000 pounds on the cylinder.

So we simply have 6000# on a short cylinder....or 3000# on a long cylinder....which one would buckle first. Thats the great mystery that cannot be solved without some better measurements which I have no way of attaining.
 

npalen

Elite Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
3,059
Location
Beloit, KS
Tractor
Kubota B9200 HSTD and Mahindra 3015
Actually if you look at the direct pin bucket for this same loader frame....it looks to be about twice the pivot distance as the 4-bar. Reference pics in post # 116 and #120.

So they did account for the longer cylinder by giving the bucket LESS mechanical advantage over the cylinder that now has a longer rod.

Looking at the two loaders side by side....its tough to tell which one would buckle easier, since that is a function of length vs rod diameter as already been discussed...(and hopefully that horse is dead).

Obviously the rod without the 4-bar will buckle under LESS compressive load since it is LONGER and presumably the same diameter.

BUT, the mechanical advantage of the loader over that 4-bar link appears to be about twice that of the direct pin. So as in your example...point load the bucket in the 4-bar with 1000 pounds and you are putting 6000 on the cylinder. Do the SAME thing with the direct pin and you are only putting about 3000 pounds on the cylinder.

So we simply have 6000# on a short cylinder....or 3000# on a long cylinder....which one would buckle first. Thats the great mystery that cannot be solved without some better measurements which I have no way of attaining.
Not sure we're on the same page here. The "pivot distance" that I'm referring to is the distance from the bucket pivot pin extending perpendicular to the centerline of the cylinder. That distance is clearly much more on the "4-bar".
I can't tell any difference in the length of the cylinders in the two photos. Is there any difference in the rod diameters? Someone may have mentioned that above. These long threads get a bit confusing.
 

JWR

Elite Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
2,858
Location
So MD / WV
Tractor
MF 2660 LP, 3 Kubota B2150, Kubota BX2200, MH Pacer, Gravely 5660, etc.
Not sure we're on the same page here. The "pivot distance" that I'm referring to is the distance from the bucket pivot pin extending perpendicular to the centerline of the cylinder. That distance is clearly much more on the "4-bar".
I can't tell any difference in the length of the cylinders in the two photos. Is there any difference in the rod diameters? Someone may have mentioned that above. These long threads get a bit confusing.
I think I understand what you are saying, npalen, that the 4-bar gives the cylinders an 8" lever to push against versus only about 4" when the 4-bar linkage is not there (relative to the pivot point.) Not that the 4" or 8" are exact but that means roughly a 2:1 better mech advantage for the cylinders with the extra linkage. That's the same thing I said in post 115 in a bold face OBTW when that lightbulb went on for me.
 

LD1

Epic Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
21,023
Location
Central Ohio
Tractor
Kubota MX5100
Not sure we're on the same page here. The "pivot distance" that I'm referring to is the distance from the bucket pivot pin extending perpendicular to the centerline of the cylinder. That distance is clearly much more on the "4-bar".
I can't tell any difference in the length of the cylinders in the two photos. Is there any difference in the rod diameters? Someone may have mentioned that above. These long threads get a bit confusing.
No we arent.

I am talking about the distance from where the cylinder hooks to the bucket in relation to the pivot.

Where the 4-bar link attaches to the bucket is ALOT closer to the bucket/boom pivot than the direct pin.

If the bucket was only dumped half way.....the direct pin would have alot greater mechanical advantage.

At full dump or full curl the 4-bar would have the advantage. The lines would cross somewhere in between. It becomes a very complex computation to calculate, because you are taking a linear force and trying to convert it to a rotational force.

Not dissimilar to a piston, rod, and crankshaft in the engine. If the crankshaft is at perfect 180 degrees....you could put as much force on the piston as you wanted and it wont move. IF the crank were at 90 degrees....a pound of force equals way more rotational force going into the crank than say a pound of force on the piston if the crank were at 20 degrees.

And the above is infinitely variable. FULL dump is gonna have a different equation/value than say 2 degrees less than full dump.
 

LD1

Epic Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
21,023
Location
Central Ohio
Tractor
Kubota MX5100
I think I understand what you are saying, npalen, that the 4-bar gives the cylinders an 8" lever to push against versus only about 4" when the 4-bar linkage is not there (relative to the pivot point.) Not that the 4" or 8" are exact but that means roughly a 2:1 better mech advantage for the cylinders with the extra linkage. That's the same thing I said in post 115 in a bold face OBTW when that lightbulb went on for me.
Think of it as more of a variable lever. Since you are converting linear motion into rotational motion. Similar to the engine/crankshaft I mentioned above. Or even a bicycle and pedals. When the pedals are near the top and bottom of their stroke...it takes alot more force from your legs than if the pedals are at 90 degrees (front and back).

What the 4-bar DOES do is make that variable lever vary a whole lot less. Think of a 4' long prybar that you can grab anywhere. From 1/2 a foot all the way to 4' out for most leverage. That would be a direct pin bucket. Whereas a 4-bar would be more like only being able to use the lever from 2.5-3.5'.

Goes along directly with what I said in post #87
With a direct pin, at full dump and full curl power drops off. The rollback force is a parabolic arc. With the greatest force right in the middle of its range of travel. At full dump and full extend....the pins are getting ever so close to being in alignment.....thus reducing force.

The 4-bar solves not only that problem....kinda flattening the curve of rollback force, but also allows greater articulation. Like upwards of 160-170 degrees of bucket rotation instead of 120-130 degrees of bucket rotation.
 

Jchonline

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
2,443
Location
Red Feather Lakes, CO
Tractor
Kubota L6060, KX040-4, M7060, X1100C, M62(S)
Tractor FELs are unsupported directly by the frame in any position. When you push against something, those forces come straight up to the FEL mount points beside the operator station. The entire FEL arm with its own angles/joints is put under these forces. The weakest point will break, and that is usually the cylinder arm. If you had the Cylinder fully retracted, it would be somewhere else. It is not smart to use your tractor FEL to PUSH on anything that is very heavy. A mound of dirt is fine. A stump in the ground is not. Tractors are meant to pull.

A skid steer/track loader in its lowest position allows the loader arms to rest squarely against the front of the frame. So when you are pushing something there is no play, no force directly on the loader arms. These machines are meant to push.
 

npalen

Elite Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
3,059
Location
Beloit, KS
Tractor
Kubota B9200 HSTD and Mahindra 3015
No we arent.

I am talking about the distance from where the cylinder hooks to the bucket in relation to the pivot.

Where the 4-bar link attaches to the bucket is ALOT closer to the bucket/boom pivot than the direct pin.

If the bucket was only dumped half way.....the direct pin would have alot greater mechanical advantage.

At full dump or full curl the 4-bar would have the advantage. The lines would cross somewhere in between. It becomes a very complex computation to calculate, because you are taking a linear force and trying to convert it to a rotational force.

Not dissimilar to a piston, rod, and crankshaft in the engine. If the crankshaft is at perfect 180 degrees....you could put as much force on the piston as you wanted and it wont move. IF the crank were at 90 degrees....a pound of force equals way more rotational force going into the crank than say a pound of force on the piston if the crank were at 20 degrees.

And the above is infinitely variable. FULL dump is gonna have a different equation/value than say 2 degrees less than full dump.
It becomes a very complex computation to calculate, because you are taking a linear force and trying to convert it to a rotational force.

Actually its just a matter of using the perpendicular distance from the line of force to the pivot pin. That times the force being applied computes to torque. (rotational force)
 

LD1

Epic Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
21,023
Location
Central Ohio
Tractor
Kubota MX5100
It becomes a very complex computation to calculate, because you are taking a linear force and trying to convert it to a rotational force.

Actually its just a matter of using the perpendicular distance from the line of force to the pivot pin. That times the force being applied computes to torque. (rotational force)
Yes it's simple at a fixed point.

The complexity is the whole thing is variable as it moves. As the bucket rotates....the forces change. There is no simple "x" number of pounds of force will buckle the rod.

That's why loader rollback force is plotted on a graph in most loader manuals. It's not as simple as a single number.

The amount of force at a bucket edge....required to buckle the cylinder, could also be plotted on a similar graph....IF one had all the details and measurements
 
  • Good Post
Reactions: JWR

npalen

Elite Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
3,059
Location
Beloit, KS
Tractor
Kubota B9200 HSTD and Mahindra 3015
Yes, I understand what you're saying and agree. I was talking about the force at any given point during the cycle as you mention. A graph is the way to show the forces throughout the stroke.
 
  • Good Post
Reactions: JWR

JWR

Elite Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
2,858
Location
So MD / WV
Tractor
MF 2660 LP, 3 Kubota B2150, Kubota BX2200, MH Pacer, Gravely 5660, etc.
And I just noticed that the SSQA plate mating with the back of the bucket is not the same plate comparing direct pin versus pivot links. The pin plate with the holes is made differently and thus with different leverage. My OBTW mech advantage conclusion in post #115 was wrong.
 
  • Good Post
Reactions: LD1

Cougsfan

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
1,308
Location
Eastern Washington State
Tractor
Ferguson TO35, Branson 4720CH
One thing has became clear to me after all the ranting and raving in this post; the next time I buy a tractor I am going to pay close attention to the design of the curl rams. In general the shorter they are, the larger in diameter they are, the less they are apt to bend. As I do a quick look I see significant variance in curl ram design from tractor to tractor.

I keep hearing "Do not back drag with the FEL!". I have been doing it for years, so drastically as doing it with my front tires lifted off the ground, and have never had a problem. Probably due to my dumb luck of having a decently designed ram setup on the curl.
 

JWR

Elite Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
2,858
Location
So MD / WV
Tractor
MF 2660 LP, 3 Kubota B2150, Kubota BX2200, MH Pacer, Gravely 5660, etc.
One thing has became clear to me after all the ranting and raving in this post; the next time I buy a tractor I am going to pay close attention to the design of the curl rams. In general the shorter they are, the larger in diameter they are, the less they are apt to bend. As I do a quick look I see significant variance in curl ram design from tractor to tractor.

I keep hearing "Do not back drag with the FEL!". I have been doing it for years, so drastically as doing it with my front tires lifted off the ground, and have never had a problem. Probably due to my dumb luck of having a decently designed ram setup on the curl.
We all have. The official position from dealers for years was "don't do it" but it was tongue in cheek because they ALL knew most people were doing it. The post above from ruffdog shows that Messicks (one of the more prominent Kubota dealers/sellers) not only buys into the reality of it being done they coach you in that video how best to do it.

My lesson was learned a few years back doing probably about the worst possible case of back dragging using a large MF tractor. I was preparing a site for a pole barn and some of the ground was hard baked clay soil approximately the same as rock. I pointed the bucket tip (not a std bucket but a 1000 lb 4-in-1 heavy bucket) into the hard ground, lifted the front of the tractor with it and backed up in 4WD at max power, low range, low gear. It worked for most of the job UNTIL all hell broke loose. A steel section of hydraulic line burst wide open, separated itself from the loader frame and spewed oil all over the place. OK, so I replaced the section of steel line and finished the job with newly found knowledge. BUT, the loader, the cylinders and everything else held up just fine. The weak link (aside from my brain) was the steel hydraulic line. My DL250 loader passed the test. I still wish I had the next heavier DL260 loader for unrelated reasons.
 

ning

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
1,738
Location
Northern California
Tractor
Branson 3520h
I pointed the bucket tip (not a std bucket but a 1000 lb 4-in-1 heavy bucket) into the hard ground, lifted the front of the tractor with it and backed up in 4WD at max power, low range, low gear. It worked for most of the job UNTIL all hell broke loose. A steel section of hydraulic line burst wide open
Is the idea here that the back dragging made dynamic shock waves in the hydraulic line that went over its psi rating?
I'm thinking there was a fault there ready to go, and it would've happened soon enough even without the back dragging.
 

ptsg

Elite Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
4,277
Location
Portugal
Tractor
Branson F36Rn
Work port relief valves could easily solve all of this damage caused by back-dragging or the use of oversized implements.
 

4570Man

Super Star Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2015
Messages
16,059
Location
Crossville, TN
Tractor
Kubota M59, Kubota L3800, Grasshopper 428D, Topkick dump truck, 3500 dump truck, 10 ton trailer, more lighter trailers.
I keep hearing "Do not back drag with the FEL!". I have been doing it for years, so drastically as doing it with my front tires lifted off the ground, and have never had a problem. Probably due to my dumb luck of having a decently designed ram setup on the curl.
They’ll survive back dragging with the bucket at 45 degrees. It’s when you roll it to 90 degrees that problems happen.
 
 
Top