Cheap FEL cylinders keep bending

[4570Man]

Everyone keeps talking about the brackets, thinking they will somehow stabilize the rod and/or keep the cylinder pushing "straight" or "at an optimal angle"....

All FALSE.

The cylinder ONLY pushes straight. It is mounted with pins that can rotate. But the cylinder is never pusing anywhere other than straight.

The 4-bar links can be use or not used. All in design. Thousands of loaders dont have them and dont have issues. They are NOT the source of this issue. Would they have prevented this from happening.....maybe.....but only because the cylinder rod could be designed SHORTER.

I agree the pivot lever isn’t the cure all solution but it would eliminate the poorly designed rod extender which would help a lot.

 

[Shenandoah MF1760]

I tend to agree that there's something wrong with the cylinders. Either they are under sized, or the material used isn't hardened as it should be.

That is a different design than my FL 2814 which came on my 1760, so I wonder what the track record is?

If the dealer/manufacturer doesn't step up and honor the warranty recognizing they have a problem I'd either get it fixed and sold, or I'd modify the unit with larger diameter cylinders from someone else.

 

[LD1]

Well, that nails one thing -- the guilty party is AGCO/MF manufacturer NOT the dealer. These failures will never occur if the pivot levers are in place and are doomed to eventually occur without those levers. It is the manufacturer's fault. LD1 has said that the "extra pivot levers don't matter" but they do. With the levers in place no force can be applied at any angle other than directly parallel to the cylinder. The application of force on the cylinders stays the same [parallelogram] regardless of dump or curl. Without the pivot levers the application of force varies all over the place depending on curl and dump. Crucially, with the levers in place the cylinder rods do not need to be extended an extra foot or worse out to where they are "spindly" and vulnerable to excess compression loading. You will never ever see bent rods on a loader that has the pivot levers in place.

You have a misconception of how the 4-bar linkage works.

No part of that 4-bar linkage will keep the rod from buckling if too much column load is applied to the cylinder.

The maximum column load a cylinder rod can handle is a mathematical equation based on the length vs diameter ratio of the rod. The ONLY thing the 4-bar may save in this case is the fact that the cylinder rod can be SHORTER, and thus less resistant to buckling based on that fact alone. But the manufacture did NOT intend for the 4-bar linkage to be on THIS loader.

 

[LD1]

I tend to agree that there's something wrong with the cylinders. Either they are under sized, or the material used isn't hardened as it should be.

That is a different design than my FL 2814 which came on my 1760, so I wonder what the track record is?

If the dealer/manufacturer doesn't step up and honor the warranty recognizing they have a problem I'd either get it fixed and sold, or I'd modify the unit with larger diameter cylinders from someone else.

Maybe there is something wrong with the cylinders....maybe not.

I still havent found out what the bore, rod diameter, and rod length of the cylinders actually are.

But if the owner of this tractor was using this bucket that is 2x longer than standard....and exerting force by backing up with the bucket engaged in the ground or on a stump....its easy to see why the rods would bend.

Once they are bent....then YES, under nothing more than the tractors own hydraulic power, it can bend the rods as shown in the video.

If this is/was the case....then its operator error/abuse and nothing more. And I would not expect any competent dealer to warrant such abuse.

 

[4570Man]

You have a misconception of how the 4-bar linkage works.

No part of that 4-bar linkage will keep the rod from buckling if too much column load is applied to the cylinder.

The maximum column load a cylinder rod can handle is a mathematical equation based on the length vs diameter ratio of the rod. The ONLY thing the 4-bar may save in this case is the fact that the cylinder rod can be SHORTER, and thus less resistant to buckling based on that fact alone. But the manufacture did NOT intend for the 4-bar linkage to be on THIS loader.

I understand the 4 bar doesn’t inherently increase the cylinder strength but it could help the cylinder maintain a better leverage ratio against the bucket and shortening the rod would make a lot of difference.

 

[JWR]

No, I do not have misconceptions about any of this. As you said about 4 bar configuration " the fact that the cylinder rod can be SHORTER, and thus less resistant to buckling based on that fact alone." That's true. And that is probably THE main factor in the problem. Plus the '4 bar linkage' keeps the force applied to the cylinder applied in the exact same parallelogram all the time regardless of curl and dump which I like better mechanically. "The mfr did not intend ..." You have no way of knowing what the manufacturer intended, be it a 4 bar linkage or other factors. I strongly suspect that the engineers and design people "intended" for the 4 bar to be there on all models but AGCO bean counters studied it and saved a few $ by leaving out the 4 bar linkage on some models like the FLx 2815 and probably charge profitably more for the other models that do use the 4 bar. Maybe they took that risk that not too many failures would occur and they'd make a few more bucks. If anyone complained, they'd just hide behind the 3rd party bucket blame or the famously prohibited back dragging. We'll never know for sure.

What I am VERY sure of [I'll wager in other words] that you will never find a loader using this frame with bent cylinder rods while using the 4 bar linkage that I called pivot levers. None. Ever.

 

[LD1]

I understand the 4 bar doesn’t inherently increase the cylinder strength but it could help the cylinder maintain a better leverage ratio against the bucket and shortening the rod would make a lot of difference.

That is correct.

But the notion that this cant happen with the levers in place....or that the levers somehow magically make it so the force is always straight, or that without the levers the forces on the rod can vary all over the place....all of that is pure nonsense.

Alot of old and quite powerful loaders never had the 4-bar. The old ford 735 loader on the 3400's and the QUITE POWERFUL 740 loader on the 4500's were direct pin. The quite popular deere 145 loader. The IH 250 and 2250 loaders like on MANY 574's and 674's. All direct pin.

And most compact and utility tractors all the way up through the 1990's

The 4-bar linkage was/is quite popular on industrial stuff. 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.

IF you look at a loader that has a 4-bar link when fully dumped.....you would NOT be able to direct pin it even with a longer cylinder without limiting how far the bucket can dump....because the cylinder rod would contact the loader arm.

Further more it keeps the cylinder rod away from the loader arm....and that tight pinch point that rocks or dirt can find its way into and damage a cylinder rod causing leaking out the gland seal.

All that are some of the many reasons they use them in industrial/construction type equipment. (none of which has to do with cylinder buckling).

Some time a few decades ago manufactures got the bright idea to start doing it on compact tractors. Then it was monkey see monkey do. So everyone started doing it. But there are still quite a few that dont, or manufactures that do both. The economy L-series kubotas are still direct pin, while the grand L's are 4-bar.

Look at skid loaders. Direct pin. But they also dont have as much total bucket rotation. They can go from cutting edge vertical to about 20-30 degrees roll back. So only about 120 degrees total rotation.

Smaller tractors dont need as much rotation as larger ones. Because they dont lift as high. So to get acceptable roll back at ground level.....a loader like on a compact or SCUT that can only lift 8' high doesnt need to rotate as far to dump as a big loader that can lift 11-12' high.

I dont understand why this concept is such a mystery to some. Sure, in THIS particular scenario Massey makes two identical loaders, one with 4-bar and one without. And in THIS scenario the 4-bar would have greater resistance to buckling for the reasons already mentioned....namely a shorter rod.

But to say things like a 4-bar will prevent bucking, or 4-bar means heavy duty meant to dig and direct-pin just just a material handler is ludacris.

 

[JWR]

I tend to agree that there's something wrong with the cylinders. Either they are under sized, or the material used isn't hardened as it should be.

That is a different design than my FL 2814 which came on my 1760, so I wonder what the track record is?

If the dealer/manufacturer doesn't step up and honor the warranty recognizing they have a problem I'd either get it fixed and sold, or I'd modify the unit with larger diameter cylinders from someone else.

No, there is nothing wrong with the cylinders. Your 2814 has the 4 bar linkage [see post #52] and does not cause the cylinders to extend way out where they don't belong and become "spindly" and needlessly vulnerable to heavy compression loading. Your "wondering what the track record is" is the best point of all -- In my opinion you will never find a bent cylinder rod problem on any of these loaders using that same frame so long as they have the 4 bar linkage as your's does. This Flx 2815 and others lacking the 4 bar linkage will have a track record of bent cylinder rods.

 

[LD1]

What I am VERY sure of [I'll wager in other words] that you will never find a loader using this frame with bent cylinder rods while using the 4 bar linkage that I called pivot levers. None. Ever.

I doubt we will ever find anyone using the sister 2814 loader (that HAS the 4-bar) using a 4 foot long stump bucket and back dragging with it.

What I DO know....is that on this forum we have seen bent cylinder rods from the "forbidden" back dragging on BOTH 4-bar AND direct pin loaders.

 

[LD1]

No, I do not have misconceptions about any of this.

You directly said "These failures will NEVER occur if a 4-bar link is in place"

THAT is your misconception.

While on THIS particular loader frame....based on cylinder sizes and geometry....YES, a 4-bar like on the sister 2814 loader would RESIST buckling better......it can still happen. It can happen on any cylinder if too much column load is applied to the rod regardless of configuration.

Obviously the column load of the cylinder on that Flx2815 was exceeded....otherwise it would not have bent.

But the burning question is....did that column load exceed what the tractors own hydraulics are capable of. And if it did NOT, and that cylinder is capable of handling whatever the tractors own hydraulics can dish out.....it is nothing other than operator error.

Yes, its pretty crappy if its right at its limits of design....and the slightest overload will buckle it....but if thats the case....there is no recourse and the dealer and MFG are covered. It will be expensive....but the fix would be to convert it to 4-bar with the shorter cylinders. That way instead of having maybe a 10% safety margin.....you might up that to a 60% safety margin.