Cheap FEL cylinders keep bending

[ruffdog]

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.

 

[grsthegreat]

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.

 

[5030]

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]

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]

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.

 

[JWR]

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.

 

[Torvy]

And yet, despite all of the complaints and second guessing of actual engineers, there have not been large numbers of these failing.

 

[cdaigle430]

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]

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.

 

[LD1]

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.