CK30 HST Purchace Q's

[TTTTTT]

Hi All,

From the original post, I didn't expect such talk about the loader issue as it was already thoroughly discussed. But I did appreciate the dialogue. The bottom line I guess with any loader specs, is if you push any past its specs given that there is a little room for error built in, you are asking for potential problems and you take your chances. If you happen to hit something without realizing it you hope those tolerances are built in and can absorb that. As for the older CK130 loader, there is enough doubt out there to be careful when choosing one even with the mod kit.

Thanks everyone for the input. I'll let you know the outcome

Dave

 

[IslandTractor]

As for the older CK130 loader, there is enough doubt out there to be careful when choosing one even with the mod kit.

Keep in mind that no one has ever reported actually breaking or disabling a KL130 loader in any way related to the torque tube cracks. This is a solid high power loader that leads the pack in 30hp tractors despite the cracking business.

 

[MotorSeven]

Sorry Dave, we do have a tendency to yap way too much about out Kioti's.................

RD

 

[TBDonnelly]

All of my focus has been directed between the early KL120/130 cracking 'torque tubes' in comparison to the newer redesigned solid round KL120/130 'torque tubes'. Now, if you want to discuss the entire loader assembly, on the KL130 there are 8 pivot points on each arm, total of 16 pivot points on both arms. By the nature of the beast, if have a very lopsided load or hook onto an immovable object from either the left corner or right corner of the bucket and try to lift your going to see some deflextion from the normal resting position of the entire loader frame. IMO, the torque tube itself does not exhibit the flex, it's designed to distribute the load from one arm to the other as stated in the above posts. The deflextion comes in to play as the stress is spread over the entire loader assembly, as noted in the above posts.

I know my current KL130 torque tube is flexing. It has the cracks to prove it.

Kbeat writes: When the old loader tube cracks in the corner and the crack propagates to the screw hole is it a sign of imminent failure ? No, but it is weaker than before. Now the stress has a new radius in the bolt hole, but without a flaw in the steel or a new design weak link (The cutout radius to the screw hole) it would take a great deal more force/load to crack the rest of the arm.

From the pictures I've seen, some of the cracks lined up with the screw holes & some did not.

Kbeat, Thank you for the well written post.

The question I see here is, comparing the deflextion of the old style loader equipped with the 'torque tube modification kit' against the new style loader with the solid round torque tube. Put them side by side. Perform a like deflextion exercise on both loader assemblies. Compare the results. Now repeat the exercise, say, 200 times & 400 times. Compare the results. Y'all be the judge. Perhaps Kioti has already done some similar testing?

I did stay at a Holiday Inn but, for the full immersion of the thought process it really should have been a Holiday Inn 'Express'. As a result, my thoughts are still open.

Don

 

[IslandTractor]

Now repeat the exercise, say, 200 times & 400 times. Compare the results.

I'd estimate that you'd need to run the two sets of loaders through at least 20,000 cycles, not a few hundred, to see if there is any difference in longevity. I would cycle my KL120 loader probably 50 times an hour while working with brush (not all asymmetric loads though). I put on a minimum of 100hrs doing brush work in the two years I had that tractor which would be maybe 5000 cylces. The loader worked fine despite the cracks (no repair kit installed until the dealer took it in trade).

We'll just have to agree to disagree about the flex and torque tube issue. There is certainly going to be some flex in loader arms as you point out but I'm pretty convinced there will be flex in the torque tube itself too. My KL401 flexes just as my KL120 did with asymmetric loads. Try lifting a heavy weight with a pole and there will be flex in that pole. One needs to consider the strength of the pole in relation to the amount of weight and lever arm of course but I think the fishing rod principle is still relevant here. Fishing rods and torque tubes (as well as other FEL components) are designed to flex in normal use.

 

[TBDonnelly]

We'll just have to agree to disagree about the flex and torque tube issue. There is certainly going to be some flex in loader arms as you point out but I'm pretty convinced there will be flex in the torque tube itself too. My KL401 flexes just as my KL120 did with asymmetric loads. Try lifting a heavy weight with a pole and there will be flex in that pole. One needs to consider the strength of the pole in relation to the amount of weight and lever arm of course but I think the fishing rod principle is still relevant here. Fishing rods and torque tubes (as well as other FEL components) are designed to flex in normal use.

I don't see the design engineers of fiberglas fishing poles in the same room as design engineers for front-end-loaders. Lifting a load with a long pole is much different than a 30" long crossmember joining the FEL arms together. Your comparison's are more like apples to grapefruit.

The energy created from 'lifting' passes through the torque tube. The torque tube must be able to absorb it and pass it through to the opposing arm without over stressing the tube itself. However broad stroke of the brush you want to use the term 'flex' so be it.

Have we heard any verifiable evidence/reassurance from Kioti the modification kits are sound. No.
Have we given Kioti an extended opportunity to respond. Yes

Once again. We have some incredibly good and helpful Kioti dealers that participate here on the TBN forums. I fault KiotiUSA not the dealers.

Don

 

[Gittyup]

Island,

In my opinion at least one loader did fail: Mine. Didn't drop a load or outright stop working. But, did permanantly twist to about 2" from side to side and would no longer sit level. Grading and backdragging became useless, unless you wanted a sloped surface. That's a failure to me.

I predict over time, we'll see more failures of this type at least for those that do not get the kit.

 

[IslandTractor]

Island,

In my opinion at least one loader did fail: Mine. Didn't drop a load or outright stop working. But, did permanantly twist to about 2" from side to side and would no longer sit level. Grading and backdragging became useless, unless you wanted a sloped surface. That's a failure to me.

I predict over time, we'll see more failures of this type at least for those that do not get the kit.

Gittyup, that type of twisting of the loader has also been reported with other brands (Kubota B3030 as I recall). It is certainly possible to damage a loader without the cause being a cracked torsion tube. Do you think the failure or distortion of the loader is related to the cracks? Did the torque tube become completely distorted when the loader twisted and was the distortion through the cracks?

Photos?

 

[Gittyup]

My loader was only lightly used: Light brush and some mulch, No digging or heavy stuff. I checked for cracks often because I was pushing for the kit BEFORE it cracked. So, it was hardly worked hard, abused, or unduely damaged to cause the cracks. The first time I noticed that it was unlevel was also the first time that the cracks appeared. Seemed to be sudden and "catastrophic". The twist was evident, though 2" is hardly grossly distorted. My cracks extended part way into the turn on the fold in the tube. I do have photos. But, enough is enough on this loader. I know it was the weak tube, and it did fail as far as I'm concerned.

To compare it to the new loader: My loader arms has since been replaced and I've worked the dickens out of it since, moving over 400 tons of dirt and BIG rubble. You want to stress your loader, put it into piles of 75% basketball size interlocked rocks, ton after ton. I have done this with the new arms and she has performed superbly without nary a sign of twist, and I've certainly applied many an uneven load doing so. There is no comparison to the rigidity between the new design and the old.