Curved VS Straight Loaders: PHOTOS

[Bob_Skurka]

<font color="green"> Has anyone made the obvious connection that the arc is the strongest possible shape. And, thus starting out stronger compared to the dog leg ones, the arms can be lighter for a given strength, which gives you more payload at the bucket?
</font>

Actually I think a few people have come to that conclusion, but generally those comments came from folks who own curved arm loaders.

There also seems to have been the occasional comments that the only reason NH developed curved arm loaders was to save material costs, but those comments generally came from non-NH owners.

I don't really care WHY the curved arm loaders were developed, what I care about is how they work and the fact that I am more productive with the NH loader than the dog-leg style loaders. I have tractors to help me speed up my tasks, and what I didn't realize when I purchased the NH was that it would outwork the larger Kubota. There are several reasons for that, the loaders on the two tractors are equals, but the smaller NH tractor moves around easier, and NH has a much better view forward. So the combination of same capacity, high manuverability, and excellent visibility add up to a more productive FEL machine (the higher HP of the Kubota has its advantages for some tasks, but not for FEL work in this case).

Looking at other tractors, and going 1 step up in size, the Kioti CK30 and the NH TC29 or TC33 would be logical comparisons. For strictly loader work, I would probably take either TC over the CK because of the short wheelbase and SS option which combined would out maneuver and outwork the CK30. But if there were other tasks the tractor would be used for, then depending on those tasks, I might opt for the slightly larger/heavier CK. So to be fair to all brands and all styles, if FEL work is a MAJOR factor, then I would opt for the curved arm unit that manuvered the best, in whatever size range was needed, and after using both types for a while, I would be willing to pay extra for the machine that got the job done faster. But if FEL work was an occasional thing, then I would look harder at all the other factors and place less emphasis on the curved arms.

 

[JATO_RaT]

Daryl, its not the sloped hood that bugs me, its the long extended curved arms. It still hasn't grown on me. I don't know if it's an illusion or if the curved loader arms actually extend quite a bit further forward or not compared to conventional loaders. The funny thing is, I do know the bucket has better visibility for the operator with NH because I tried it. The flip side is that I am so familiar with a low knee design like CAT and Deere use on the industrials and the terrible view from the operator seat when compared to my Kubota LA 723 that I feel like I have a front row seat using it. I guess its a matter of perspective. I can operate a loader on the JD 510 industrial hoe with it's lousy view as fast and accurate as I can on my Kubota. I think it's a learned response, like using a hoe to dig pier footings. You can't see the bucket, but you better know what it's doing.

 

[MikeBurr]

Just some thoughts about the differences between my old TC33d/w 7308 and my new TC33da/w La14 & quick connector .
1. The view seems about the same to the front of the tractor, they both have the sloped hood.
2. The side view is a little better on the new tractor. This is when I look down the left or right side to position the bucket.
3. The hood on the new tractor is wider at the front, blocks a little more of the total forward view of the bucket.
4. With the 7308, I could tilt the bucket all the way back (front edge pointed up) and use it to push/smooth dirt. With the 14la, I really have to watch how far back the bucket is tilted or the bottom links drag in the dirt. Have to relearn how to smooth dirt again/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
5. With the 7308, I could put the bucket all the way forward(bucket lip down) and it was real easy to back drag with the bucket, could even pull mud up out of holes. With the 14la, the full down position is not as angled backwards. Also rocks tend to roll under the bucket edge instead of scooting along the ground when backdraging.
In 4 and 5, I think a little of the problem maybe due to the extra space added by the quick connector. But I also think most of the problem is in the extra linkage needed for the curved arms.

Now I don't know if all curved loaders will have my new problems, but along with looks, we should also conceder which style may work better. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[actionman04]

Hey do you know all of the movable parts of the case wheel loader.

 

[rockyridgefarm]

Well, all this discussion of the curved loader arms had held my interest.

I really like them. But they had them when I bought my current tractor, I tried both and got the "old fashioned Dog leg" As I have said before, I really didn't see a significant improvement over my Deere with the NH. I know that I promised to check with a tape, but haven't been able to do it, but just my "casual" observations are far closer to the New Holland than the Kubota in your tests...

But when I was shopping, NH did not offer the 14LA, just the 7308. I igured the 14LA had significantly better specs.

This weekend, I was parusing a CaseIH catalog, and actually checked the specs. NH claims the curved arms are "lighter and stronger than old fashioned dog leg styles."

Great, Then why is the 14LA rated at about 800Lbs lift? My 430 is 1200, and Deere's new 300cx is just under 1600 lbs. Thats almost 100% more than the 14LA! I know the Kubota loaders are even higher spec than Deere rated theirs...

I was told the real reason for this is the front axle, is that the case. Are these loaders actually detuned?

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Mike, not sure about the specs you looked at, but there are some conflicting numbers that come from NH and Case and even NH lists different numbers in different places. The 12LA shows either 800 or 850# at full height, with 1090# at 19"(?) and a breakout force of 1720#. The 14LA (or 114 Case) shows 1256# lift and 2712# breakout. All are measured at the pivot point. The problem I have with all the specs from all the manufacturers is that they are difficult to do apples to apples without knowing where their measuring points are. Double hard when a manufacturer like CNH uses different numbers on different pieces of literature for the same loader and then the numbers for the same loader painted red are also different. But all are pretty close to each other. Every brand of loader is rated for less at the middle of the bucket than at the pivot point. Every brand is also rated for different weights at different heights.

In the case of this thread, I was comparing 2 different brands of tractors that have statistically equivalent loader capacities to see if there is a real difference in visibility. It has been contended (by me and a few others) that the greater visibility makes using the curved arm/sloped hood loaders easier. The point of this thread is to show the visibility differences between 2 similar loaders.
Kubota 402 = 1060 lift, 1684 breakout, 6'8" lift height
N.H. 12LA = 1090 lift, 1720 breakout, 7'1" lift height
Again, measured at the pivot points as per the mfg's spec sheets.

 

[rockyridgefarm]

Wow! That is quite a spread... I am not making up the numbers - I read them right out of their book... You would think the marketing guys would do all they can to but their best face forward, but then there are the liabilty guys...

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Mike the numbers I show for the NH 14LA/CASE LX114 come from their websites and various PDF downloads.

 

[rockyridgefarm]

Mine came from the most recent CaseIH catalog I received a few months ago. To be fair, the numbers were listed within specific tractor specs, ie, a 114 on a DX33 has about 800# lift. Maybe the loaders are capable of more than what the tractor can handle, and are detuned... I dunno...

 

[Bob_Skurka]

My source is the Case DX document titled: Integrated Implement Specifications, it lists the loader with the tractor. The specs are identical for both the 29 and the 33. And I know why your specs are different. Because your specs are based on a measurement that is 19.7" (50cm) "forward of pivot" while mine are based on measurements "at Bucket Pivot." And for consistency sake, every time I ever quote a spec about any brand of loader, I always use the pivot point as my frame of reference, and I usually state that I use that.