Float on Rear Remote Valve?

Gatorboy · Sep 14, 2004

I know of no commonly used 3pt implement for CUTs that could make use of a float valve. Now there may be some ag specific equipment that could use float but I cannot think of any at this moment. 

I have a 15' flexwing mower (pull not 3pt), and I use float about 98% of the time for both outside wings. My middle valve does not have float, and that is used to raise/lower the mower deck.

RichNJKubota · Sep 14, 2004

My neighbor has a disc mower to cut hay that needs a float on the rear remote.

Rich

OkieG · Sep 14, 2004

The Prince valve for my hyd toplink will control 2 double acting cylinders. There is float in one direction for one cylinder. So, far I've never used it. My tractor is too small to use winged mowers, or cut hay, but if any uses for small tractor float on a rear valve come along, I'm ready. Like texbaylea said, as I recall, no one came up with a good use in his thread, . I didn't buy the Prince valve with a task for float in mind, the valve just came that way. So, I'm just waiting for a use to come along.

OkieG

rswyan · Sep 15, 2004

UPS delivered my 3 spool Prince SV valve this afternoon and this evening I assembled it and did the plumbing for all the fittings and couplers. I ordered all three work sections with just plain old spring-to-center return which were $50 each.

I was really torn between getting all three spring-to-center or getting one with a detent - it could have been handy for a splitter powered off the hydraulics but my main idea to get one was for the hydraulic dump wagon I'm building (call me lazy)

Getting a detented worked section would have ran an additional $9.50 I think bringing the total to an even $215.

....... Henro ..... you say you are putting a 4 worksection valve on ?

...... hmmmm .... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

rambler · Sep 15, 2004

( I plan to order my new tractor with three remote valves, two for the top and tilt, and one to accommodate future (rear or front) implements that require hydraulics. These valves are in addition to the four-way joystick SCV that will control the FEL.

As it turns out, I have the option of ordering one or more of the remote valves with a float function. That said, I am having trouble visualizing how a float function could benefit either the top or tilt cylinders. I believe that implements such as a box scraper or rear blade (or rake) utilize the float built into the 3 pt hitch lift, but would not utilize additional float if it was available in either the top or tilt cylinders. Am I right about that? Even if float is not useful for either the top or tilt cylinders, is there any other commonly used hydraulic implement, other than the FEL, that would be potentially more useful with a float function? )

I come from an ag background, and both detent and float are _very_ handy for some equipment you may hook up to the spare remote, but I agree there is no advantage to having float on the top. The tilt part _might_ have a use for float, but probably would be more trouble than help as you try to raise & lower things like a back blade, get you in more trouble that help....

Myself, I would get regular for the T&T valves without any worries, and would think hard about the spare remote, might want it there...

--->Paul

Henro · Sep 15, 2004

I come from an ag background, and both detent and float are _very_ handy for some equipment you may hook up to the spare remote, but I agree there is no advantage to having float on the top. 

Paul,

You could be totally correct in this observation. But I seem to remember posts in the past about people using chains rather than the normal top link with rotary cutters, and if I read right, the reason seemed to be that the linkage that they had with their cutters did not offer a great enough range of movement when they were cutting rough ground with lots of humps and valleys.

If this is the case, then would not float on a hydraulic top link possibly help and in no way hinder the up/down movement of the rotary cutter?

Granted, if one is cutting flat or mildly rolling ground, the point is moot. And aside from the rotary cutter, or possibly, maybe a RFM in the same situation, it sure does seem like float in the top link would be of little use...

 The tilt part _might_ have a use for float, but probably would be more trouble than help as you try to raise & lower things like a back blade, get you in more trouble that help.... 

Why would that be? You only have float in the picture if you have the control handle pushed to the detent position, just like on a loader.

Recently I spread some crushed limestone on my driveway, and it is not flat, but has some strange angles. I THINK if I had float on a tilt cylincer I would have be better able to have my landscape rake, which has gage wheels, follow the actual contour of the driveway, and spread the crushed stone at a more even thickness...

This is all speculation on my part as I don't have my t and t setup installed yet. I did some maybe meaningless trials with my cylinders installed and using a concrete block to simulate a compound angle, and it sure looked like float in one tilt cylinder would be a positive.

I keep falling back on the thought that if it costs about $40 dollars or so to add float to one valve section initially, why not do it? It would cost a lot more to do later, and be more trouble to install as well. It is not like one has to use it...

Sorry to be beating this horse to death...but from what I can see having tilt available for minimum cost is an advantage. Just like it is an advantage on our loaders, even though we may not need to use it all the time.

Be interesting to see what I think AFTER I have the float option available on a working T and T setup... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

We write nothing in stone where I come from... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

rambler · Sep 16, 2004

Henro, you might be right.

For the rear mower, _most_ mowers should have this built in. I think the action needs to be reasonably fast, and a top link in float might not be fast enough? For me the real issue is safety - if you have the top link in float mode, leave it there (none of us ever forget anything right?) and pick up your rear mower with the 3pt, many mowers will wreck the pto shaft as it bends too far. I don't like that idea. So I believe I would not ever need the float on the top link.

The tilt part has similar safety issues with float - you leave it in detent, and pick up the blade, and then what happens? I'm not sure I like some of the possibilites. Now if I were perfect & never forgot anything, it might be handy once in a while on a rear blade. Maybe. I hold out more 'maybe' for tilt anyhow. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

--->Paul

ZJ_HR · Sep 17, 2004

Float is necessary for front 3pt lift, or front mounted snow blade, if it is equipped with double acting cylinder.
Float doesn't have any advantage for top link or tilt cylinder, if they have pilot operated check valve, except that when valve is in float position it is possible to disconnect couplers without shutting off tractor engine

Riddler · Sep 17, 2004

From the looks of all this good information, I am glad I floated the question!! Seriously, the cost difference is minimal enough that the "add now, ask questions later" approach makes some sense.

ZJ_HR · Sep 18, 2004

I have 3 double acting remotes on my tractor.
First one has double way detent - for up and down,
Second one has detent on one way, another side is spring return. Both have bypass screws for transforming to single acting valve.
Third valve has spring return from both ways, with float position.