Front End Loader Leveling Arms?

[R W]

i got lost in all the hydraulic mumble jumbo.

from the pic posted in that quoted post, (and from what ive seen in person) there is no way to bind a properly designed mechanical parallel arm system.

leave all the hydraulic bypass BS out of it. K.I.S.S.

Your talking sense.

 

[mwb]

Your talking sense.

Agreed!

 

[rhamer]

So would you also agree that the key to a properly designed system is as I said earlier;

So the trick is to make sure the cylinders reach the end of their travel (in both directions) before the bucket reaches the full extent of it's rotation (in both directions)

I just want to be sure I'm not missing something obvious.

Cheers

Rohan

 

[schmism]

before the bucket reaches the full extent of it's rotation (in both directions)

by which you mean the bucket linkage doesnt bind on itself over the full range of motion yes.

you could mock something up and test it out, or take some measurements off the various existing parallel arm setups that exist out there.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Do some searching. The answer is easy to find.

So would you also agree that the key to a properly designed system is as I said earlier;

So the trick is to make sure the cylinders reach the end of their travel (in both directions) before the bucket reaches the full extent of it's rotation (in both directions)

I just want to be sure I'm not missing something obvious.

Cheers

Supposedly the info is easy to find. rback33 supposedly knows what it is. I cant figure out why he doesnt just say.

Myself, I think when you got to the nitty gritty yould want a capability to have as much bucket motion range as possible - like comparable to std systems. In providing this with a MSL system you would incorporate a risk of self damage into the system that would have to be addressed with a provision for curl hyd relief.
larry

 

[Renze]

So would you also agree that the key to a properly designed system is as I said earlier;

So the trick is to make sure the cylinders reach the end of their travel (in both directions) before the bucket reaches the full extent of it's rotation (in both directions)

I just want to be sure I'm not missing something obvious.

Cheers

Rohan

The point with self levelling systems is that they keep level. they are designed at the geometry of a loader with its bucket, or forks, horizontal.

Tilting it fully back (loading thin muck, or thick slurry ) and it will not remain the same angle to the ground anymore: when you lift higher, the bucket will slightly tip forward.

If your loader has a rollback angle of, lets say 50 degrees, that isnt much of a problem. If it is 35 degrees, it will tip out to maybe 20 degrees when the bucket is fully up.


This problem of maintaining the same angle, not just when horizontal, but also in the range from 0 to 50 degrees rollback, is cured by differing the geometry of the linkage. In our latest model (designed by my predecessors) maintaining allmost the same rollback angle from lowest to highest lift height, comes at a cost of 4 degrees off, when the bucket is parallel to the ground...

My front loader is perfectly parallel and all deviation is caused by material stretch and mechanical play. However i do tilt back my bucket just a little extra with an overfull bucket of muck.. For dirt, this effect has little effect on material spill because i can hardly fill the big 2 meter wide bucket to the top.

I can do that because my loader has the original tipping cylinders of the non levelling loader it is based on, i have way more cylinder travel than the parallel mechanism allows.

So far, i have cracked the welds of the pipes that support the upright consoles, but the loader itself remains perfect. I have gussetted the pipes to distribute the force over a bigger area of weld, so that there is less strain on every square mm of weld. Welded material is way more prone to fatigue cracks than the original material.

 

[TBDonnelly]

i got lost in all the hydraulic mumble jumbo.

from the pic posted in that quoted post, (and from what ive seen in person) there is no way to bind a properly designed mechanical parallel arm system.

leave all the hydraulic bypass BS out of it. K.I.S.S.

To a hydraulic novice like me, it sounds like you're saying; throw all the safety mechinisms to the wind. But then again, I could be interpreting you statement totally wrong.

Don

 

[Reg]

To a hydraulic novice like me, it sounds like you're saying; throw all the safety mechinisms to the wind. But then again, I could be interpreting you statement totally wrong.

Don

I thought he said something more along the lines;
Avoid making it a hydraulics problem by solving it in the geometry of the arms and linkages.
(essentially the length of the bucket cylinder remains constant)
But there again, I could just be reading in what I already perceive as the KISS'est solution.