Fun with the loader tonight - pallet fork test

[KenB2920]

I guess I could drive my DK-40 to Michigan. If I start now I should see you about 2 years from now.

Lol, well if you drive it, we will let you join the party !!!!

 

[KenB2920]

I lifted it off of a flat bed trailer, but not full height. i didnt want a ton + of manure over my head LOL

here are a few pics. I got the weight of my forks off off the web site i ordered them from.<img src="http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=348644"/><img src="http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=348645"/><img src="http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=348646"/>

Are your forks quick attatch? From my angle they look like "pin on"... I was thinking 400 sounded a bit heavy as well. (Good lookin tractor). I think Tim and I agree, wer're not tractor biased as we would love to own several of each.

 

[grsthegreat]

400 lbs sounds high in general for pallet forks. Mine are medium-duty 42" forks from Everything Attachments and weigh 240 lbs.

Mine are from "QuickAttach" and according to their catalog my 42" forks weigh in at 400# NET (not including any shipping crap). Personally after trying to move these around while there not attached, i think they weigh all of 400#. They are rated at 4,500# lift capacity, so are way over engineered for my tractors lifting capacity.

 

[grsthegreat]

Are your forks quick attatch? From my angle they look like "pin on"... I was thinking 400 sounded a bit heavy as well. (Good lookin tractor). I think Tim and I agree, wer're not tractor biased as we would love to own several of each.

yes, there quick attach. made by company called quick attach.

they hook on in matter of seconds. i have no way to verify the actual weight except to go off what the company says they weigh. I do know that this company way overengineers all their stuff. This set of forks is built very strong and very heavy duty.

 

[k0ua]

yes, there quick attach. made by company called quick attach.

they hook on in matter of seconds. i have no way to verify the actual weight except to go off what the company says they weigh. I do know that this company way overengineers all their stuff. This set of forks is built very strong and very heavy duty.

View attachment 348696View attachment 348697

I can see they have a heck of a lot of steel in them.

 

[KenB2920]

yes, there quick attach. made by company called quick attach.

they hook on in matter of seconds. i have no way to verify the actual weight except to go off what the company says they weigh. I do know that this company way overengineers all their stuff. This set of forks is built very strong and very heavy duty.

<img src="http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=348696"/><img src="http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=348697"/>

Well they do look awesome.... I am getting a used set I saw in a photo. I pick them up Friday. I hope they are as good as I expect :-/ .... They are only 34" so I hope they do what I need, but I got them at auction for $240.

 

[94BULLITT]

My buddy picked up a pallet load of water softener salt tonight from TSC and had it loaded on the pallet in the back of his truck. We thought it might be fun to see how our tractors would handle it, especially because we could actually define the weight with the bags of salt.

1 pallet = 63 bags of salt
1 bag of salt = 40 lbs
total salt-load weight = 2520 lbs
pallet weight 48"x48" = 40 lbs (maybe ?)
So, we're talking roughly 2560 total lbs with the pallet included .... ?
NOTE: My pallet forks are 42"


THE TEST:

So, first I drove up and sunk the pallet forks right into the pallet and tried to lift it out of the back of his truck. His truck is a GMC 2500, so I would say the bed sits right around 42" high maybe? Well, I put the engine right at 2400 RPM (I figure PTO speed RPM's should have the hydraulic pump working at full capacity) and .... NO GO. The system went right into relief and wouldn't lift the pallet off the bed. We played with it awhile, adding & subtracting bags, finally getting the pallet off the truck and onto the ground, and played some more.

Here's what we found with my R4047 with the LL4101 loader: Once on the ground, using 42" forks, I can lift a pallet with 50 bags of salt (@ 40lbs/bag ... that equals 2000 lbs of salt) to a "working height of about 4' high. The salt bags were evenly stacked on the pallet so that the weight was evenly distributed (no cheating by putting the bags closer to the back). With each added bag of salt, the loader lift-height dropped a bit. I was able to lift more than 50 off the ground, but 50 was the number I could lift to a "working" height.

My buddies tractor is a Kub L3540. We were impressed with the performance of his tractor as well. His tractor is equipped with the LA724 loader, with a lift cap rating of 1792lbs @ full height (pins). He was able to lift 37 bags on the pallet (1480 lbs) to working height.

So, an interesting number here: My LS could lift (using pallet forks @ 42") about 75% of it's lift capacity (2638 @ the pins) to a working height of about 48" ... My buddies' Kubota could lift about 82% of it's lift cap to 48". I would say Kudos to Kubota for this scenario. Anyhow ... Thanks KenB2920 for the beers :dance1:

View attachment 348607

Cool test. I have said before it would be fun to get a bunch of us together with similar sized tractors and see how they compare. Don't forget to include the weight of the pallet and pallet the forks in your figures. I don't know about your LS but I don't think the lift capacity includes the SSQA which hurts them a bit.

Next test hook them draw bar to draw bar:stirthepot:

 

[KenB2920]

Cool test. I have said before it would be fun to get a bunch of us together with similar sized tractors and see how they compare. Don't forget to include the weight of the pallet and pallet the forks in your figures. I don't know about your LS but I don't think the lift capacity includes the SSQA which hurts them a bit.

Next test hook them draw bar to draw bar:stirthepot:

Lol, well, as fun as that would be, I don't think their would be a comparison as TSO has 10 or so more HP. I also think we should develop a "field day" to test various components of tractors.

Such as:
1) get a large dumpster dropped off to see who could reach to dump in there.

2) attach a rotary mower and see how the machines handle them (maybe even various duty rotary mowers). Also a finish mower with variable widths.

3) same goes for pulling different plows

4) compare tire traction in various grounds and various conditions. (Snow on grass or asphalt, loose sand, mud etc.)

5) lifting pallets from the 3pt.

Obviously the list could go on forever and I am sure there are these answers all over the net, but this would be just true fun and real world applications.

 

[TSO]

It might even make some of us reconsider our tractor purchase :confused2:

Hopefully no one brings a Mahindra 5035 ... that might ruin me.

 

[94BULLITT]

Lol, well, as fun as that would be, I don't think their would be a comparison as TSO has 10 or so more HP. I also think we should develop a "field day" to test various components of tractors.

Such as:
1) get a large dumpster dropped off to see who could reach to dump in there.

2) attach a rotary mower and see how the machines handle them (maybe even various duty rotary mowers). Also a finish mower with variable widths.

3) same goes for pulling different plows

4) compare tire traction in various grounds and various conditions. (Snow on grass or asphalt, loose sand, mud etc.)

5) lifting pallets from the 3pt.

Obviously the list could go on forever and I am sure there are these answers all over the net, but this would be just true fun and real world applications.

It is not as much about the power as it is the weight.

If we all got together for a "field day" it would turn into a field week.

You would need a crane scale to see who could lift the most.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using TractorByNet