GC1700 series OEM pallet forks?

[mile9c1]

Any idea if he's working on a tatch-n-go snow blade? Personally I would like adjustable forks for moving my snowmobiles around.

 

[AxleHub]

Any idea if he's working on a tatch-n-go snow blade? Personally I would like adjustable forks for moving my snowmobiles around.

I've been working on a tach-n-go snow blade concept for some time. But my issue the last 16 months has been a time shortage.

Regarding moving snowmobiles with forks. . . .I'd think the goal would be fork set strength and length, and adjustable forks aren't as much as the fixed ones in those departments. Wouldn't you turn the snowmobile sideways on the forks anyway ? I'm not aware how much snowmobiles weigh - but I'd think getting them near the FEL pins would be a priority.

 

[Ron of Va]

I bought these clamp on pallet forks from Palletforks.com. They stick out 30 inches (longer ones are available) only weigh about 35 pounds apiece and are easy to install. The Stabilizer bar is a must have or they will rack on you. $119 includes the stabilizer bar.

I have found them very useful and reasonably priced. The capacity is 1500 lbs., which is more than my front-end loader is rated for.

Titan 3" LW Clamp on Pallet Forks w/ Adjustable Stabilizer Bar 15lb Capacity

 

[edgarrian]

I nearly went this route but decided against it. Only b/c I knew I would have to pick stuff up thats heavy and would need the load closest to the machine. I really like the capabilities and ease of use.

I bought these clamp on pallet forks from Palletforks.com. They stick out 30 inches (longer ones are available) only weigh about 35 pounds apiece and are easy to install. The Stabilizer bar is a must have or they will rack on you. $119 includes the stabilizer bar.

I have found them very useful and reasonably priced. The capacity is 1500 lbs., which is more than my front-end loader is rated for.

Titan 3" LW Clamp on Pallet Forks w/ Adjustable Stabilizer Bar 15lb Capacity

 

[AxleHub]

Clamp on pallet forks work fine for lightweight carries. But regardless how strong the forks are rated for. . the weakest link by far is they attach to the bottom of the bucket and SCUT bucket's are not built of thick metal like you see in skid steers or larger compact tractors. I would believe the bolt on forks create a leveraged stress in the floor of the bucket when a load of 400 or 500 pounds or more is lifted. As a result a heavy load on the bolt on forks puts leveraged strain on metal designed for scooping - not supporting.

In addition in my case at least. . My bucket weighs 155 pounds and even if clamp on forks are only 30 pounds. . that is 80 pounds greater than my whole fork set weighs and the weight is further outward of the fel support. In addition my fork payload can be strapped to the back frame of the forks which puts it right over the pins and with that back frame, loads can't shift or fall backward into a bucket etc.. . . where if a bucket is in the way there's nothing to act as a back edge or wall.

I fully understand there are legitimate needs and uses for bolt on forks . . . they are less costly and easily mounted and detached. But those uses and advantages would greatly limit I use my forks for. I've been surprised just how often my forks are used - and the purposes they get used for. I really had no idea that I would use my forks for moving picnic tables and big flower pots, rocks and trees and huge miles of branches. I would never have guessed I'd be "packing down" under pressure using the forks - loads of branches on the trailer going to the brush pile. Just another fork use of many LOL

 

[Ron of Va]

I think there is very little chance that the clamp on forks would deform the bottom of my front-end loader. The hydraulics are not up to the task. Especially if you consider that the further you spread the forks, out towards the sides, the sides re-enforce the bottom. Maximum lift on the fel is 870 lbs. that is 435 lbs. per fork. As I understand it, there is a lot more steel in this fel, then there was in the previous version.

I realize that extending the forks out towards the ends multiplies the force, but I am competent enough to realize their limitations. There is a place on the forks to re-enforce them with chains and a load binder to completely wrap the bucket, and spread the entire weight over the bucket if I desire to do so.

The top of the forks where it attaches to the bucket have a place to drop a board down into them to provide a back stop if I so desire.

I am too parsimonious to buy a dedicated fork setup. To each his own. I am very happy with them.

 

[not2old]

Any idea if he's working on a tatch-n-go snow blade? Personally I would like adjustable forks for moving my snowmobiles around.

I move and load my sled with my tractor but without forks. I made up a set of wheels, using two "wheel barrow" tires, putting the axle through a piece of pipe that spaces the wheels about 30" apart and set the rear of the sled on that. Setting the brake keeps it in place. I have a trailer receiver attachment for my bucket that I attach a short gin pole to, in order to pick up the front of the sled and move it around easily. This even works well to get my sled in and out of my basement which is 4 steps below ground. I don't have any pictures and my sled is buried for the summer.

 

[AxleHub]

I think there is very little chance that the clamp on forks would deform the bottom of my front-end loader. The hydraulics are not up to the task. Especially if you consider that the further you spread the forks, out towards the sides, the sides re-enforce the bottom. Maximum lift on the fel is 870 lbs. that is 435 lbs. per fork. As I understand it, there is a lot more steel in this fel, then there was in the previous version.

I realize that extending the forks out towards the ends multiplies the force, but I am competent enough to realize their limitations. There is a place on the forks to re-enforce them with chains and a load binder to completely wrap the bucket, and spread the entire weight over the bucket if I desire to do so.

The top of the forks where it attaches to the bucket have a place to drop a board down into them to provide a back stop if I so desire.

I am too parsimonious to buy a dedicated fork setup. To each his own. I am very happy with them.

Greetings Ron,

Just a few points. The DL95 fel offers a stronger lift capability than did the dl100. However the issue of bolt on forks is not with the fel. . . but is potentially with the bucket.

Next, the lifting capacity of the dl95 loader is measured in several ways - not as a flat weight. Issues like "is the bucket included or is the weight number after bucket" is important measurements. And the same identical dl95 loader will lift more when mounted on ahe gc1715/1720 than it will on a gc1705/1710. (point 0.)

Next, the focus is on actual payload capacity or what some call "net usable weight" (point 1.)
and distance from the pins of where the weight is placed influences weight numbers (point 2.)

And the height the load needs to be lifted to or needs to reach influences usable weight levels (point 3.).

My point is, if your bucket is 155# plus forks are 35# you are at 190#. If a complete fork set such as mine weighs 105#, the payload on mine is increased by 85 pounds alone. In the scut situation - that's 85 real pounds of usable weight regardless of points 0 or point 2 or point 3. Then if your weight is 12 inches to 18 inches from the pins, your payload is considerably further reduced compared to forks that are only 1 or 2 inches from the pins (makes quite a difference).

My point is not that bolt on forks are either good or bad. . . . but that their price is lower because they deliver a different payload potential than a full fork set designed for SCUT use and capacity. Bolt-on forks "borrow" the steel of the bucket instead of providing their own equivalent - in order to keep costs down. But that "borrowing" is not as efficient as actually having its own. ITs merely a trade off - lower cost - lower capacity.

The Massey SCUT bucket is plenty strong for carrying dirt or gravel or river rock or wet un-set concrete because all those items conform and spread the weight over the whole of the bucket contour. However the bucket is not the heavy metal that is needed for "specific weight" situations. That's why you want to be careful when using chains or high specific weight items n the bucket. Bolt-on items just like chains can create metal deflection on a SCUT bucket with high weight issues.

You claim you are parsimonious. While my expectations of cost are based on what I want to do or can expect from the amount paid. Sometimes I'm "thrifty" and sometimes I'm an investor and not a "buyer".

While I know what parsimonious means - you won't catch me using a word like that because a lot of wisdom comes from people who don't know what that word means . . . and personally, I need all the wisdom I can gather in every direction in this lifetime, because "degrees" at all levels aren't nearly adequate to produce common sense or wisdom.

jmho

AxleHub

 

[Fiziksgeek]

For some reason, the link tot he Agco parts book posted previously just take me to the home page...still a bit annoying to find the page with the pallets forks. Try this link:

AGCO Parts Books

Look like they have a set of pallet forks...both pin on a skid steer quick attach, which is strange, because at least as of now, they don't off a SSQA loader option. So maybe that it an option in another country...or perhaps its a coming upgrade....? It does show a "hook kit", looks like a quick hitch adapter maybe? Who knows...

They also show a bale sear, and if you look under buckets, they show a 54" also.

The pallet fork frame just says NS for the part number, non serviceable, not sure what that means.....how could it be ordered without a part number...?

 

[edgarrian]

One would think that a lot of people upon purchasing a scut would enquire about a SSQA. Why wouldn't they offer it from the get go. Id think they are losing out on some profits or maybe its just not that popular. In my case I did ask upon purchasing of the tractor but to my surprise the dealer didn't have much info. He showed me some sites with the attachable forks and I wasn't really interested in those. Hard to believe that massey doesn't offer this. I guess the profit margin on something like this is to slim and probably not enough people interested in it. Im sure if they did offer it would be in same realm cost wise as other third party vendors for such an attachment