Grapple on GC 2310

[rjmack]

not trying to slag your purchase, I would love to have a working grapple for my machine, but the weight is a huge problem on any brand of sub compact utility tractor.

these forks don't grab as good as a grapple but they work surprisingly well, are very durable, weigh less than 50 lbs, don't require any holes in the bucket, and can be made for somewhere around $50.00.

firewood duty - YouTube

 

[ray66v]

The bucket on my gc1715 dl95 loader is 155 pounds. If the grapple weighs 250 . . Then its lifting limit spec needs to minus 95 pounds. But there are other considerations too. Is there a quic attach involved and its weight too ?

Next, consider that. The grapple shown is physically larger than a bucket.. The bucket typically put most of its weight "close to the pins . . but with that grapple you might grab the weight much further out than with a bucket . . . also effecting its weight lifting potential.

I know. You don't need to convince me, I'm already on that side of this debate.

That's why I asked.

 

[Fiziksgeek]

I full grapple would be nice, but you gotta find an appropriates sized one, and for occasional use, I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense. I like the recommendation of some bolt of forks, maybe even a brush/debris rake. If you really want something capable is grabbing a log, I love my "The Thumb" grapple thumb added to my bucket....Its not terrible heavy, and comes off with a couple pins.

 

[rjmack]

I full grapple would be nice, but you gotta find an appropriates sized one, and for occasional use, I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense. I like the recommendation of some bolt of forks, maybe even a brush/debris rake. If you really want something capable is grabbing a log, I love my "The Thumb" grapple thumb added to my bucket....Its not terrible heavy, and comes off with a couple pins.

sure would be nice to see some video of it in action. :thumbsup:

I never ruled out building one, maybe I can get some ideas.

 

[Ooklaa]

I have been thinking about this now for over a year and im still not sure what to do. I did some simple tests to see what i can and cant do with my firewood. A got a nice size log length firewood and put a chain around it and strapped it to my loader. Well couldnt lift it. So i undid the chain and then used my backhoe, i wrapped the chain around my backhoe with the log length and she picked it right up no problem.

So im looking into a nice backhoe thumb so i can then pic up these logs, for it also to be stable enough so i can cut these logs lifted up.

Or is it possible to pic up the log length with the loader? RJmack i see your video, but howmdo u cut the firewood with the bucket behind it and not mess up your chainsaw?

 

[Ooklaa]

maybe a new post should be started?

Anyways this is what i found on the internet..

http://https://youtu.be/UKxSBlsAr_c


The logs i have are thicker not as long.

Can our loader lift this witha thumb?

Im gonna go out in a lil bit and redo the test, take pictures for everyone to see.

 

[Fiziksgeek]

Our loader should be able to lift the dogs in that video. Weight is proportional to the square of the radius, but directly proportional to the length, so thick logs get heavy faster...There are also big differenced in density of various species of wood. Best thing to do it estimate the weight of your logs. Its not hard to calculate, but you can also use an online tool such as this one.

Using your backhoe does offer some other advantages though. Longer reach if picking off a pile. The bucket is only 12", so assuming you are cutting to a length longer than that, you can cut the entire log without work about hitting the bucket. The disadvantage I think is maneuverability, If your logs are in one place, but you want to lift them and move them to another place for cutting, like in the video, using a grapple on the front would be a bit easier.

 

[AxleHub]

Ooklaa,

There are several issues to consider when lifting with a fel compared to a backhoe.

1. Start with the idea of where the power is greatest. On a fel, your greatest strength is from groundlevel up to about 32 inches in height. So if you are using a chain on a log . . You aren't even starting to lift until you are a fair amount off the ground. So if its a fat log chained to your bucket . . you could be 40 or 48 inches or more and the log is still resting on the ground. If you had a fork set pinned to your fel arms you'd very likely lift substantially more weight.

2. Lifting heavy weight is one thing . . But moving that object is something else. With a chain, normally the object can swing or sway which makes moving a heavy object more risky because of the rocking momentum and the fact the item is BELOW your fel . . Which is just the reverse of something in a bucket or on forks or in a grapple.

3. Not only is the location of the weight important vertically . . but its important horizontally . . So if its chained and the chain is out in front of the bucket and then 1/2 the log diameter is in front of that too . . your weight load is far away from your pins both vettically and horizontally AND its swaying as well when moving.

4. In tests I did last fall using my gc1715 quick attach and my fork set and a pallet with blocks stacked on it I was lifting 825+ pounds of blocks to a height of 18 inches or so at 2800 to 3000 rpm . . But I could NOT do it at 2400 rpm or to 36 inches height nor could I safely move that load accrosd the yard unless I cheated and stacked all the blocks tightly above the pin area. And certainly I could not go up or down the hillsor over rough terrain safely at that load. I had to unload some of the blocks to do those things or risk a chuck hole or branch being my undoing.

5. Lastly relating to item 4. . . . notice I am very specifically mentioning what was attached to the fel arms before weight measurements. So a basic bucket on a dl95 loader is 155 pounds. Then thrre is anything you add to the bucket (like hooks etc). Then is your chain 30 or 40 pounds etc. etc. etc.. And lets not forget that I wss doing it for testing . . not normal use. Maximum lifting just wears out parts and axles and multiplies risks.

Maybe you might consider lifting one end of the log so you can easily cut it shorter before trying to lift and move the whole log a distance or struggling with a log that is not dried or too big a diameter for its length . . Then shorten its length so you can shorten your weight lifting need.

 

[ray66v]

Keep in mind, you can lift a lot more weight with the backhoe, than you drive around with.

I once used my B/H as a crane, to move an approximately 250lb anvil, on a stand.

It lifted it with no problem. But, when I tried to move it, I quickly found I had insufficient front ballast.

Filling the front bucket will no doubt help. But, I did not get the chance to see how much.

 

[AxleHub]

Well my Milonzi grapple finally arrived.
Works like a charm

I did notice the curl does not seem as strong. I suspect it is due to the increased leverage.

I feel bad for the OP. I know what it's like to start a thread on something good and watch responses come in negative on what you just
paid money for lol.


Opinions are what they are . . but balance is the point too. For my uses, DannyLobster's grapple is too big. My woods area is tight treelines and large branch diameters and logs . . so I need narrow width and short but strong reach. However that pictured grapple the op got would be excellent if the concern was a bigger woods area and lots of uses for branches and brush and excess big weeds and grasses.

That grapple really allows lots of room to pick up a big pile of branches at one time . . Or pine and cyprus trees. Also it would be nice if you were cutting lots of willows or young growth birch and aspen and binding them together.

One last thing to consider is the differences in weight handling between the DL100 loader and the DL95 loader (as posters were refering to the GC23xx loader which is also the early gc17xx loader (dl100) compared to the dl95 loader on the late 2014 and forward gc17xx units. Even Massey's own brochures had 2 different sets of lifting specs until recently for the DL95 loaders.

On the actual DL95 loaders there are numerous physical differences such as the pin sizes are a fair amount larger on the dl95 to accommodate heavier weight loads. I wonder if this is true on the other 3 sizes that alsp replaced the prior manufacturer ?