KL120 Loader Flexing

[Bob_Skurka]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( But is the kubota a curved arm loader? )</font>

No, but it has a toothbar.

I still think people who think a toothbar voids a warrenty claim are nuts.

 

[KiotiJohn]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( No, but it has a toothbar.

I still think people who think a toothbar voids a warrenty claim are nuts. )</font>
I know that I said it MAY void a warranty, and it sure could if the MFG wanted to push it, if they don't offer one as an option.

I doubt seriously if the MFG of any brand would push it that far, but you know they could. There is a list of options on most sites of the things recommended by the company, toothbars are not usually one of them.

As to not using my loader, I have a toothbar, and I use the heck out of my loader, no cracks.
John

 

[Glen_Ippolito]

No Bob my point is. As you stated in other post that some manufactures have issues with stress on there loaders, which I'm pretty sure you were talking about KIOTI. You also stated that NH loaders have no issues.

I would really like to see an accurate test with your NH loader. To make sure your statements are correct.

 

[Steve_Miller]

<font color="red"> Anyhow I am just curoius about this, please don't flame or bash anything here as I would like to keep it about civil. </font>

Steve

 

[MossRoad]

MODERATOR's NOTE:

Some posts were pruned from this thread at the request of some members. No PMs were sent, as they asked for them to be removed. As Steve asked, let's keep it civil.

If you replied to one of the posts that was removed, your post will have gone away as well. Sorry, that is the nature of the setup here. Feel free to reply to Steve to keep the discussion going.

 

[turbo36]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( "the extension of the tooth bar would add leverage and if that was asymmetric as with the example of snagging a root with the distal teeth then you would be applying more torque force to the loader frame especially when lifting or curling."

I think this is the problem. The length of the lever on the working end of the bucket doesn't matter. The only force being generated comes from the hydraulics. The toothbar length could be 10 feet but the hydraulic system can only push so hard on it before stalling. The toothbar is just the tip of the tool, the muscle of the tool is what limits the system. Try thinking of it in reverse, teeth don't apply leverage to the tractor, the tractor applies leverage to the teeth.

I certainly agree that a FEL will live a longer life if it sits in the garage collecting dust. )</font>

Highbeam, as a fellow engineer I agree with you. Maybe it would help to put it another way; If you put a lever a mile long on one corner of the bucket and tried to lift it nothing would happen because the force needed to lift the bucket would exceed the force available from the hydraulics. The frame would just twist within the design limits. So if the loader was a big massive design the bucket would sit the flat and parallel to the ground, no twist at all because the hydraulics would stall out before the frame twisted.
We all know that the the loader design is a compromise between strength and cost it should be no stronger then the market is willing to pay for.
Now if I was designing this loader I would start with the assumption that the loader will be loaded on on corner only and determine the number of times this would happen in the design lifetime ( that I choose) then simulate the stress cycle to determine when I will have a failure, if the failure occurs at a time longer then my design lifetime then I have a winner if not then I have to beef up the design or limit the force or the number of cycles.

 

[MikePA]

MODERATOR'S NOTE:

Closed at the request of Steve_Miller. Thread has outlived it's usefulness.

 

[Highbeam]

bummer