Lift Capacity Statements

[JimMorrissey]

Have you noticed that Kubota rates their loaders with "lift capacity to MAX height at bucket bottom, mid point". This is stated for the L39 at 2200lbs and the description makes sense. However....when on earth would you want to lift 2200lbs nearly 10 feet in the air /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif I'd be scared to death to do that. Seems kind of odd to use that as a basis. I'd think maybe 3 or 4 feet is the max you lift something that heavy and travel with it.

I'm going to check the loader manual and see if there is some kind of graph that shows the lifting forces over height.

 

[cheesehead]

You may want to reach that height loading a dump truck.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ( However....when on earth would you want to lift 2200lbs nearly 10 feet in the air /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif ))</font>


How about when double stacking round bales onto a flatbed/trailer?

Or how about dumping a load of dirt over the side rail into the bed of a mid-large dump truck?

Perhaps when unloading double stacked pallets from the rear of semi?

 

[Dargo]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ....when on earth would you want to lift 2200lbs nearly 10 feet in the air /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif I'd be scared to death to do that. )</font>

That's when I'd use my forklift. It is not really large, but it will raise 6k to 18' in the air for my shelving.

 

[JimMorrissey]

Obviously it can be done now and again. If one loads a dump truck the material in the bucket likely does not weigh 2200lbs and if so, you'd better be on very flat ground. My point is that they use this as a major loader specification. Personally, I don't see the need. There's lots of creative ways the marketing folks come up with to measure capability and I find this less than useful as the single measure of a loader. Something more useful for comparison would be what the loader can lift and carry at a safe height. This is definitley a useful number, but not as the primary loader spec. Again, this is my opinion. They may have a reason for it. Let me add, these are specifications on the Web, not in the manuals. There is much more detail in the manuals.

 

[JimMorrissey]

Forks on the L39 with auto-leveling engauged work pretty well for lifting pallets...granted not to the heights you mention and not over a ton.

 

[JimMorrissey]

See my reply to Bob

 

[john_bud]

Jim,

That spec is a good statement of true ability for a loader. The jobs that Bob listed are typical daily activities for an industrial TLB. Loading a dump truck with 10' sidewalls is what you do to get the spoils (dirt from a hole) off the job site. You didn't think that they just spread out the dirt from the hole that was dug for a basement, did you? Oh, a full bucket of damp sand can weigh that much, so can many other items found on a job site. Easily.

jb

 

[JimMorrissey]

It's a "good" spec. It's not a good primary loader spec IMO.

I've never seen anybody "double stack" pallets and try to lift them from 10' in the air. I've seen PLENTY of round bales and handled them myself. I would never "double stack" them. You'd need a police escort in this neck of the woods. NO dirt in my bucket (factory supplied) wet or not, sand or not, weighs 2200lbs; And I would not regularly load any dump truck sides that high with that much weight, your productivity would be next to nothing. So as I said, it is a useful measurement of loader capability, it is not the measure I would choose to use as the primary number...especially in light of the marketing folks. Lower, slower, safer, greater lift....better numbers.

Really, "they" don't just spread the dirt from a cellar hole....that's interesting.

 

[john_bud]

Jim,

What is the size of the bucket on an L39? I was under the impression that it was 3/4 yard. 3/4 yard is 20 cu ft. It only takes 18 cu ft of wet sand to get up to 2200 pounds at 120#/cu ft.

And yes, it is interesting what happens to dirt from a cellar hole, isn't it?

Have a great day!
jb