loader dump/curl angles

[jimglassford]

This is why I asked if it was the KL1590. There is no loader that is just called the 1590. As for the kit to repair the issue, it was $2,000. I say was because it is no longer available. Some of the dealers still list it but they were discontinued a long time ago. The kit included a lot of parts and required welding new components on the bucket or tool carrier. In general, KMW did a poor job of designing the loaders for Kioti and that is why Kioti dumped them, leaving the customer holding the bag. If you need a loader, plan on buying a new loader, preferably other than Kioti.

 

[KJVT]

Jim, it is in fact a KL1590. It's not clear to me whether the repair kit changed the rollback angle or just improved the rollback strength with improved geometry. It's academic in any case.

Short of getting a new loader, given the existing angles I have can you suggest an optimal bucket attachment angle change? Do you have personal experience with the KL 1590 and if so do you know what the original curlback angle was? If it was in fact 31* that would mean the dump angle at full height was only about 15*, which seems ineffective. I am not planning on moving mountains so I am most interested in carrying materials low safely and being able to dump effectively at a moderate height.

 

[jimglassford]

I have the slightly larger KL1595 sitting in the field. I do not know what you mean by the original angle since what you have is the original angle. Are asking for an optimal angle for a loader in general? Each manufacturer has their own opinion. The kit that was sold moved the spacing of the four pivot pins on the bucket or tool carrier to increase the roll back angle and force. This was accomplished by cutting the old brackets off of the tool carrier and welding on the new ones. These have to align exactly or the loader will bind as you rotate the bucket. The kit then included new cylinders and linkages to address the new mounting hole locations.

I spent a lot of time investigating how to alter my loader and there is no clear cut formula. There is no low cost way to fix the poor design.

 

[KJVT]

Yes, I am asking for an optimal angle given the constraints of this loader. I find it hard to believe that the original curl angle was only 10 degrees between level and the bucket bottom but perhaps that was the case. I am guessing that the guy who put the skid steer QA plate on the bucket did not take the resulting curl angle into account. I am not interested in re-engineering the loader, only in possibly changing the angle between the QA plate and the bucket. Thanks for your help.

 

[jimglassford]

Another problem you will run into is if you decide to use other attachments. I tried putting a set of forks on the tool carrier and that was a disaster. The forks would not even roll back enough so they were parallel to the ground. That and the lack of force would only support about 100 pounds on the forks. I think KME designed the loader on bring your child to work day.

 

[KJVT]

I have decided to modify the SSQA adapter so that the front attachment plates curl back 24* from vertical. Combined with the bucket shape that will put the bucket bottom at 32* from level and when I get pallet forks they will curl back to 24* from level. The bucket dump angle at full height will be about 60* from level and at minimum height about 80*. It turned out that the bottom rear edge of the adapter frame was hitting the loader arm when dumping at or near full height and the angle change will allow for the full dump angle shown in the loader manual.

I made a plywood mockup of the adapter and bucket and mounted it to the loader arm pins to check for interference, and talked to my metal fabricator about doing the job. It will probably lower the effective lifting force slightly as the bucket bottom will be about 3" further forward, but it should be worth the effort. The adapter is from HLA and labelled for the specific loader, but it definitely was not well designed for the application. Their site offers one universal adapter for tractor loaders and I would not be surprised if similar problems crop up with other tractor models. Loader designs vary a lot.

As far as the loader strength goes, I haven't tested it thoroughly but I did bolt on bucket forks and lifted and curled back some moderate loads. The 1590 may be a dog and the mods are an unexpected pia but I think it will serve well enough for my purposes. We had no problem lifting a 6' brush hog off a flatbed truck.