Loader questions and how much is too much?

[Kernopelli]

Finally some pics.

 

[alchemysa]

I can see why you want some weight on the back. The buckets a long way out in front! Doesn't look like youve got much curl or dump on the bucket. Might be able to fix that by moving the bucket ram pins down 4 or 5 inches.

 

[RonMar]

That is out there a ways. Your lift rams also don't initially look like 73 degrees from vertical. That steeper angle will increase your available torque at the arm pins, and the your lift force at the bucket. Eyballing it in the first pic, it looks more like 50-55 degrees from vertical. I already have your arm pin to cylinder attach point dimension. If you can get me the distance from arm pin straight down to the lower cylinder attach pin, I can re-calculate the availabel lift force.

 

[Kernopelli]

I can see why you want some weight on the back. The buckets a long way out in front! Doesn't look like youve got much curl or dump on the bucket. Might be able to fix that by moving the bucket ram pins down 4 or 5 inches.

I attached some pics of roll back and dump. The first pics really didn't give an idea of the actual angles of each. I think they are adequate but really don't know how far loaders roll or dump.

Ron wrote: ""That is out there a ways. Your lift rams also don't initially look like 73 degrees from vertical. That steeper angle will increase your available torque at the arm pins, and the your lift force at the bucket. Eyeballing it in the first pic, it looks more like 50-55 degrees from vertical. I already have your arm pin to cylinder attach point dimension. If you can get me the distance from arm pin straight down to the lower cylinder attach pin, I can re-calculate the availabel lift force.

I remeasure and your right, it wasn't 73 degrees. I had used a triangle square against the upright last time and eyeballed the angle and arrived at 73. Used the same method this time but used a 3 foot straight edge to parallel the cylinder and extend the line across the square and it is actually 65 degrees ( sorry about the misinformation) . Both times it was with the loader fully lowered. In the original pic with the loader slightly raised it probably is closer to 50-55.

The distance from the arm pivot pin down to bottom cylinder pin is 29 1/4".

Yes, the bucket is way out there. The tractors wheelbase is about 60"-about the same distance as the front axle to center of the bucket. While I have no idea what the original loader was on or designed for, I assume it was a tractor roughly twice the HP as mine. Even after removing length from both ends of the arms, it is more than my tractor needs. I had to shorten both the lift and bucket cylinders (the bucket cylinders were originally 65" w/41" stroke-YIKES). I should have shortened the lift cylinders more than I did and positioned them differently but hind sight is 20/20 isn't it. I guess I could always shorten the lift arms and cylinders in the future and maybe I'll consider that this winter when I sand blast/paint it. That will likely allow it to exceed the tractors limitations however...guess I can always drop the pressure on the relief to counter act that though.

Thanks Ron.

 

[RonMar]

In the original pic with the loader slightly raised it probably is closer to 50-55.
The distance from the arm pivot pin down to bottom cylinder pin is 29 1/4".

With the bucket in the position in the first pic you posted(bucket about 1' off the ground), and using those dimensions, your cylinder angle is about 55 degrees from vertical referenced to the arm pivot and upper cylinder attach point. That gives you a lever arm of around 22" or more than double the 73 degree calculation. Using the numbers from the last calculation, 10,681 pounds of cylinder force X 22"/1.833' lever arm equals 19,581 FT/LB of torque at the lift arm pivots. Divide that by the 77" or 6.42' distance from arm pivot to bucket pivot equals 3050# of available lift at the bucket pivots 1' off the ground. It will be less with the bucket on the ground, perhaps 2700#, due to the cylinder angle. The lift force will peak at approximately 3600# when a line between the arm pivot and the upper cylinder attach pin is perpendicular to the line between arm pivot and lower cylinder attach point(50 degree cylinder angle, 26" lever arm). I am guessing that would be with the bucket about 2-2.5' in the air. The available lift force will decrease from there with loader elevation and decreasing cylinder angle.

Is that tractor front end easy to get parts for? I would lower the safety so it has trouble lifting a full bucket and won't lift a heaped bucket. Another way to set it up would be to inflate the tires to rated pressure and set the relief so it can't lift more weight than moderately squishes the tires. Afterall it is a tractor not a loader.

Shortening the arms would allow more weight in the bucket with less stress on the tractor front end.

Good Luck.

 

[diyDave]

You need to put some rear wheel weights on that little toy. I found that if the wheel/tire combo is a standard American size, such as 8.3 X24, the weight mounting holes are similar to an American tractor with similar wheel/tire size. I put weights off of a Farmall 140 on my Kubota L2202, and they fit with 7/16" bolts, instead of the 1/2" bolts the Farmall used. Saves you the trouble of taking the mower off and mounting the counterweight. Or, you could just pump 150 lbs of air into each rear tire, to get more weight!

 

[alchemysa]

Or, you could just pump 150 lbs of air into each rear tire, to get more weight!

Better still, collect some exhaust gas and pump that in. 5 minutes of exhaust gas contains about 2 tonnes of carbon dioxide or something like that.

 

[john_bud]

Better still, collect some exhaust gas and pump that in. 5 minutes of exhaust gas contains about 2 tonnes of carbon dioxide or something like that.

Now that is some industrial strength sarcasm!

Nice. (Don't let Al Grrrr catch you, he may sit on you.)


On your loader design. Overall very good. I agree that you can lower the top pivot points on the bucket to get more curl.

Given the strength of the subframe (or what I saw of it in the pic), I don't know that you need to down grade your hydraulics much at all. Get some back weight and lift away. I remember some of the American tractors of the 40's that were about that size that could lift 2000#. Then again, I don't have to fix it if it breaks....


jb

 

[alchemysa]

Now that is some industrial strength sarcasm!

Well I admit i just dont get it. I searched the first six pages of a google search to try and understand why we use the term 'tonnes of carbon dioxide' but I'm no wiser. In fact there really is no sensible explanation that I could find.

Typically you get confusing stuff like this that tells me that less than 3 kg of gas produces 8.7 kg of CO2.(?)

(Mass of CO2 from 1 gal of gas = 2.791kg/gal × 85.5% × (44.0g CO2 / 12.0g C) = 8.750kg)

Theres gotta be a better way surely.

 

[Renze]

I doubt a counterweight will take any substantial weight or stress off a loaded front end. It will add weight and traction to the rear end for sure but that may be all it does. The only way a counterweight could ease stress off the front end would be if it was so heavy or mounted so far back that it caused the tractor to see-saw (teeter-totter) on the back axle. That would make the front end light and could cause more problems than it solved. Adding weight to the rear may 'seem' to help but I wonder how much you have to add to really make any significant difference to the front end stress. Its an interesting question of geometry and physics. I guess it could be roughly tested by loading the FEL then taking a few front end measurements such as front tyre pressure, front axle height etc, before and after the addition of the rear mower.

Before i built a loader on the Zetor 5245, i had to use my brothers old Deutz D50 with an antique loader, no fwd, no powersteering.
It would cause you sore shoulders after loading up 3 spreader loads of manure. Traction was also a problem to back out of the slippery concrete bunk silo floor.
I used the 2 meter wide 3pt bucket as counterballast. Because the 3pt lift of that Deutz hardly lifted 800 kg, i scooped up as much manure as i could, then lifted the 3pt into fully raised position and locked it. The Bosch hitch on these old Deutz had a built in latch to lock it in transport position.
When i had my 800 kg of manure locked in transport position, i scooped the rest of th 3pt bucket full, roughly about 1500 kg.
The 12.4-36 rear tires bellied out quite a bit, and i'm sure the tractor would lift its front end untill the bucket was on the ground, if i took the loader off.
This was very helpfull, steering was as light as normal, and i actually had some traction. I could even steer the tractor with the individual steering brakes with a loaded front loader bucket.

this certainly reduced the steering force. However, this situation was far from ideal, and the strain on the rear end casing near the clutch housing are far too high for long term use.
IF i'd still be loading manure spreaders this way, i bet that Deutz would have become an articulated tractor. A horizontally articulating tractor that is....

With the 5245 (weight about 3200 kg) and a loader lifting roughly 1200 kg, i do like to have about a ton of counterweight to reduce bumpyness, and to keep the inner rear wheel on the ground when backing out of the bunk silo with a lifted loader.
I dont want to put more rear weight on, because it winds up the driveline too much when turning on concrete in mfwd mode.
I mounted the loader on the 5245 with a full length subframe made of hot rolled UNP 180 C-channel, which is a must for any 4wd loader tractor, or 2wd loader tractor with rear ballast, to deal with the lateral forces.