No more 3-pt hitch

nomad · Jun 23, 2009

but, infinite point hitch.

Don't you think same? It is time to do a revolution in attaching the equipments to tractor. Actually, Europe has already started this many years ago. Called A-frame. (We also manufactured such an A-frame of tousands of pieces since last year. See attached picture. There are different versions. Another version in USA is Delta Hook?) It's very useful.

Time to revolute. Red part will be built-on tractors at the tractor factory and grey u-section frame will be built-on at the equipments factory. So, no more quick 3-pt hitch problem. No more force on 3-pt only. Infinite point contact. There are millions of engineers and experts in the field. Why are they not thinking such simple things that we can easily think of?

Advantages and drawbacks of A-frames over 3-pt?

dsgsr · Jun 23, 2009

nomad said:
but, infinite point hitch.

Advantages and drawbacks of A-frames over 3-pt?

Ground engaging attachments such as a box blade, regular blade, earth plow- The top pin is the only thing holding attachment in the vertical & added weight to the 3pth or implement because of the New structure. Other than that looks like a good design , Or maybe I'm missing something? Also is a pretty close design of the Quick hitches on the market now.

David

Knight · Jun 23, 2009

I like it. Time for a change.

Duffster · Jun 23, 2009

Isn't that more or less a Freedom Hitch

pat32rf · Jun 23, 2009

I can only think of two problems...#1-Which size do you choose? At present you can use an implement that is too big/small for your machine with simple addapters. This could be overcome by attaching the new style to your old 3pth.
#2 With the current 3pth I can create my own implements as needed. Throw on a set of pins and I'm good to go. This new style would take a lot more work to build a simple ballast box/tow bar or whatever....
It does look like it would be real easy to slip one implement off and another on though....

nomad · Jun 24, 2009

When size/weight matters we have "pull" type attachments. "Pull" (tow) connection isn't cancelled with this A-frame which will be built-on the tractor at the factory. If an implement can be "hanged", A-frame can be used for all types of hangable implements.

You can still create your own implements with this A-frame. A-frame (red part in the picture) dimensions on tractors will be standardised anyway. All you will do is to add a gray u-sectional part (female part) to your implement instead of adding classical 3-pt parts (pins, etc.)

If you look at Delta-Hook's A-frame, it looks better and easier to make their female part. Ours is heavy type; its weight is 120 lb. Anyway, adding the female part of a-frame is easy. Just plasma cut and bend and weld it onto your implement. Anyway, male part will come with the tractor.

Egon · Jun 24, 2009

How's the clearance for equipment requiring a drive shaft the rear PTO?

nomad · Jun 24, 2009

Egon, it is not season of laughing in green. Grass is yellow now

Smile in yellow.

Clearence between equipment and a-frame when running pto shaft? There is no problem in that. I don't have a video clip of mine when operating, but, Delta Hook has a video clip on their web site. Do you see any problem there?

bjr · Jun 24, 2009

I'd have to see how it goes attaching the PTO shaft. I've real problems with attachment schemes that don't allow room to get to the PTO area. Newer isn't alway better. bjr

darkviper · Jun 24, 2009

ok my two cents from some expreineces.

First the way the frame attaches at the bottom of the a frame on the attachement side. With the brace coming in you will have a leverage problem and a point for fatigue. That needs to be attahed directly to the frame. The 2 lower arms bear the most of the pressure so you do not want anything with leverage when the tool binds up.

Second, you do not want the top of the a frame above the third arm. This is going to cause a tourqing issue that will attempt to push the arm down in a clockwise circular motion. Making a issue that will be hard to resolve once it happens. Search for the guy that had it happen with the box blade.I have done this numorus times with 3 point implements and speak from experience. The High above the pin the more dramatic the effect.

Third this deisgn would be fine for say up to 40 maybe 50 HP. After that the a frame on the implement side will be way to weak to take the typical bouncing when in the up position. 40 below i think this would be fine with some minor tweaks as time will tell.

Also the distance that you have it going back to the tool is going to drastically decrease the lifting capacity of a lot of CUTs or SCUTs. for every foot you will loose typically 500 lbs capacity depending on the tractor. You need the tool to mount as close to that a frame as you can as to not change the dynamics of the lift and leverage.

Otherwise i love this idea. I would try it myself. Dont take the above as slamming it. I think with a few tweaks you have something that may be a patent in the making. Keep us informed

kenstrac · Jun 24, 2009

What was wrong with the old Case eagle hitch that was a good system.why don't the MFG replace present arm w/ball with old case eagle hitch end no need for adaptors.

nomad · Jun 24, 2009

Folks,

Is it me or you who are missing some points here?
Let me clarify somethings first so that we can have a discussion on the correct road.

1. Assume that that red frame is welded to the gray frame. What is the difference between classical 3-pt and this a-frame 3pt? In my opinion, it is the same system. But, with this A-frame, 3-pt on implement is TRANSFERRED to the tractor and this cancels 3-pt system in attaching the implements. This means 3-pt is movable now and this means no more 3-pt system on implements. I can't see any difference in force/dynamic/strength diagrams in this a-frame coupling. Again, just imagine red frame and gray frames are welded each other. We can comfortably assume this if we are to analyse forces when operating an attachment; coupled with tractor which both (attachment and tractor) can be considered as single item. Technically, I don't see any difference between classical 3-pt and this a-frame when operating an attachment.

2. This is not a new patented system. Invented by Germans 2 decades ago (patents expired.) We manufactured tousands of this and exported to Europe in last 5 years. But, I don't see it in USA. Just wondering why. Maybe, I am missing somethings in their use?

nomad · Jun 24, 2009

Let me add these also.

Note that the movable (rotating) 3-joints in this coupling are still there when attachment and tractor are coupled. When coupled, there is no difference in the overall picture at all.
Difference can appear in the picture when they are uncoupled. Rear of tractor and front of implements willl look different when they are not attached to each other. But, when the are attached/coupled it is not different than classical 3-pt system at all.

Gittyup · Jun 24, 2009

Looks pretty good to me. I just wouldn't want to modify all my implements to use it, though. Most implements attach easy enough with the classic 3 point system, for my needs. Telescopic arms make all the difference. PHD is the only implement that gives me any real trouble, and I don't see this helping with that.

On new equipment it might have some merit. But, given that a lot guys purchase used, I'm not sure how quickly such a thing could become dominant. But, then I've never understood the expense and bother of outfitting implements with those "easy change" systems. Seems like they are more trouble than they are worth.

nomad · Jun 24, 2009

But, given that a lot guys purchase used, I'm not sure how quickly such a thing could become dominant. But, then I've never understood the expense and bother of outfitting implements with those "easy change" systems. Seems like they are more trouble than they are worth.

Actually, the philosophy behind this A-frame is not same as in that of those "easy change" systems. This A-frame is not an easy change system. It is rather a total solution to a problem of different kinds of quick hitches. This A-frame has started to become a dominant in Europe in last years and also started to be sold in Australia. If one tractor factory gives the male part of a-frame for free, the rest is easy. It will be easier to make female part for implement manufacturers. However, I am not expecting this a-frame cancelling the classical 3-pts as male and female parts have to be sold together and the price will be more than 150-200 USD. Much money considering the economy crisis. But, we can have CEOs walk in workshops now as they are jobless people, right?

Knight · Jun 24, 2009

nomad said:
Folks,

Is it me or you who are missing some points here?
Let me clarify somethings first so that we can have a discussion on the correct road.

1. Assume that that red frame is welded to the gray frame. What is the difference between classical 3-pt and this a-frame 3pt? In my opinion, it is the same system. But, with this A-frame, 3-pt on implement is TRANSFERRED to the tractor and this cancels 3-pt system in attaching the implements. This means 3-pt is movable now and this means no more 3-pt system on implements. I can't see any difference in force/dynamic/strength diagrams in this a-frame coupling. Again, just imagine red frame and gray frames are welded each other. We can comfortably assume this if we are to analyse forces when operating an attachment; coupled with tractor which both (attachment and tractor) can be considered as single item. Technically, I don't see any difference between classical 3-pt and this a-frame when operating an attachment.

2. This is not a new patented system. Invented by Germans 2 decades ago (patents expired.) We manufactured tousands of this and exported to Europe in last 5 years. But, I don't see it in USA. Just wondering why. Maybe, I am missing somethings in their use?

No difference in operating equipment, but a huge difference in connecting up
equipment. Just back up and lift. Slide pin in. Looks like a Home Run to me.

radman1 · Jun 24, 2009

The design idea is not bad. First problem I see is getting manufactures to adopt it. Good luck trying. Would require design changes in attachments and may cost more to manufacture. Would need to set standards by an organization that would be considered credible and universally adopted. Some manufactures still can't get the construction of current Cat 1 or 2 attachments in the proper specifications.

Secondly, like some one mentioned earlier, there is cross over implements between Cat 0, 1, 2 etc. One type of system would not be compatible across the various ranges of 3 pt categories. For example, many rear blades may be both cat 1 or cat 2 compatible. Is one size of frame going to work for both? Not likely.

Third issue is there are millions of 3 pt attachments that are still in service and won't be compatible. The OPs design is similar concept to the Freedom hitch. Adapters are available but the cost of these are prohibitive to most buyers.

SPYDERLK · Jun 24, 2009

Convenience comes at too high a cost when you start installing parts that limit versatility in the bargain. What Id like is link ends that would admit a ball and form a socket around it. Doesnt seem like that would be so hard to do.
larry

nomad · Jun 25, 2009

Actually, this A-frame thing isn't so complicated as it seems to be. Ok, this one in the picture is heavy duty type (for big implements which are not interested by hobby farmers), but, a lighter and a generic version which will fit any tractor and any implement can work well for hobby farmers. Lets estimate a quick cost. My estimate price for light version is around 200 USD. But, you don't need to buy outer u-frame female part. So, buying only male part will cost about 150 usd only. For outer part, DIY, you can simply cut & bend a sheet metal into u or L and just weld it to your old or new implement. That's it. For your every equipment, you will spend 20 USD only. If you have 5 equipments, 5x20 + 150 = 250 USD only, to stay in your seat of tractor when moving from equipment to equipment.