Quick Hitches Quick Hitch with Top and Tilt?

[Gary_in_Indiana]

<font color="blue"> "The lower arms still have balls at the tractor end to compensate for stress there." </font>

OK, but if the quick hitch/Pat's system is locked onto the lower control arm ends then isn't the functionality of the ball ends totally eliminated?

 

[Inspector507]

Yes Gary,
In my mind the "functionality" of the balls have been eliminated with Pat's system installed. There is a U-clamp combined with the 4 set screws that will eliminate any movement of the "hooks" on the balls. Not a real big issue with me, since I only have the top link, but anyone wanting the complete system (TnT or TCC), it would not work well, I think.
That's one thing that Integration Enigineering's prototype quick hitch kind of allowed for. It had spherical balls to slip on your implements lift pins. You'd never loose the tilt feature. But of course it is not available yet /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif (just a jab in the ribs Jim)

 

[Gary_in_Indiana]

<font color="blue"> "the "functionality" of the balls (has) been eliminated with Pat's system installed" </font>

I can't imagine why it would be any different with any of the current quick hitch systems available either, would it?

 

[Inspector507]

Gary,
See the edited version above /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[MarkV]

Maybe I am confused, it happens often, but I still don't see an issue. With Pat's system the two lower link arms are free to move up and down independently. Yesterday I adjusted the adjustable lifting arm to raise one lower link arm and level a landscape rake. Isn't that the same function a hydraulic lifting arm would do. Although the balls on the implement end of the lower link arms are functionally eliminated there is still enough free play where the hook attaches to the pin to allow for movement. I would not hesitate to use a T&T system in combination with Pat's system.

MarkV

 

[Gary_in_Indiana]

<font color="blue"> "Although the balls on the implement end of the lower link arms are functionally eliminated there is still enough free play where the hook attaches to the pin to allow for movement." </font>

Mark,

THAT is the answer I've been seeking all of this time. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

To wit, whether or not doing what you described would create (a) any; (b) an acceptable amount of, or; (c) too much torque at or on those attachment points. If I'm reading you correctly, you're of the opinion base on empirical evidence that there would be no torque created at either extreme, correct?

If you have the time and inclination, I'd love to know if your Pat's system can accommodate the shortest and longest positions of the <font color="blue"> "adjustable lifting arm (used) to raise one lower link arm" </font>. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[milkman]

If you have the time and inclination, I'd love to know if your Pat's system can accommodate the shortest and longest positions of the "adjustable lifting arm (used) to raise one lower link arm" .


Mine will, on bx2200, I don't understand all the concern for the wear on the pins, it ain't like we are using 200hp tractors and all the pins are hardened, how long would it take to wear the pins, ten years use???? and they're replaceable.

 

[Gary_in_Indiana]

<font color="blue"> "I don't understand all the concern for the wear on the pins" </font>

I'm not at all worried about wear on pins. I just want to make sure I'm not torquing something to a braking point. Big difference in those concerns, believe me. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[JRP]

Gary,

I have a speeco and hydraulic top link. Both are good. Together, they are great. I would not ever go back.

Look at the JD I-match quick hitch. JD makes good stuff. From what I have seen, it is a better hitch solution that the Pat's.

With any quick hitch, you compromise connection speed and ease vs. less mods to your implement to make it fit the standard. IMO fixing the implement is the right solution.

Someday I will add tilt.

 

[Gary_in_Indiana]

JRP,

I have the same quick hitch as you (Speeco) currently. I know the hydraulic top link would make it WAY easier to use with the various implements. Then it would just be a matter of notinig somewhere just where the top hook needs to be placed for each implement.

I'm also of the opinion that by the time I do that before I hook up I can just about as easily hook the hydraulic top link up manually with the Pat's system. Granted, it's another time off and back on the tractor, but that's not a huge deal to me.

What I was more concerned with was whether the tilt portion would be compatible with the quick hitch and/or Pat's. My area Deere dealer assured me today that the Deere Top & Tilt would be perfectly compatible with the Deere I-Match quick hitch and would have full range of motion on the tilt portiion "because the I-Match attaches to the swivel balls on the lower lift arms and those will still have the full range of motion."

THAT makes me wonder now about the Pat's system since it locks onto the lower lift arms rather than being attached just to the swivel balls on them. Curiiouser and curiouser this gets for me. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

I'm going to have to take a look to see how my Speeco attaches to the lower lift arms and if there is 'play' there or not. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif