Quick Hitches Quick Hitch with Top and Tilt?

[Gary_in_Indiana]

Does anyone use this combination of a Top and Tilt with a Quick Attach system? If you do, how does it work for you? Do you have any problems combining the two? Are there any implements you find work better or worse with this combination (or not at all)? Are there any special considerations when combining the two? I have a quick hitch that I'm less than thrilled using and have wanted a top and tilt for quite a while but don't know if they're even compatible. Thanks. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[Inspector507]

I'm still waiting on the "Midwest" quick hitch. Or one from Integration Engineering !!!

 

[Gary_in_Indiana]

I think the general problem with quick hitches has nothing to do with the quick hitches themselves. I think it's more a case that over the years implement manufacturers looked at Category 1 standards as a "suggestion" or "approximation" rather than a strict guideline to be followed exactly. As a result it's pretty tough to make one hitch that'll accomodate everyone's idea over the years as to what those measurements should be.

Heck, I even have implements by the same manufacturer that vary a fair amount so it's not even like the different makers are arguing over what, exactly, the standard should be. I called that manufacturer to ask about that and got a reply that just made me smile and shake my head. "We don't guarantee our implements to be quick hitch compatible but we're hoping to have them all that way in a couple years." /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif "Great! Can I trade mine for the one's made the right way when you get that done?" /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

If Midwest has solved the problem of implement attachment poing spacing inconsistencies in a quick hitch all of us will be beating a path to their door!

I'm even looking very hard at Pat's system just to eliminate all of the messing around I now do with the top link after I get the lowers lined up. I'd think with your hydraulic top link you'd fare a lot better than me on that count. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif That's one of the reasons I'm asking about the compatibility. I want to get a top and tilt, too. I'm looking at the TCC info right now and like what I see. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[MarkV]

Gary I went to the Pat's system and it has helped. I wouldn't say that implements are now trouble free to exchange but they are much easier. Like you, when I looked at the different spacing of the pins on my stuff I knew right off that the quick hitches like Speedco and Landpride were just not going to work. I guess the sure fire set up is the Freedom Hitch but with 8 or 9 implements the cost was just to much for me to justify.

I sure can't see why a T&T system would not work with a quick hitch. It mounts to the 3 pt like anything else would. I would think it would be a big help with alignment of the quick hitch to an implement.

MarkV

 

[Inspector507]

The biggest problem I see Mark, is the lift arms have a ball socket to accept your lift pins, where as Pat's system does not. Any "tilt" with an implement attached will put the pin in there at an angle.

 

[Henro]

<font color="blue"> Any "tilt" with an implement attached will put the pin in there at an angle.
</font>

Personally I would not worry too much about that, but only because the pins are cheap and easily replaced. I wonder if the Easy Change contact surface is harder than the standard pin? Certainly would not want the Easychange end to wear away!

This is similar to the question of how the "squareness" of the interface between the pins and Pat's ends changes with width of the pins, I think.

Interesting question Gary. I don't recall it tilt angle with respect to Pat's system coming up before...too many posts here to read them all though... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Gary_in_Indiana]

<font color="blue"> "I sure can't see why a T&T system would not work with a quick hitch. It mounts to the 3 pt like anything else would. I would think it would be a big help with alignment of the quick hitch to an implement." </font>

My concern is not the angle of the pins to the quick hitch (or Pat's) hooks so much as the other side of the quick hitch/Pat's where it attaches to the lower arms. I'm wondering if the ball sockets are able to rotate as far with the quick hitch/Pat's attached as without. I think that's where the potential torque problem might occur.

 

[Inspector507]

Gary,
The ball sockets are rendered immovable after the "hooks" are installed. A pin goes through the hole and 4 set screws prevents any movement at all.

 

[MarkV]

Just to add to what Inspector said, the 4 set screws on Pat's system allow you to adjust the angle of the hooks to minimize any side loading or the torque I think your referring to at the pin. That may have been clear as mud. As an example, I have two implements that vary by 2+ inches in width at the pins. If I adjust the set screws on Pat's system so the hooks are perfectly vertical when hooking up the narrowest implement the hooks will be somewhat tilted towards center when hooking up the widest implement. By adjusting the set screws somewhere in the middle both implements seem to work fine. I guess over time you could wear the pins but I don't see that as a big issue. The lower arms still have balls at the tractor end to compensate for stress there.

MarkV

 

[Gary_in_Indiana]

<font color="blue"> "The ball sockets are rendered immovable after the "hooks" are installed" </font>

Well, then... if that's the case it would seem that there would be incompatibility between a quick hitch/Pat's set up and any top-n-tilt/TCC set up. The portion the you have (the hydraulic top link) would, of course, be totally compatible but the hydraulics on the lower control arm would be another thing.

As I see it now, I'm OK with the hydraulic top link alone regardless of what else I might do or not do. Beyond that, it seems like I'll have to decide whether I want the hydraulic link on the lower control arm or a quick hitch/Pat's set up. That's the conclusion I'm reaching based on the information supplied here.

If anyone has a different take on this, please let me know. The last thing I want to do it have money tied up in two new toys that won't work together.

 

[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