Resolving self leveling dislike

[ptsg]

The common factor I see on both complains about the self leveling loader is actually the Kioti loader. Looks like you're just having a bad experience due to a not very well designed loader linkage. Both of you are actually the first ones I've seen that don't like the self leveling loader, which is ok and I fully understand given the circumstances.

 

[CADplans]

I think I remember the "PERFECT" loader,,
it was the hydraulic self-leveling loader.

An extra cylinder was installed on the boom arm,
as the boom went up, the oil in the cylinder would level the bucket.

If you did not want the leveling, simply hit the lever on a valve, the loader would not self-level.
Then, when the situation required self-leveling, move the lever again, you are back to self-leveling.

The OP could use this as a "fix",, add the extra cylinder, plumbed in reverse, the loader would not self level.
If you want to change back, just remove the hoses.

 

[Bavarian]

Just point the tips of the bale spear down a few degrees when you pick up the bale. Gives you more roll back angle. That way the bales are easier to pick up ayways. Or your spears are too short for the bales you're handling. That makes them slide off easier.
I wouldn't touch the loader for that reason.

 

[Xfaxman]

I think I remember the "PERFECT" loader,,
it was the hydraulic self-leveling loader.

An extra cylinder was installed on the boom arm,
as the boom went up, the oil in the cylinder would level the bucket.

I have the "PERFECT" loader for me: Compact telehandler

It has a self leveling loader:

Real handy with the 6' forks:

And the bale spear:

And for taking trees to the burn pile:

 

[npalen]

I have the "PERFECT" loader for me: Compact telehandler
View attachment 728103View attachment 728104

It has a self leveling loader:
View attachment 728105View attachment 728106

Real handy with the 6' forks:
View attachment 728107View attachment 728108

And the bale spear:View attachment 728114View attachment 728115

And for taking trees to the burn pile:
View attachment 728109
View attachment 728116

You're making the rest of us feel inadequate again!

 

[Xfaxman]

Yep, I remember that feeling from before I got the little compact telehandler:

 

[airbiscuit]

That sounds like it's worth a try.

 

[LouNY]

I got some pictures of my self leveling loader this morning;

at full dump;

and at full curl back;

Even with the less expensive and clumsy bale fork that sits on the bucket edge there would be no proble
with a bale falling off.
I like the self leveling 90% of the time.
When I'm chasing the last of a pile it would be nice to have more curl back to get what was in the bucket to the back and chase some more.
Loading out of a pile I have no problem getting a full bucket.

 

[ptsg]

The self leveling loaders on this side of the pond, seem to get way more curl that what I've seen on this thread.

 

[holeycow]

That loader on the Branson is exactly the same loader as on the DK90. Good loader. No issues whatsoever. OP is going about his mod ideas all the wrong way, imo.

modify the bucket and the spear if need be. Don't screw around with a well designed loader. Duh.

 

[Boss 302]

Started fabricating the parts to mount the new cylinders, the cylinders are 2 1/2" bore X 20" stroke with a 1 1/2" ram, this should allow me to stay within the 80% stroke rule for the cylinders. I have been checking measurements and dry fitting everything to make sure I am able to achieve what "I" am looking for in a usable loader. One of the pictures is of the template for the cylinder mounting brackets.

 

[airbiscuit]

You do nice work, and I don't doubt your plan. Help me understand how putting shorter cylinders on increases roll back?

 

[Boss 302]

Holycow, I'm glad you like your loader on the DK90, maybe it suits your needs but probably would not be satisfactory for my needs. As a matter of fact, the salesman that I purchased my RX from had a DK90 that he used for hay and he was also dissatisfied with the self-leveler, not enough rollback for the spear especially when going downhill and other chores that I have mentioned. I use my loader for mostly farming chores and moving dirt and gravel and it absolutely sucks doing these things. It really stands out on the rare occasion that I use the forks, I'm the operator and know fully well when and how to operate the curl function to maintain control of whatever happens to be in the bucket.

 

[airbiscuit]

I see now. It will no longer be a self leveling bucket. Shortening that rear link wouldn't have worked?

 

[Boss 302]

Exactly, my quick attach plate with the self-leveler, fully retracted at floor level sets at 90 degrees to the floor, I am looking to accomplish somewhere in the 70 degree range, that should allow plenty of rollback for the bucket.

 

[Boss 302]

Airbiscuit, forgot to mention that while the cylinder length is actually shorter the actual ram extension is longer by about 6 inches. Most or at least half of the dump/curl function on a self-leveling loader is done by the mechanical movement of the triangular brackets pushed by the raising or lowering of the loader arms.

 

[airbiscuit]

Well, you certainly do nice work. Keep the pics coming.

 

[npalen]

The 1.5" diameter rods you mention on the new cylinders caught my attention wondering if that is going to reduce the curl force significantly. The 1.5" rod inside 2.5" bore leaves only 3.14" (just a coincidence?) of area.

1.0" diameter rods would leave 30% more area but would also bend much easier. I suppose 1.25" diameter rods are a happy medium with 2.5" bore? (Just thinking out loud here)

I'm betting that you've considered the area of the 1.5" rods and feel comfortable with it?

 

[airbiscuit]

I don't have an opinion on the rod size. All I know is that the curl function on every loader I've ever had has always been way more powerful than the lift function. I always attributed that to leverage and geometry.

 

[Boss 302]

I did ponder the 1.5 dia rod vs the stock 1 3/8" rods and after discussing with the cylinder tech support group we felt this would be a good choice.