Root Rake/Grapple For Kubota B2910

[RedNeckGeek]

If you look at the images in posts 77, 78, and 80, that is the extent to which they currently close, without further modifying the cylinders.

Informal poll:

Should I modify the cylinders so that the jaws close further ?

I'd want the jaws to be pretty close to contacting on the inside of the grapple so it would grasp even very small single limbs or trunks. But then making it that way is always easy for the folks that don't have to do it! :laughing:

 

[RedNeckGeek]

Next question:

Any reason I can't cut that part (24") in the middle out, as long as I leave around 10" or so on either side ?

I'd like to remove it for weight-saving reasons, and repurpose it for the uprights for the brush guard on the lower jaw.

As long as the back of the grapple jaw is rigid enough to transmit the loads from the SSQA mount, and from the pics it appears to be, I don't see any reason to keep the cross member. The forklift adaptor I built just used quarter inch 2"x3" square tube for the frame, and I welded pieces of 3/8" x 1.5" x 9" plate to the upper and lower ends on the back of it to form the QA. Simple and it hasn't bent yet even when I've tried to lift more than the FEL could do.

Any way you could cut out the cross member after you tack the QA mount in place? That would keep the alignment between the two ends intact when you removed the center section.

 

[rswyan]

As long as the back of the grapple jaw is rigid enough to transmit the loads from the SSQA mount, and from the pics it appears to be, I don't see any reason to keep the cross member. The forklift adaptor I built just used quarter inch 2"x3" square tube for the frame, and I welded pieces of 3/8" x 1.5" x 9" plate to the upper and lower ends on the back of it to form the QA. Simple and it hasn't bent yet even when I've tried to lift more than the FEL could do.

Good to know ... that's pretty much what I figured, but I thought I'd ask and throw it out there.

I think I've got the frame pretty well reinforced, although I might explore adding a couple more gussets on the QA/lower frame interface.

Any way you could cut out the cross member after you tack the QA mount in place? That would keep the alignment between the two ends intact when you removed the center section.

Yup, sure is ...

Fact of the matter is, the QA plate is pretty much completely welded on at this point, except for one or two short sections I missed ... so it ain't going anywhere

There's probably a 1" gap between that bar on the QA plate and the lower frame ... so cutting it out should be pretty easy.

 

[rswyan]

I'd want the jaws to be pretty close to contacting on the inside of the grapple so it would grasp even very small single limbs or trunks.

Yeah, I'm thinking closer might be better.

The gussets on the lower rake teeth vee out, so that there is only a 1" opening (slot) between the gussets ... they are basically designed to catch small saplings and rip them out ... but retaining them in the grapple after they've been torn out of the ground is a different issue, one that probably requires a closer "bite" ...

But then making it that way is always easy for the folks that don't have to do it! :laughing:

LOL ... :thumbsup:

Shouldn't be too bad.

 

[Xfaxman]

------------------------

Informal poll:

Should I modify the cylinders so that the jaws close further ?

Yes, my first grapple was that basic style with a 60" opening, but the big opening does not do much good on brush because there is no room to contain it when the jaws are closed. The brush tends to fall out when moving.

So it would be better to close tight on smaller logs or posts.

Next question:

I used this "cut-out" plate from Titan for the QA plate:

It comes with a 3/8" bar that runs across the top that ties the two halves together.

The SSQA I built only engages that bar on either side for about 9 1/2".

Any reason I can't cut that part (24") in the middle out, as long as I leave around 10" or so on either side ?

-------------------

No reason not to cut it out as long as you add bracing above what is left, so it can't bend upward and pop off of the SSQA.

Bracing like this:

On the bucket:

 

[rswyan]

Got brush guard bars all welded in on the lower frame yesterday.

RNG, you can see the 1" wide "sapling catcher" slots in the first photo below, just above the second pipe from the bottom.

Front:

Rear:

You can also see that I trimmed out that bar on the QA plate.

 

[rswyan]

... No reason not to cut it out as long as you add bracing above what is left, so it can't bend upward and pop off of the SSQA.

Xfaxman,

Not really possible to brace it in quite the same manner (really nothing above it to weld the brace to)

Here's what I ended up doing: welded in a short piece of 1/4" x 2" plate, with the 2" direction bearing the weight. It's welded on both sides, both on the bar and on the lower frame.

Keep in mind that the loader capacity on my B2910 probably has a lot less capacity than that V417.

I'm guessing that it should be sufficient, given the limited capacity of the loader.

 

[rswyan]

This photo shows how far the jaws can currently (physically) close - if I modify (extend) the length of the cylinders. The pipe at the top center of the image that comes through the lower jaw/frame essentially functions as a stop.

With the cylinders unmodified, the "teeth" on the upper jaw would be flat on the floor, and the center portion of the upper jaw that has the pin mounts and the large pipe coming through it would be more or less parallel to the lower jaw:

 

[rswyan]

I can gain a little bit more closure by removing about an 1 1/4" section of 1/4" x 2" plate (on the right, marked with a line and an "X" in white chalk) that is welded to the bottom of the upper jaw arms. The point of contact on the pipe is marked with a red circle on the lower left.

Whether it would be worth the effort to do so I don't know. 1/4 inch doesn't seem like much, but because of angle and swing it could translate into something more than an additional 1/4 inch of closure.

Another aspect is, if I lengthen the cylinders, the likelihood is that they would not have reached full extension and would be capable of exerting around 5 1/2 tons of force on both points where they contact that pipe (IOW: both sides), although the actual force exerted might be less because: geometry ...

 

[rswyan]

Welded in four pieces of 10 ga sheet in the masts to protect the hydraulic hoses: