Thoughts on converting BX FEL from single cylinder to twin cylinder.

[cschulz]

Ive bent my FEL quick attach a couple of times and Im considering changing my FEL over to a two cylinder design to help keep the load inline with the arms. I will be getting rid of my QA and converting over to SSQA. The SSQA will help get the bucket pivots back closer to the FEL giving me a little stronger curl. This will in able me to remove a heavy walled crossmember from the SSQA to save some weight and help give room for attachment possibilities. Question I have is how do I figure one cylinder capabilities into two cylinders? The fab work and planning of the twin cylinders is pretty straight forward I feel, but do you guys have any big concerns? I have this in my head only right now but I think Deere and Massey have done it better than the other manufactures.

Chris

 

[Fiziksgeek]

If it's the quick attach that is bending, can you reinforce it? Would be much less work.

 

[CADplans]

To have near to original performance,,
the two "new" clyinders will need to have the area of the piston be similar to the area of the original cylinder.
Of course, the stroke has to be similar to maintain the original amount of bucket curl.

If the area of the new cylinders piston is dramatically larger than the original, the two cylinder conversion will operate slower,
BUT,,, while slower, the loader will be more powerful.

Use a calculator like this;

Circle Calculator

Enter the radius (as close as you can guess,,,You do not have to take the cylinder apart to measure)

I agree with the conversion. I had an old IH loader that was converted from two to one cylinder.
The geometry was good for normal use,, but, if I pushed too much with the bucket curled under,
it would pop the hose,,, I kept two spares.

I traded for a tractor with a two cylinder loader,, it has been perfect for over twenty years.!! :thumbsup:

 

[IceStationZebra]

From a hydraulic point of view it comes down to area. Two cylinders with half the area gives you the same force. Don't get area confused with diameter, and dont forget to subtract the rod area for the retract force. Going bigger gets you more force but more time to fill.

The complicated part will come with the geometry since you are changing the pivot points. I cant give any simple answers as it depends on what gets moved where. But one thing you should keep an eye on is range of motion, make sure you can dump and curl to suit your needs without contact.

ISZ

 

[cschulz]

Thanks for the thoughts guys. I may have to start looking into the cylinders. I will keep all your comments in mind.

Thanks, Chris

 

[KWentling]

Like was said, you need to consider the area of the pistons, both sides minus the rod area for the retract side, and what the change of geometry does to the force as well as the range of motion. You need to have the two new cylinders produce nearly the same force as the single cylinder.I personally would just beef up the quick attach. A much simpler and cheaper solution.

 

[bigdeano]

I think many large wheel loaders use 1 cylinder. Must be a good design.

 

[Texasmark]

From a hydraulic point of view it comes down to area. Two cylinders with half the area gives you the same force. Don't get area confused with diameter, and dont forget to subtract the rod area for the retract force. Going bigger gets you more force but more time to fill.

The complicated part will come with the geometry since you are changing the pivot points. I cant give any simple answers as it depends on what gets moved where. But one thing you should keep an eye on is range of motion, make sure you can dump and curl to suit your needs without contact.

ISZ

+1........