MadReferee
Elite Member, Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2003
- Messages
- 3,862
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Tractor
- Kubota B2710, IH TD6-62 dozer with Drott 4n1 bucket loader
Top and Tilt Regrets?
- Thread starter Henro
- Start date
- Views: 5120
OP
Henro
Elite Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2003
- Messages
- 4,982
- Location
- Few miles north of Pgh, PA
- Tractor
- Kubota B2910, BX2200, KX41-2V mini EX
Gary,
Interesting idea Jerry G has. I don't think I would do that for the reasons Jinman stated, but I like the concept! /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
Jinman,
One problem with my B2910 Kubota is that it is on the small side and I doubt I could make an 8" cylinder work if I used one, and still keep the factory-designed relationship(geometry) between the various parts of the 3PH.
I had thought that using 2 cylinders might also give me more lift, but it turns out that with them both retracted, I would have about the same max lift that I have now. I guess I could get more drop with both extended, but going lower has never be a need so far. I am hoping to do the install in a way that will keep the hoses under control and out of the way...if I decide to go with two tilt cylinders...wish me good luck!
OkieG,
That is exactly correct. AND an advantage over one cylinder I think. Normally, both cylinders would be retracted fully and that would put my lower arms level at about the mid point of the manually adjustable lift rod that I have in place now. Depending on which way I want the tilt to go, I would extend only one cylinder. To put the lift arms back to level, I would retract that same cylinder.
It seems like with only one tilt cylinder one either has to guess or have some kind of pretty good indicator of where level is. With two cylinders the 3PH could be put back to level, the same every time with one's eyes closed...or so it seems to me when I think about it. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Interesting idea Jerry G has. I don't think I would do that for the reasons Jinman stated, but I like the concept! /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
Jinman,
One problem with my B2910 Kubota is that it is on the small side and I doubt I could make an 8" cylinder work if I used one, and still keep the factory-designed relationship(geometry) between the various parts of the 3PH.
I had thought that using 2 cylinders might also give me more lift, but it turns out that with them both retracted, I would have about the same max lift that I have now. I guess I could get more drop with both extended, but going lower has never be a need so far. I am hoping to do the install in a way that will keep the hoses under control and out of the way...if I decide to go with two tilt cylinders...wish me good luck!
OkieG,
That is exactly correct. AND an advantage over one cylinder I think. Normally, both cylinders would be retracted fully and that would put my lower arms level at about the mid point of the manually adjustable lift rod that I have in place now. Depending on which way I want the tilt to go, I would extend only one cylinder. To put the lift arms back to level, I would retract that same cylinder.
It seems like with only one tilt cylinder one either has to guess or have some kind of pretty good indicator of where level is. With two cylinders the 3PH could be put back to level, the same every time with one's eyes closed...or so it seems to me when I think about it. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
OP
Henro
Elite Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2003
- Messages
- 4,982
- Location
- Few miles north of Pgh, PA
- Tractor
- Kubota B2910, BX2200, KX41-2V mini EX
MadFeferee,
I am glad you are advising against the two cylinders as this will help me think through the idea fully! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Let me reply to some of the points you raised, as this will help my thoughts gell...I still am up in the air about the two cylinder idea, but I am tending to lean towards doing it at the moment...
<font color="blue"> On the B-series the 3pt linkage geometry limits the tilt to about 3" in each direction. </font>
I have not measured this yet, but I have read, in one of the threads I have bookmarked, that one B2910 owner has been happy with a single 4" tilt cylinder. At first thought this looked like if one would work, two should work just as well, but that may not be the case. I will have to check that out...it could be that a 0~4" movement on one side or the other is not the same as +/- 2" movement on one side and no movement on the other... /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
I have a backhoe that I put on and off a lot so I was thinking that if I had a setup where it was easy to make the lower arms level, and the same elevation (with respect to the top link attach point) as the fixed lift rod on the tractor does, it would be a good thing. I don't want to keep removing a tilt cylinder and replacing it with the manual lift rod every time I use the backhoe. If I had to do this then I would forget about the tilt option...
<font color="blue">The real key though is to get the correct size tilt cylinder. A cylinder with a 4" stroke and a 10"-11" retracted length BEFORE adding the end forks would be ideal for the B-series. My experiments indicate that this would give pretty much an even tilt in both directions.
</font>
Those demensions are attainable using a Prince cylinder...which brings up the thought of using two cylinders with less than 4" stroke, and gaining a little 3PH lift when both cylinders are retracted. My Rhino PHD auger tip is very close to the ground when transporting with the 3PH all the way up...for example.
<font color="blue"> The TCC cylinder is generic and they only change ends for different tractors. Its retracted length is 4" too long for the B-series </font>
That could be a problem when hooking the Kubota backhoe to the 3PH arms or it may not be at all. By buying the right lenght cylinders and welding the ends on myself I should be able to duplicate existing B2910 component lengths I hope...
<font color="blue"> Bottom line, based on my experience, is that a single, correctly sized tilt cylinder is the way to go. I can see no advantage to dual tilt cylinders. </font>
Here are the advantages I see:
Easy to put 3PH level and exactly the same every time.
More than enough tilt functionality while at the same time maintaining factory designed geometry, which may be important with a Kubota 3PH backhoe.
Possible to go with shorter stroke cylinders (less than 4") and gain added 3PH lift
Downside:
Cost of extra control valve section and hydraulic cylinder. More hoses to deal with too...
I am glad you are advising against the two cylinders as this will help me think through the idea fully! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Let me reply to some of the points you raised, as this will help my thoughts gell...I still am up in the air about the two cylinder idea, but I am tending to lean towards doing it at the moment...
<font color="blue"> On the B-series the 3pt linkage geometry limits the tilt to about 3" in each direction. </font>
I have not measured this yet, but I have read, in one of the threads I have bookmarked, that one B2910 owner has been happy with a single 4" tilt cylinder. At first thought this looked like if one would work, two should work just as well, but that may not be the case. I will have to check that out...it could be that a 0~4" movement on one side or the other is not the same as +/- 2" movement on one side and no movement on the other... /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
I have a backhoe that I put on and off a lot so I was thinking that if I had a setup where it was easy to make the lower arms level, and the same elevation (with respect to the top link attach point) as the fixed lift rod on the tractor does, it would be a good thing. I don't want to keep removing a tilt cylinder and replacing it with the manual lift rod every time I use the backhoe. If I had to do this then I would forget about the tilt option...
<font color="blue">The real key though is to get the correct size tilt cylinder. A cylinder with a 4" stroke and a 10"-11" retracted length BEFORE adding the end forks would be ideal for the B-series. My experiments indicate that this would give pretty much an even tilt in both directions.
</font>
Those demensions are attainable using a Prince cylinder...which brings up the thought of using two cylinders with less than 4" stroke, and gaining a little 3PH lift when both cylinders are retracted. My Rhino PHD auger tip is very close to the ground when transporting with the 3PH all the way up...for example.
<font color="blue"> The TCC cylinder is generic and they only change ends for different tractors. Its retracted length is 4" too long for the B-series </font>
That could be a problem when hooking the Kubota backhoe to the 3PH arms or it may not be at all. By buying the right lenght cylinders and welding the ends on myself I should be able to duplicate existing B2910 component lengths I hope...
<font color="blue"> Bottom line, based on my experience, is that a single, correctly sized tilt cylinder is the way to go. I can see no advantage to dual tilt cylinders. </font>
Here are the advantages I see:
Easy to put 3PH level and exactly the same every time.
More than enough tilt functionality while at the same time maintaining factory designed geometry, which may be important with a Kubota 3PH backhoe.
Possible to go with shorter stroke cylinders (less than 4") and gain added 3PH lift
Downside:
Cost of extra control valve section and hydraulic cylinder. More hoses to deal with too...
_RaT_
Super Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2000
- Messages
- 5,813
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Northern CA.
- Tractor
- Kioti 3510-SE HST
Bill, what your suggesting is certainly interesting to consider. I line myself with Jim's comment about the cylinders working 180 deg.'s in series. It seems it would be a lesson in frustration. My take on the tilt cylinder is that I use it infrequently and I probably cut and move more dirt then most folks. 90% or greater percent of the time I have the tilt cylinder fully retracted which puts on the same plane as the tires. My most useful purpose on the tilt is for cutting ditches or more accurately swales in a landscape. It works well on my Harley rake too. There are plenty of times that the little 8 inches or so of travel is not nearly enough, but a quick look at the configuration out back clearly shows the limits of 3 pt setups. Your idea seems like a great way to go if, IF, you could find that happy medium of having the two cylinders working perfectly in conjunction, have no oil leak by the seals inside the cylinders and not have to fight getting the whole thing back to a level plane with the tractor. An electronic angle determining cylinder/valve is needed, but I am not familiar with such but don't doubt they exist after seeming all the new ways the dozers are cutting the hills around here with incredibly accuracy by wireless communication via things like GPS and other fancy smancy equipment. Rat...
MadReferee
Elite Member, Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2003
- Messages
- 3,862
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Tractor
- Kubota B2710, IH TD6-62 dozer with Drott 4n1 bucket loader
Bill,
My experiments and measurements were done assuming only one tilt cylinder and when in a level condition the cylinder was extended 50% of its stroke. The 3" of tilt corresponds to moving the cylinder 3" in either direction after being centered. There is more to the tilting than just moving the arms in one direction. Other factors include the movement range of the swivel in the ball socket, length of the top link, length of the side links, and the 3pt pins/top link spacing.
By using a single cylinder that has a 10"-11" retracted length BEFORE adding the end forks and a 4" stroke you will be able to closely approximate the Kubota factory geometry and still get more than adequate tilt.
Making the lower arms level with a tilt link has been, in my experience, easy. I use 1/4" hoses that restrict flow and I can very quickly and smoothly level the implement with a short stroke of the spool lever. It does not have to be EXACT, just within a 1/4" or so. As for gaining additional lift height, that would depend on the length of the top link since the 3pt lift arms can only go so high themselves. By shortening the side links you can only go so far before the top link tops out when the 3pt is at max height. Its all in the geometry.
BTW, I did a leak down test yesterday of the tilt and top link cylinders. After 12 hours there was no noticeable leak down which tells me that the check valves were functioning as advertised.
It would be interesting to see if your 2 cylinder strategy is really an advantage. At a cost of about $200+ including spool, hoses, fittings, extra cylinder, forks, etc. I would find it hard to believe that it could be justified on an ROI basis. I would rather spend the money on another implement, like a spreader. BTW, with an additional spool, the Prince SV valve will not fit in the same position as mine is. You really have to look at the big picture here as mounting space must be factored in along with hose configuration and who knows what else.
My experiments and measurements were done assuming only one tilt cylinder and when in a level condition the cylinder was extended 50% of its stroke. The 3" of tilt corresponds to moving the cylinder 3" in either direction after being centered. There is more to the tilting than just moving the arms in one direction. Other factors include the movement range of the swivel in the ball socket, length of the top link, length of the side links, and the 3pt pins/top link spacing.
By using a single cylinder that has a 10"-11" retracted length BEFORE adding the end forks and a 4" stroke you will be able to closely approximate the Kubota factory geometry and still get more than adequate tilt.
Making the lower arms level with a tilt link has been, in my experience, easy. I use 1/4" hoses that restrict flow and I can very quickly and smoothly level the implement with a short stroke of the spool lever. It does not have to be EXACT, just within a 1/4" or so. As for gaining additional lift height, that would depend on the length of the top link since the 3pt lift arms can only go so high themselves. By shortening the side links you can only go so far before the top link tops out when the 3pt is at max height. Its all in the geometry.
BTW, I did a leak down test yesterday of the tilt and top link cylinders. After 12 hours there was no noticeable leak down which tells me that the check valves were functioning as advertised.
It would be interesting to see if your 2 cylinder strategy is really an advantage. At a cost of about $200+ including spool, hoses, fittings, extra cylinder, forks, etc. I would find it hard to believe that it could be justified on an ROI basis. I would rather spend the money on another implement, like a spreader. BTW, with an additional spool, the Prince SV valve will not fit in the same position as mine is. You really have to look at the big picture here as mounting space must be factored in along with hose configuration and who knows what else.
Attachments
jinman
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2001
- Messages
- 20,387
- Location
- Texas - Wise County - Sunset
- Tractor
- NHTC45D, NH LB75B, Ford Jubilee
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( One problem with my B2910 Kubota is that it is on the small side and I doubt I could make an 8" cylinder work if I used one, and still keep the factory-designed relationship(geometry) between the various parts of the 3PH.
)</font>
Bill, I guess I should have been more generic in my response and not said an 8" cylinder. What I should have said is that I'd suggest buying two of the normal sized cylinders used for your tractor. If that's 4", 5", or 6", that's what I'd use because if you see that two are overkill, you can go with one and sell the other...probably make somebody very happy. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
If I was seriously considering getting my blade level to the tractor, I think I'd buy two little cheap line levels. Glue one to the tractor and one to the boxblade where you could see both and then adjust until they are both the same. You don't have to be on level ground as long as both levels are at the same reading. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
)</font>
Bill, I guess I should have been more generic in my response and not said an 8" cylinder. What I should have said is that I'd suggest buying two of the normal sized cylinders used for your tractor. If that's 4", 5", or 6", that's what I'd use because if you see that two are overkill, you can go with one and sell the other...probably make somebody very happy. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
If I was seriously considering getting my blade level to the tractor, I think I'd buy two little cheap line levels. Glue one to the tractor and one to the boxblade where you could see both and then adjust until they are both the same. You don't have to be on level ground as long as both levels are at the same reading. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
_RaT_
Super Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2000
- Messages
- 5,813
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Northern CA.
- Tractor
- Kioti 3510-SE HST
Except that line levels will already be at there furthest most position (out of level) on even the slightest of slopes. A tiltmeter type level would be needed. Good point too Jim on the extend lenght. Each tractor will need to be appropriately sized for the extentend/retract length. Variables such as where they attach to the lower links will affect what length is needed. I believe mine is about 8". The bore is large on tilt cylinders because the leverage ratio is pretty high and a strong cylinder is often needed in order to accomodate it.
MadDog
Platinum Member
Bill, I'm not sure that I understand why you want to use cylinders on both of the lift arms.
If it is to be able to tilt an attachment in both directions, you can still accomplish this with only one tilt cylinder by setting it to 1/2 of its stroke and then adjusting your other lift link so that the lift arms are both level. You can then get tilt in either direction by running the tilt cylinder stroke either in or out from its midpoint.
If you are concerned that you may not get enough tilt to your attachment by this means, I agree with MadRef that it seems quite adequate to me. Since my tilt cylinder has a stroke of 5", it means that you can get 2 1/2" of adjustment in each direction which, as pointed out earlier, muliplies considerably between the lower arms and the end of an attachment like a boxblade. If you figure that the end of the lift arm is not much more than 1 to 1 1/2 feet from the attachment centerline (the toplink) dropping 2 1/2" over that distance is multiplied to 5 to 7" at the end of a 60" boxblade, which is quite a bit of tilt (about a 1 in 10 incline). I doubt that there are any likely applications where you will need more than that.
I also agree with others about the ease of leveling. I thought, when I first had the TCC, that I would make a little guage so that I could set the tilt cylinder to exactly 1/2 of its stroke, but I have found that it is so easy to adjust by eye that it isn't needed.
Whichever way you go, best of luck with it. I know you will have much fun designing and building it.
If it is to be able to tilt an attachment in both directions, you can still accomplish this with only one tilt cylinder by setting it to 1/2 of its stroke and then adjusting your other lift link so that the lift arms are both level. You can then get tilt in either direction by running the tilt cylinder stroke either in or out from its midpoint.
If you are concerned that you may not get enough tilt to your attachment by this means, I agree with MadRef that it seems quite adequate to me. Since my tilt cylinder has a stroke of 5", it means that you can get 2 1/2" of adjustment in each direction which, as pointed out earlier, muliplies considerably between the lower arms and the end of an attachment like a boxblade. If you figure that the end of the lift arm is not much more than 1 to 1 1/2 feet from the attachment centerline (the toplink) dropping 2 1/2" over that distance is multiplied to 5 to 7" at the end of a 60" boxblade, which is quite a bit of tilt (about a 1 in 10 incline). I doubt that there are any likely applications where you will need more than that.
I also agree with others about the ease of leveling. I thought, when I first had the TCC, that I would make a little guage so that I could set the tilt cylinder to exactly 1/2 of its stroke, but I have found that it is so easy to adjust by eye that it isn't needed.
Whichever way you go, best of luck with it. I know you will have much fun designing and building it.
MadReferee
Elite Member, Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2003
- Messages
- 3,862
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Tractor
- Kubota B2710, IH TD6-62 dozer with Drott 4n1 bucket loader
Ok, Bill.
It's now 2 Mad's against 1 Henro. Ready to submit?
It's now 2 Mad's against 1 Henro. Ready to submit?
OP
Henro
Elite Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2003
- Messages
- 4,982
- Location
- Few miles north of Pgh, PA
- Tractor
- Kubota B2910, BX2200, KX41-2V mini EX
<font color="blue"> Bill, I'm not sure that I understand why you want to use cylinders on both of the lift arms. </font>
I think what started me considering this was a desire to maintain the existing 3PH geometry when the implement is level...
It looks like a cylinder with 4" stroke and ends to match the original equipment would have about the same length as the stock fixed lift rod on a B2910 Kubota. At mid point on the stroke, and with the adjustable lift rod on the other side and extended 2," the net result would be a 2" lost of lift on the 3PH. I don't know if this matters or not in the practical sense...but it feels like it should.
Looking at my backhoe yesterday when I put it on, I don't think 2 or 3 inches difference would have any effect on it at all, so the backhoe concern seems to be a non issue.
The T&T is not on the front burner yet, so I still have time to think about what I will do... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
I really appreciate everyone's advice.
I think what started me considering this was a desire to maintain the existing 3PH geometry when the implement is level...
It looks like a cylinder with 4" stroke and ends to match the original equipment would have about the same length as the stock fixed lift rod on a B2910 Kubota. At mid point on the stroke, and with the adjustable lift rod on the other side and extended 2," the net result would be a 2" lost of lift on the 3PH. I don't know if this matters or not in the practical sense...but it feels like it should.
Looking at my backhoe yesterday when I put it on, I don't think 2 or 3 inches difference would have any effect on it at all, so the backhoe concern seems to be a non issue.
The T&T is not on the front burner yet, so I still have time to think about what I will do... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
I really appreciate everyone's advice.