Toplink Top link attachment for maximum raised height?

[LGinIA]

There are two holes on m land pride implements to attach the top link and two holes on my B2410 for the top link attachment.

What is the proper attachment to get the maximum raised implement height?
Both top holes? Both bottom holes? What have you found to work the best?

Thanks

 

[greg_g]

There are two holes on m land pride implements to attach the top link and two holes on my B2410 for the top link attachment.

What is the proper attachment to get the maximum raised implement height?
Both top holes? Both bottom holes? What have you found to work the best?

Since you don't have draft control, just select the hole combination that renders the toplink closest to horizontal when the implement is in the working position.

Two holes in the Landpride suggests that you might be missing the flexible toplink bracket.

//greg//

 

[Opti-Mist]

In addition to the above, the other consideration is draft load. Generally speaking, the higher the draft load the lower the holes desired.

 

[GIJOE]

To get the max raised height, use the bottom hole on the B2410 and the top hole on the implement.

Joe

 

[kwolfe]

For max height, I would suggest using a combination that keeps your top link and lower link arms parrallel. when horizontal.

 

[greg_g]

To get the max raised height, use the bottom hole on the B2410 and the top hole on the implement.

From the standpoint of simple geometry, that's backwards Joe. But the whole question is moot - since lift (and therefore height) is a function of the lower arms distance above and below horizontal. The toplink controls an implement's angle of attack by varying the distance fore and aft of vertical.

//greg//

 

[texbaylea]

The lower of the top holes on the landpride rake and back blade is for use with a 3pt quick hitch adapter. This information appears in the manual for their quick hitch adapter not the implement's manuals. Sorry but this info does not help answer your original question.

Vernon

 

[SPYDERLK]

From the standpoint of simple geometry, that's backwards Joe. But the whole question is moot - since lift (and therefore height) is a function of the lower arms distance above and below horizontal. The toplink controls an implement's angle of attack by varying the distance fore and aft of vertical.

//greg//

GIJOE is right. That combination - low on tractor&high on implement kicks the back of the implement high more quicly as it is lifted.
Larry

 

[RalphVa]

Another thing to check is the LENGTH of the top link vs. the length of the bottom lift arms. The top link needs to be the same or shorter than the bottom lift arms. Otherwise, geometry will dictate that the top link will force the top of the implement BACK and will want to drive the rear of the implement into the ground.

I ran into this problem when they delivered my JD 4010 with LX4 brush hog. They had the bottom lift arm pivots on the LX4 in the TOP holes. The LX4 would lift about 1" above normal mowing height.

I read the LX4 manual and relocated the pivots to the BOTTOM holes. This kicked the top link attachment back towards the tractor when the mowing height was adjusted again. THEN, the LX4 would lift its rear wheel off the ground.

It's all geometry.

 

[greg_g]

GIJOE is right. That combination - low on tractor&high on implement kicks the back of the implement high more quicly as it is lifted.
Larry

Sorry Larry, you're both wrong. Even though it's a silly argument - because lift is performed by the lower arms anyway - you can get the top of the implement A-frame farther from the ground one when the tractor end of the adjustible toplink is in the top hole and the implement end is in the bottom hole. The angle of the implement itself is arbitrary, because the length of the toplink is variable.

Think about it. Your way - tractor bottom and implement top - can still be improved upon by at least another inch. You gain an inch from the ground going from the tractor bottom hole to the tractor top hole. On the implement end you can lift the A-frame an inch higher by using the lower hole instead of the upper.

But this is arguing just for the sake of arguing. Back to the original poster's question, achieving max height in the carry position is less important than getting the toplink as close to parallel (with the lower lift arms) as you can when the implement is in the working position. Don't go for height - go for parallel (or horizontal as I wrote above).

//greg//