Tractor backhoe - homemade

[Oldpath05]

BFreaky is using the Euro Style quick attach for the loader, instead of the Skidsteer quick attach. It's very common here. It's stronger and safer than the Skidsteer quick attach.

Basically, there is two hooks on top that engage on the top round bar. Then two eyes on the bottom, where two pins lock it in place. These pins are often moved by a single lever in the middle or on some commercial versions, it's spring loaded and locks automatically once the implement falls into place.

Here is the back of the bucket:
View attachment 664610

And the quick attach with the single lever in the middle and the linkage to the pins.
View attachment 664611

Thanks that sheds a lot of light on how this QA works, it does look like a good design with just one lever, I'll save those pics just in case someday I change my pinned bucket someday.

 

[rScotty]

BFreaky is using the Euro Style quick attach for the loader, instead of the Skidsteer quick attach. It's very common here. It's stronger and safer than the Skidsteer quick attach.

Basically, there is two hooks on top that engage on the top round bar. Then two eyes on the bottom, where two pins lock it in place. These pins are often moved by a single lever in the middle or on some commercial versions, it's spring loaded and locks automatically once the implement falls into place.

Here is the back of the bucket:
View attachment 664610

And the quick attach with the single lever in the middle and the linkage to the pins.
View attachment 664611

Thanks for doing that, ptsg. Very nice explanation with the pictures and captions.
The skidsteer system popular in the US is adequate, but not so bulletproof.
rScotty

 

[Renze]

The skidsteer system popular in the US is adequate, but not so bulletproof.
rScotty

Skidsteer system is popular among compact tractors, but on heavy loaders on farm tractors, Euro is standard, and skid steer qa isnt even an option.

 

[Oldpath05]

BFreaky is using the Euro Style quick attach for the loader, instead of the Skidsteer quick attach. It's very common here. It's stronger and safer than the Skidsteer quick attach.

Basically, there is two hooks on top that engage on the top round bar. Then two eyes on the bottom, where two pins lock it in place. These pins are often moved by a single lever in the middle or on some commercial versions, it's spring loaded and locks automatically once the implement falls into place.

Here is the back of the bucket:
View attachment 664610

And the quick attach with the single lever in the middle and the linkage to the pins.
View attachment 664611

Can you take a quick look at this SSQA project and tell me if your Europe stile QA is or would be lighter? This guy on his blog did a lot of work, to much work for me and according to his figures added 120lb to the total bucket weight. I thought QA was to make thing lighter, whats your thoughts?>>> Shop Stuff - Quick Attach Bucket

 

[rScotty]

Now that I see how both QAs work, I can see a couple of differences between the SSQA and the European style QA. They are quite different in the tolerances required to make them fit and the way that they wear.

The SSQA uses hardened bevels fits on both the top and bottom connections to the bucket. Those bevels - always under compression by the over-center levers and large compresion springs means the SSQA continually tries to tighten up the bucket connection to the loader as you use it.
Instead of wear amplifying critical clearances, wear on the SSQA type QA actually makes it fit better.

The European style QA uses simpler parts to fabricate and can be easily be made to be very strong, but requires exact assembly and doesn't self-compensate for wear. I wonder if they begin to rattle when they get older?

There are probably other QA systems as well - each with it's own set of advantages. I know that JD uses a proprietary system but I haven't looked into it.
rScotty

 

[ptsg]

Can you take a quick look at this SSQA project and tell me if your Europe stile QA is or would be lighter? This guy on his blog did a lot of work, to much work for me and according to his figures added 120lb to the total bucket weight. I thought QA was to make thing lighter, whats your thoughts?>>> Shop Stuff - Quick Attach Bucket

A quick attach will never be lighter than a direct mount to the loader, like the current setup you have, because you're adding extra stuff to make that attachment swap easier.

On the other hand, I can see that the SSQA can be a bit heavier than the European style because of the extra SSQA adapter plate that gets welded to the bucket.

The one I shown on those pictures, I built it myself and in my true fashion, I did overbuilt quite a bit. I believe it was around 100 lbs, but could be lighter and still work perfectly fine.

If this will make that much of a difference for you? Well, I don't think it'll be that noticeable. If your plan is to get a set of forks (which I fully recommend), you'll actually be able to lift heavier logs because you don't have the bucket pushing the load forward anymore.

 

[ptsg]

Now that I see how both QAs work, I can see a couple of differences between the SSQA and the European style QA. They are quite different in the tolerances required to make them fit and the way that they wear.

The SSQA uses hardened bevels fits on both the top and bottom connections to the bucket. Those bevels - always under compression by the over-center levers and large compresion springs means the SSQA continually tries to tighten up the bucket connection to the loader as you use it.
Instead of wear amplifying critical clearances, wear on the SSQA type QA actually makes it fit better.

The European style QA uses simpler parts to fabricate and can be easily be made to be very strong, but requires exact assembly and doesn't self-compensate for wear. I wonder if they begin to rattle when they get older?

There are probably other QA systems as well - each with it's own set of advantages. I know that JD uses a proprietary system but I haven't looked into it.
rScotty

Tolerances are not that critical unless you don't want to get any rattle at all but then, it can be a pain to put things on and take things off. You do want some play on this stuff.

As far as wear, I don't think it'll be a problem. The way it works, doesn't increase wear on anything like that.

I've never seen any cases of the attachment falling off on a Euro style but I've seen several with the SSQA.

 

[Oldpath05]

Now that I see how both QAs work, I can see a couple of differences between the SSQA and the European style QA. They are quite different in the tolerances required to make them fit and the way that they wear.

The SSQA uses hardened bevels fits on both the top and bottom connections to the bucket. Those bevels - always under compression by the over-center levers and large compresion springs means the SSQA continually tries to tighten up the bucket connection to the loader as you use it.
Instead of wear amplifying critical clearances, wear on the SSQA type QA actually makes it fit better.

The European style QA uses simpler parts to fabricate and can be easily be made to be very strong, but requires exact assembly and doesn't self-compensate for wear. I wonder if they begin to rattle when they get older?

There are probably other QA systems as well - each with it's own set of advantages. I know that JD uses a proprietary system but I haven't looked into it.
rScotty

Thats a couple could points right there that I never thought of..........

 

[Oldpath05]

A quick attach will never be lighter than a direct mount to the loader, like the current setup you have, because you're adding extra stuff to make that attachment swap easier.

On the other hand, I can see that the SSQA can be a bit heavier than the European style because of the extra SSQA adapter plate that gets welded to the bucket.

The one I shown on those pictures, I built it myself and in my true fashion, I did overbuilt quite a bit. I believe it was around 100 lbs, but could be lighter and still work perfectly fine.

If this will make that much of a difference for you? Well, I don't think it'll be that noticeable. If your plan is to get a set of forks (which I fully recommend), you'll actually be able to lift heavier logs because you don't have the bucket pushing the load forward anymore.

More lift capability with QA is the main goal. I now use short and long clamp-on forks on bucket and loose a lot of lift but I most do bucket work and right now with bucket full of dirt it feels like the FEL is maxed out and feels like I'm lifting a mountain, that why now I dont if I want to add more weight to bucket on my small tractor, need more re-think, thanks for your input!!

This is the issue I have with bucket forks short or long, you might of already seen this before, but talk about the need for QA..........Heavy red oak slabs - YouTube

 

[rScotty]

Tolerances are not that critical unless you don't want to get any rattle at all but then, it can be a pain to put things on and take things off. You do want some play on this stuff.

As far as wear, I don't think it'll be a problem. The way it works, doesn't increase wear on anything like that.

I've never seen any cases of the attachment falling off on a Euro style but I've seen several with the SSQA.

Well, on the wear.... It needs to be loose enough to be easy to mount, and If that type of loose connection doesn't get grit in it and wear it would be surprising. But I agree that it would take a long time to wear so much that the strength was threatened. And it is very positive if you don't mind a bit of rattle when moving around with the bucket empty.

And the Euro style is a lot more positive. It's more like a 3pt quick hitch - nothing can fall off of those either. I'm with you on things falling off the SSQA, as I've seen it too.... more than once. And in falling off the hitch can be seriously damaged by twisting. But that's a failing of the operator rather than of the design of the hitch.