Why are Kubota FEL's so weak?

[Oldoak]

There's something to be said for having equipment that doesn't have to be flogged like a rented mule to get the work done. That's not a call for maximum overkill or ignoring obvious factors like tight quarters or ground conditions.

Once again, you right on.

Common sense. Choosing the right equipment isn't that complicated, although at times what we want or need isn't always possible and must compromise.

 

[goeduck]

Where is everyone renting these mules they flog? :confused3:

 

[Grandad4]

....

 

[rScotty]

This thread has a pretty catchy name for a thread title: "Why are Kubota FEL's so weak?". Every time I read it I can't help but chuckle with appreciation - it's a question in the same spirit of questions like, "Have you quit kicking your dog so much lately?". A kind of question that may not connect well with reality, but it earns a solid A+ on emotion.

But just so no newbie stumbles on this thread and thinks the original premise is factual, the "real facts" show that the FELs for all tractors are all more similar mechanically than their advertising departments would have you believe.

And it's probably a safe bet that every single loader out there is designed to lift every pound that the tractor will support. Regardless of brand. The truth is that after figuring out how much the tractor itself will support, there just isn't much that the designer can safely change. What they gain in one place they lose in another.

If it really makes a difference to anyone just how strong a particular loader really is, then get a graph of the lifting curve for that loader. There is not much doubt that every loader on the market has to have had a chart like this made during design; today it would be engineering malpractice to manufacture something as potentially hazardous as a loader without doing this type of simple graphical analysis.

Most of the loader/tractor companies then publish loader curves for the loaders they sell. John Deere and Kubota both do - and their loaders are about as different as two can be and they still come remarkably close in specs. Here's an example of one of Kubota's. The thing to notice is how the lifting power curve is not at all a straight line; it varies a lot with the position of the load and the height of the lift. That gives plenty of rein to an advertising department bent on flogging their own brand.
rScotty

 

[Oldoak]

I think the members here are making a bigger deal of the different loader Specs. than the manufacturers. The manufacturers print the Stats. for their own loaders and the forum members here debate them.

 

[goeduck]

I think the members here are making a bigger deal of the different loader Specs. than the manufacturers. The manufacturers print the Stats. for their own loaders and the forum members here debate them.

I completely agree. I seldom run into anything that I can’t lift and when I am on the edge on weight/height capacity I worry more about stability side to side than lifting capacity. Lifting ratings down low are much higher than to full height.

 

[David_Kb7uns]

You want heavy lift on a loader you need to get the Grand L or M series, anything else is not made for serious lift capacity due to axle weight limits.

David

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

I'm going to do a video on this shortly, but we are starting to see companies making geometry changes to pump the spec sheet numbers. They are giving up reach and height in exchange for a bigger number. Every design choice is a compromise. Reality is, there is less of a difference between loaders than you would be lead to believe.

 

[BrokenTrack]

I'm going to do a video on this shortly, but we are starting to see companies making geometry changes to pump the spec sheet numbers. They are giving up reach and height in exchange for a bigger number. Every design choice is a compromise. Reality is, there is less of a difference between loaders than you would be lead to believe.

That is a sad trend to hear about.

Some of us who actually farm need that extra height to get over manure spreaders and trucks. Yes, a lot of times we can make ramps, or back the truck/trailer/manure spreaders into a natural or man-made hole, but not always.

 

[majorwager]

Several points,
First most of the postings reference compact tractors. They are NOT full frame/chassis tractors. Think about where this weight is supported. Typically it is the bolted joint between engine/transmission, sometimes an additional reinforcement toward the engine front.
Honestly, a ton should be a maximum lift pin weight. It was noted, machines designed to lift are configured entirelly different. I have two lulls and a hyster. They are full frame machines, weight borne on chassis, not engine/trans components. Reach the max limit you can obtain, you will then own a two piece tractor, a mirror will produce the responsibie party. Manufacturer will likely claim abuse. Court dockets abound with similar dispositions.

======================================================================================
Quoting myself here from post 42. Would like to know how Messicks would address a potential customer whose sole purpose in purchasing was to constantly test the loader limits w/ a compact tractor and quick attach loader? The dedicated non-removable tractor loaders are much more durable. If constantly lifting loads at the FEL limits, is a compact really the answer? The Grand L no exception.