Why do most tractors with FEL's.........................

[npalen]

Which is better, having the ports on the top, side or bottom of the cylinder?

 

[Grandad4]

OK, so some of the more plausible reasons for how the lift cylinders are oriented involve minimizing dirt infiltration and the routing of lines. Those make sense but here's another possibility that I wonder about. These loaders can be subjected to off-center loads that can place severe racking/twisting forces on the bucket and lift arms. Knowing that hydraulic cylinders are most vulnerable to bending when fully extended, are the lift rods less likely to bend when mounted in one orientation or the other? Some of that torque must transfer to the lift cylinders. Is it preferable to have the stronger cylinder body nearer to the source of a twisting or racking force or nearer to the anchor point, or doesn't it make any difference? I don't know, but maybe some of you with an engineering background might have an opinion.

 

[the old grind]

Which is better, having the ports on the top, side or bottom of the cylinder?

Think 'drip loop' vs having water/oil weep onto cyl body from hoses, so bottom IMO.

Side would be my second choice as clearance etc dictates. But that's just me.

Twisting forces wouldn't be transferred if rods and ends rotate in the planes that should prevent that. Think 'U-joint'.

Ever see a bent FEL cyl rod that didn't contact something while extended? Not saying it couldn't happen, but ....

 

[TMGT]

Which is better, having the ports on the top, side or bottom of the cylinder?

Whatever keeps the lines and fittings protected from damage/moving parts and fits within the design. The base mounting point is what dictates port orientation usually.

 

[npalen]

Having the ports on top "may" make it easier for trapped air to be purged from the system.

 

[Mysfyt]

Well, a HUGE mea culpa for me! I don't know where my head was yesterday! I give you all permission to have a good laugh at my expense. I'm sure having a good laugh at myself.:ashamed: Please accept my apology for being a bit 'testy' with my replies. I hope I didn't ruffle your feathers too much!

 

[Mysfyt]

OK, so some of the more plausible reasons for how the lift cylinders are oriented involve minimizing dirt infiltration and the routing of lines. Those make sense but here's another possibility that I wonder about. These loaders can be subjected to off-center loads that can place severe racking/twisting forces on the bucket and lift arms. Knowing that hydraulic cylinders are most vulnerable to bending when fully extended, are the lift rods less likely to bend when mounted in one orientation or the other? Some of that torque must transfer to the lift cylinders. Is it preferable to have the stronger cylinder
body nearer to the source of a twisting or racking force or nearer to the anchor point, or doesn't it make any difference? I don't know, but maybe some of you with an engineering background might have an opinion.

This might be the one legitimate point in my embarrassing rant yesterday that may have merit. All the weight is being transmitted to the rod end which, in my book, would be the weaker end of the cylinder to handle a side load.

 

[RickB]

Well, a HUGE mea culpa for me! I don't know where my head was yesterday! I give you all permission to have a good laugh at my expense. I'm sure having a good laugh at myself.:ashamed: Please accept my apology for being a bit 'testy' with my replies. I hope I didn't ruffle your feathers too much!

No problem. Glad you came around!

I could not believe there is an almost identical thread on New Ag Talk this morning.

 

[Mysfyt]

No problem. Glad you came around!

I could not believe there is an almost identical thread on New Ag Talk this morning.

Thanks! Found where my head was yesterday, completely up my *****.

 

[LD1]

Technically it would, but only by the weight of the barrel, but that's like 20 pounds on something that pushes several tons. On a side note, most wheel loaders have a lever that allows the bucket to be curled up while extending the cylinder.

Wouldnt you have to take the difference between the weight of the barrel, and the weight of the rod?
In one orientation, you are lifting the barrel + loader frame. In the other, you are lifting the rod + loader frame.

And in most of our CUT loader cylinders, I think the rod and barrel are pretty equal in weight.

Well, a HUGE mea culpa for me! I don't know where my head was yesterday! I give you all permission to have a good laugh at my expense. I'm sure having a good laugh at myself.:ashamed: Please accept my apology for being a bit 'testy' with my replies. I hope I didn't ruffle your feathers too much!

Apology accepted.