Jump to content

Nominations for Tractor of the Month
Garden Tractors and Parts on eBay



Photo
- - - - -

1855 loader build.


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#16 mikebramel OFFLINE  

mikebramel

    Ron Paul

  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 82
  • 176 Thanks
  • 1,009 posts
  • Location: Milwaukee

Posted January 09, 2012 - 12:24 PM

2.jpg

#17 mikebramel OFFLINE  

mikebramel

    Ron Paul

  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 82
  • 176 Thanks
  • 1,009 posts
  • Location: Milwaukee

Posted January 09, 2012 - 12:25 PM

How to rig up one cylinder just like the bigger machines

#18 Enginerod ONLINE  

Enginerod

    Member

  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 1748
  • 205 Thanks
  • 268 posts
  • Location: WNY

Posted January 09, 2012 - 09:33 PM

Olcowhand, I was looking at the sideview of your tractor and it looks like the lift cylinders are a bit longer than the curl cylinders. I was doing some measuring and it doesn't look like the 16" stroke would be enough for this tractor (for the lift cylinders). Can you tell me what the stroke on your lift cylinders are. Thanks.

#19 olcowhand ONLINE  

olcowhand

    Red Tractor Nut & Diesel Addict

  • Staff Admin
  • Staff
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Sponsor
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 20
  • 35,653 Thanks
  • 29,841 posts
  • Location: South Central Kentucky

Posted January 09, 2012 - 09:44 PM

Olcowhand, I was looking at the sideview of your tractor and it looks like the lift cylinders are a bit longer than the curl cylinders. I was doing some measuring and it doesn't look like the 16" stroke would be enough for this tractor (for the lift cylinders). Can you tell me what the stroke on your lift cylinders are. Thanks.


I cut these down from roll hay baler dump cylinders to fit the geometry of my loader. I'll have to take a measurement tomorrow, as I can't remember their stroke off the top of my head. Got a real busy day tomorrow, so I'll try to remember.

#20 Enginerod ONLINE  

Enginerod

    Member

  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 1748
  • 205 Thanks
  • 268 posts
  • Location: WNY

Posted January 09, 2012 - 09:55 PM

That would be great, thanks, no rush.

#21 TUDOR OFFLINE  

TUDOR

    Tractorholic

  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 915
  • 543 Thanks
  • 497 posts
  • Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ontario

Posted January 11, 2012 - 02:34 AM

Here's part of a post that I did on the other forum tonight. The cylinders on my MF1655's Wright Way FEL are 2x18 for lifting and 1.5x13 for the self leveling bucket. Lifting or tilting capability is not in question for this combo. If you need more, you need a bigger tractor.

"........ for general information and understanding of the forces involved. The primary limiter of lift is the counterweight involved. Most of the FEL builds that I've seen here have a theoretical ultimate lift capability of in excess of 2000 lb with a pair of 2" cylinders and a hydraulic pressure of 1500 psi, given sufficient counterweight. Fortunately, only the heavyweight GTs have the capability to carry enough counterweight to meet that potential and even fewer owners want to hang that much weight on their tractors.

Every pound of payload carried is doubled for the effective weight added to the front axle. "
  • ducky, TheFarm2004, MH81 and 1 other said thanks

#22 JDBrian OFFLINE  

JDBrian

    Super Moderator

  • Super Moderator
  • Staff
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 2507
  • 9,574 Thanks
  • 14,136 posts
  • Location: Hubley, Nova Scotia - Canada

Posted January 12, 2012 - 11:38 AM

When designing your loader you should look at what current manufacturers consider as a safe lifting limit for tractors of that size. I think the Kubota BX series can lift about 400lbs to full height and the JD 2305 is around 500. If you design something that can lift 2000 lbs you will be setting yourself up to break your tractor or worse, roll it and be injured or killed. It's just too tempting to use that extra lift capability. Even large GT's like the 1655 aren't large enough to safely lift 2000 lbs. It's not just weight but wheelbase, width axle carrying capacity and tire size are all too small based on what modern tractors that can lift 2000lbs look like. I have a jd2320 which is much larger than a 1655 and weighs 1700lbs bare and over 3000 with the loader and ballast. The breakout force is around 1500lbs on the bucket and maximum height lifting is about 650. Way less than 2000 lbs.
P.S. All the above mentioned tractors have a ROPS which is a safety feature that you won't have on most GT's.
  • TUDOR said thank you

#23 TUDOR OFFLINE  

TUDOR

    Tractorholic

  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 915
  • 543 Thanks
  • 497 posts
  • Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ontario

Posted January 12, 2012 - 02:23 PM

When designing your loader you should look at what current manufacturers consider as a safe lifting limit for tractors of that size. I think the Kubota BX series can lift about 400lbs to full height and the JD 2305 is around 500. If you design something that can lift 2000 lbs you will be setting yourself up to break your tractor or worse, roll it and be injured or killed. It's just too tempting to use that extra lift capability. Even large GT's like the 1655 aren't large enough to safely lift 2000 lbs. It's not just weight but wheelbase, width axle carrying capacity and tire size are all too small based on what modern tractors that can lift 2000lbs look like. I have a jd2320 which is much larger than a 1655 and weighs 1700lbs bare and over 3000 with the loader and ballast. The breakout force is around 1500lbs on the bucket and maximum height lifting is about 650. Way less than 2000 lbs.
P.S. All the above mentioned tractors have a ROPS which is a safety feature that you won't have on most GT's.


Brian's statement bears repeating. Read it again!

It should be noted that I said "theoretical ultimate lift capability", not capacity to lift to full height. In actual fact, such a tractor/FEL combination with adequate counterweighting would be doing well to lift a ton as high as 6" and there is limited possibility of rollover at that elevation, depending on the CofG of the payload in question.

The JD2305, like my MF2310, depends on even higher pressure, but with smaller diameter and shorter cylinders, to limit the amount of payload capability. The GC with loaded tires is also a 3000 lb tractor, whereas my 1655 weighs about 2500 lb for working. Could I ballast the 1655 for a max lift? Yes. Would the front tires and rims survive? Not likely! The load on the tires would be in the order of 2000 lb each, or more than double the load rating of the 4 ply tires and it would need another 200 lb of ballast on top of the 600 lb plus that it normally carries. Having the ability to move would require even more ballast.

The maximum load that I have moved with my 1655 was a brand new metal lathe, still in the crate with all attachments, from my trailer into a friend's garage. That 1400 lb load was short coupled over the rear of the bucket, not over the cutting edge, and the tractor could not climb the 1.5" lip at the garage entrance. Every effort was made to keep the load as close to the ground as possible throughout the hour long operation. Did it tax the hydraulics? No. Did it tax the tractor? Oh, yeah!! Did it tax my nerves? You want to believe it!!! The weight was an unexpected surprise when the crate was loaded on the trailer and I had to exercise my skill set from my working days to get it off.

This was an extreme lift and anyone attempting to push his tractor to this level had better darn well know intimately the capabilities and, more importantly, the capacities of his equipment. I have over 2000 hours of experience on this tractor/FEL, more than a little of it making 1000 lb lifts.

I most certainly do not recommend that anyone atempt lifts at this level, and only the heaviest tractors have the capability in any event.

Unfortunately, that is the hydraulic capability that most home made loaders have.

There is the reason why I make some recommendations for structural overbuilding for those who are fabbing up loaders. Not because I think that they might damage their tractor, but because I know that the hydraulics that they are installing will damage their tractor. It is very easy to get into trouble with these little loaders. The results can be painfull and are invariably expensive in time, if not money.

#24 JDBrian OFFLINE  

JDBrian

    Super Moderator

  • Super Moderator
  • Staff
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 2507
  • 9,574 Thanks
  • 14,136 posts
  • Location: Hubley, Nova Scotia - Canada

Posted January 12, 2012 - 04:07 PM

Not only is ultimate lifting capacity an issue but also stability on a side hill for instance. This is where tire size comes in. You have your little GT with a loader and 500lbs in the bucket and everything is fine until you try to ride along the side of a hill to dump your load. The low side tire on the front starts to take more load and starts to flatten causing the tractor to tilt further. Even the 26/12x12 turf tire on the back is overloaded and begins to flatten. As you lift the load to dump it the whole tractor starts to tip. Before you know it you are in a potential roll over situation and you have no ROPS! If you know up front that the hydraulic setup you are considering will produce dangerous lifting capability why would you build it that way? Use smaller diameter cylinders which will also result in faster cycle speeds. There is also the question of liability if someone else is operating the tractor and has a mishap because of the loader design.
For those of you who feel you need 2000lb lift capacity heres a link to a video of my 2320 moving crushed rock with it's measly 650lb lift capacity.
http://gardentractor...e-gravel-10058/

#25 olcowhand ONLINE  

olcowhand

    Red Tractor Nut & Diesel Addict

  • Staff Admin
  • Staff
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Sponsor
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 20
  • 35,653 Thanks
  • 29,841 posts
  • Location: South Central Kentucky

Posted January 12, 2012 - 05:35 PM

I have 2 1/2" lift cylinders, BUT I am using a hydraulic spool with relief set at only 800psi. I could still lift like maybe 1,000lbs, possibly more, but no way I would, other than maybe with the item just off the ground, and then ONLY on flat ground. It really doesn't matter what any tractor is capable of lifting. Without using common sense, most anything can kill you. My cylinders work at a slower speed than some I've seen, which is also better in my opinion. Fast/jerky cylinder travel is also not very safe in many situations. The most dangerous situation has nothing to do with the machine used, but rather in an an inexperienced operator. Having been born & raised in farming, I've grown up using loaders, and even I still get into hair raising situations.

#26 Enginerod ONLINE  

Enginerod

    Member

  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 1748
  • 205 Thanks
  • 268 posts
  • Location: WNY

Posted January 12, 2012 - 07:01 PM

Don't worry guys, I was raised with a bit of common sense. I would never attempt to lift something that would be dangerous or overtax the tractor. Also the plan was to build a ROPS also, not only for rollover protection but also for a high mount for lights. Thanks for all the input on the loader build.

#27 olcowhand ONLINE  

olcowhand

    Red Tractor Nut & Diesel Addict

  • Staff Admin
  • Staff
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Sponsor
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 20
  • 35,653 Thanks
  • 29,841 posts
  • Location: South Central Kentucky

Posted January 12, 2012 - 07:10 PM

Don't worry guys, I was raised with a bit of common sense. I would never attempt to lift something that would be dangerous or overtax the tractor. Also the plan was to build a ROPS also, not only for rollover protection but also for a high mount for lights. Thanks for all the input on the loader build.


Enginerod, please don't take my post the wrong way. I wasn't implying anything at all towards you. Just saying WE ALL are our worst enemies when it comes to operating stuff, not our equipment.

#28 Enginerod ONLINE  

Enginerod

    Member

  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 1748
  • 205 Thanks
  • 268 posts
  • Location: WNY

Posted January 12, 2012 - 07:23 PM

No offense taken but I think we all have become so used to dealing with people with no common sense in our everyday lives that we start assuming no one has any! LOL. You guys have been very helpful, I'm just trying to save some time and money by finding out what has worked for others. And I have paid the price more than once for using a piece of equipment past its limitations!

#29 olcowhand ONLINE  

olcowhand

    Red Tractor Nut & Diesel Addict

  • Staff Admin
  • Staff
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Sponsor
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 20
  • 35,653 Thanks
  • 29,841 posts
  • Location: South Central Kentucky

Posted January 12, 2012 - 07:28 PM

Glad you understood my meaning. I never intentionally try to offend anyone. Just not my nature. And I'd say we've all pushed things too far at times. I know I have & will likely do again!

OH CRAP....forgot to get those measurements! Tomorrow...promise! Gonna ink a dot on the back of my hand to remind me! LOL

DSC00687.jpg

#30 HowardsMF155 OFFLINE  

HowardsMF155

    Tractorholic

  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 4243
  • 2,699 Thanks
  • 2,916 posts
  • Location: Central NC

Posted January 13, 2012 - 12:10 AM

My experience with loaders is limited. I did rent and operate one once. I was smart enough not to go sideways across a hill. But I did go straight down the hill. Odd how the rear end didn't have enough weight left on it to make the brakes effective. I would have just ridden it out, but someone built a lovely building right there. Good thing dropping the bucket stopped the tractor.

With this talk of how much the tractor can and cannot lift, what size bucket would you recommend for everyday use on a GT FEL combo? I suppose scooping mulch would be different from scooping gravel, but ballpark the capacity of the bucket.

Howard




Top