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

#31 Enginerod ONLINE  

Enginerod

    Member

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

Posted January 13, 2012 - 07:58 AM

Olcowhand, oh ya the measurements. lol. HowardsMF155, I think the bucket dimensions are in a response earlier in this thread, that being said the width of the bucket has to cover just wider than the track width of the tractor, in the case of the 1855 it would have to be 48".

#32 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 13, 2012 - 09:36 AM

23" stroke. Like I said, I cut these down to fit the geometry. I could have used 24" purchased cylinders, but I got these longer cylinders cheap, so cutting them saved like $180. And I just guessed at my lift cylinder's diameter. They are actually 2 1/4", not 2 1/2".
  • Enginerod said thank you

#33 Username OFFLINE  

Username

    Member

  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 2568
  • 2,065 Thanks
  • 1,425 posts
  • Location: Punxsutawney,Pa

Posted January 13, 2012 - 11:22 AM

I know you don't have a PK but these are the specs and might give you a few ideas.I also have a MF 1655,I bought it out from under George at the LAGC show and it felt good.

Attached Thumbnails

  • PK loader.jpg

  • Enginerod and tractorgarden have said thanks

#34 Enginerod ONLINE  

Enginerod

    Member

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

Posted January 13, 2012 - 10:36 PM

Thanks Username, The dimensions on the PK are not that much different than the 1855 according to the illustration, this will be a very helpful diagram.

#35 TUDOR OFFLINE  

TUDOR

    Tractorholic

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

Posted January 15, 2012 - 05:02 AM

My 1655 has been wielding a 54" wide by 22" deep and tall 9.7 cu ft bucket since 1984. That makes it a very effective weapon for snow removal. It will carve a trail from the street to the back of my garage through a foot of fresh snow, non-stop for over 250' at 2/3 throttle, and drag the 5' backblade at the same time.

I've used the same bucket to dig a 3.5' deep trench to pour piers and footings, and excavated well over 100 yards of slag, sinter, car parts, boulders, red clay and dirt from my driveway to a depth of as much as 3'.

A 48" bucket is no strain for an 1855.

Olcowhand, with those monster cylinders, even at only 800 psi, the lift capability of your tractor is at least a ton, and probably quite a bit more. You can stand her on her nose, can't you? Did you ever check the working pressure?

Edited by TUDOR, January 15, 2012 - 07:15 AM.


#36 TUDOR OFFLINE  

TUDOR

    Tractorholic

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

Posted January 15, 2012 - 06:34 AM

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/


That's a nice looking trail! Wish I had the property to do that with.

Your post has perplexed me. On the one hand you seem to be fixated on theoretical capabilities that aren't going to happen, and then you you make additional comments that can best be described as erroneous. If a front tire even goes flat, the only direction a tractor will tilt is down in the nose. The front axle is mounted on a pivot and that will deal with any side tilt. The rear axle, being solid to the frame, is the one that will result in any tilting to the side in relation to the ground.

It is a strange situation that will result in rear tires squatting when additional load is placed in a front mounted bucket. Physics says otherwise. I've noticed that there is always less load on my rear tires when the bucket is loaded.

I noticed in your video, that you always kept the bucket as low as possible. I believe the vast majority of people who fabricate or purchase FEL's are guite capable of figuring that one out in short order with only a gentle reminder. For those who aren't, a Darwin award awaits. As far as dumping a bucket while on a side slope, why are you doing that in the first place? SOP is to be pointed upslope or downslope when unloading. Most children know that. They figure it out in the sandbox while playing with Tonka toys.

Capability to lift 2000lb. Hmmm. Do you own a car or truck with the capability of going 160 kph? Why? The speed limit on most highways in Canada is 90 kph. Even on limited access divided highways, the speed limit is only 110 kph. Why do you need almost another 50% to 80% more speed capability? Because you need the performance capability to pass a transport on a hill on a 2 lane road at normal speeds, that's why.

The same thing applies to loaders. Limiting lift capability with smaller cylinders generates heat in abundance due to higher pressure requirements when making 500 lb lifts. Extreme lifts are done rarely, if ever for most people, and there is a limited opportunity to generate that quantity of heat. At normal lift levels, there isn't even the need for an oil cooler on a hot summer's day. Limiting lift capability with lower relief valve settings makes more sense, but you still run into the heat issue if the setting is too low or if you constantly run into it. GT's are limited by the lack of sufficient counterweight capability anyway.

Since over 90% of the GT's out there can't make anywhere close to these theoretical lifts, they'll lift the rear tires off the ground, it's all a mute point anyway.

As for liability issues if someone else is using the loader, do you normally lend your loader to someone with no training and not knowing what he's going to use it for? I don't.

Edited by TUDOR, January 15, 2012 - 06:55 AM.


#37 Enginerod ONLINE  

Enginerod

    Member

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

Posted January 15, 2012 - 09:31 AM

TUDOR, Wow, well said. LOL. On the bucket size I was thinking when you go with the minimum width bucket it will lessen the load on the tractor and the potential for overloading the FEL. For moving snow the larger bucket would be the way to go, I may have to come up with a width somewhere in between. I couldn't agree with you more about being able to figure out a FEL's limits and capabilities, hopefully common sense always prevails! And about loaning the tractor, I would be more than happy to work for any of my friends with me operating the tractor, keeps the repair bills down.

#38 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 15, 2012 - 09:39 AM




A 48" bucket is no strain for an 1855.

Olcowhand, with those monster cylinders, even at only 800 psi, the lift capability of your tractor is at least a ton, and probably quite a bit more. You can stand her on her nose, can't you? Did you ever check the working pressure?


Oh yes, it'll do a head-stand easily! I have two 50lb cast wheel weights (1 per wheel), 100lb fluid in each tire, and never weighed them, but maybe 200lb cast hanging off the rear of the frame, plus my 220lb. Plus, with my cylinders at the steep angle, they are definitely powerful. Never checked the pressure.

#39 HowardsMF155 ONLINE  

HowardsMF155

    Tractorholic

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

Posted January 15, 2012 - 10:42 AM

9.7 cubic ft. Ok, now that is something that can be compared a bit better. So, a 4ft x 1ft x 1.5 ft bucket would be about 6 cu ft. What sort of load would that be if working with either stone or dirt. I'm thinking if I ever build or buy one for my MF12, start with a small bucket for heavy stuff, and then add "extensions" for light material like mulch.

#40 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 15, 2012 - 11:34 AM

So, a 4ft x 1ft x 1.5 ft bucket would be about 6 cu ft. What sort of load would that be if working with either stone or dirt.


Depending on the soil type, dirt can weigh from 1100 to 2,000lbs per cubic yard, so kind of split that to 1500lbs/yd, then 1 cubic foot would weigh around 55lbs
Gravel will weigh from 100 to 110lbs/cubic foot depending on size of rock. So a bucket of dirt=roughly 300lbs, gravel=roughly 600lbs.

#41 Enginerod ONLINE  

Enginerod

    Member

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

Posted January 15, 2012 - 02:58 PM

The bucket extension idea seems like a good one for moving lighter material. Easier to make the bucket bigger than smaller. Man I had to break out some old unused brain cells for olcowhands last post! LOL.

#42 HowardsMF155 ONLINE  

HowardsMF155

    Tractorholic

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

Posted January 15, 2012 - 05:24 PM

So building a smaller bucket would probably be a good way to keep yourself from over loading your FEL. The next problem is when you want to move, say, massive concrete blocks around by rigging a sling to your GT loader.:poke::bigrofl:
I'd say that 600 lbs still sounds like a lot of weight on the front of a GT. I did a rough weight calculation of my 12G recently and came up with about 500-600 Lbs stock, that is no weights, no liquid ballast, and no 200+ lbs of ballast in the seat.

Howard

#43 TUDOR OFFLINE  

TUDOR

    Tractorholic

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

Posted January 15, 2012 - 05:39 PM

. On the bucket size I was thinking when you go with the minimum width bucket it will lessen the load on the tractor and the potential for overloading the FEL. For moving snow the larger bucket would be the way to go, I may have to come up with a width somewhere in between.


9.7 cubic ft. Ok, now that is something that can be compared a bit better. So, a 4ft x 1ft x 1.5 ft bucket would be about 6 cu ft. What sort of load would that be if working with either stone or dirt. I'm thinking if I ever build or buy one for my MF12, start with a small bucket for heavy stuff, and then add "extensions" for light material like mulch.


The bucket extension idea seems like a good one for moving lighter material. Easier to make the bucket bigger than smaller. Man I had to break out some old unused brain cells for olcowhands last post! LOL.


About the heaviest granular material (sand, gravel, loam) that most folks will deal with is wet gravel at 3575 lb/ cu yd or 132 lb / cu ft according to my Pocket Reference book. It doesn't list the heaviest that I've dealt with, which is quite a bit heavier. That is sinter from the steel mill which is made by roasting some forms of iron ore. It was used for the surface of running tracks in days gone by and most people called it cinder. There are 68 yards of the stuff on my driveway. Unless you shovel heavy material into the bucket, it's unlikely that you can fill it to capacity. Two wheel drive GTs don't have enough traction to push the bucket into a pile of heavy material far enough to fill an even slightly over sized bucket.

Buckets are measured by their struck capacity for volume. The 2 material handling buckets that I have are curved like the ones on older Sears, Johnson and Kwik Way FELs. The small one measures 40"w x 17" h and 17" d for a struck capacity of 4.3 cu ft. It weighs just about 70lb. The larger one is a scaled up version that is 54"w x 22"h x 22" d for a struck capacity of 9.7 cu ft. That one weighs 210 lb. Both are made from 1/8" plate, the small one with a 3/8"x3" cutting edge and the large one with a 1/2"x4"cutting edge. The mounting lugs are naturally heavier for the large bucket.

Enginerod, about 60% of my tractor hours are moving snow and it's a pain to change attachments on the FEL when one of them is that heavy. I have several attachments for different jobs, including a light set of forks (too light, I keep bending them), a 12" x 32" deep trenching bucket ( you end up straddling the trench, but it saves the back), and what I call a "T" bar (side view looks like a "T", 4' tall and the top is a 3' x 3.5' perimeter frame suitable for attaching a walkway deck section from our old pool for a scaffold that will give a working platform about 9' above ground, as well as other tasks requiring high lift).

HowardsMF155, the bucket that I used on my MF12H was the smaller one. I wished many times that it was 2" wider, and that's as far as I would go with it. A 45" bucket would be overkill for anything but snow, and the heavier constant weight from carrying the bucket would eventually cause even more wear on steering components. I used that tractor with the FEL for 7 years and was very happy with it, until I got my 1655. It made an excellent trainer! That loader currently resides on my 1655.

Bucket extensions take as much work to make as a complete bucket. I would suggest making 2 buckets, rather than mess around trying to make one do double duty. My big one took one day from doing the math to being ready for cleanup and paint.

One of the advantages of a wider bucket is a wider footprint when it's grounded. That makes it more difficult to tip the tractor over, even if the bucket is a couple of inches off the ground. Steel doesn't give like rubber tires do.

#44 TUDOR OFFLINE  

TUDOR

    Tractorholic

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

Posted January 15, 2012 - 05:55 PM

So building a smaller bucket would probably be a good way to keep yourself from over loading your FEL. The next problem is when you want to move, say, massive concrete blocks around by rigging a sling to your GT loader.:poke::bigrofl:
I'd say that 600 lbs still sounds like a lot of weight on the front of a GT. I did a rough weight calculation of my 12G recently and came up with about 500-600 Lbs stock, that is no weights, no liquid ballast, and no 200+ lbs of ballast in the seat.

Howard


Estimated weight of my fully ballasted 12H was 1350 lb. It would lift and transport about 700 lb on a flat, smooth surface, a little more if using a sling over the back of the bucket. Forget about climbing any slope at that payload level. Comfort zone was 400 to 500 lb.

#45 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 16, 2012 - 03:49 PM

That's a nice looking trail! Wish I had the property to do that with.

Your post has perplexed me. On the one hand you seem to be fixated on theoretical capabilities that aren't going to happen, and then you you make additional comments that can best be described as erroneous. If a front tire even goes flat, the only direction a tractor will tilt is down in the nose. The front axle is mounted on a pivot and that will deal with any side tilt. The rear axle, being solid to the frame, is the one that will result in any tilting to the side in relation to the ground.


Sorry for any perplexity I caused Bob. I'm not fixated on theoretical capabilities but on the fact that massively overbuilding the lift capability produces unsafe conditions at far less than the maximum theoretical level. The intent of the post was to try to bring other concerns to light such as tire size. I failed to do a good job of that in my example. The eventual result of a sidehill rollover hazard is all the weight transferring to the lower side wheels as the uphill wheels leave the ground. This is a common scenario for loader accidents.


It is a strange situation that will result in rear tires squatting when additional load is placed in a front mounted bucket. Physics says otherwise. I've noticed that there is always less load on my rear tires when the bucket is loaded.

The force that causes this is transfer of weight to the downhill side when the tractor starts to tip. Again I was thinking of the end result.


I noticed in your video, that you always kept the bucket as low as possible. I believe the vast majority of people who fabricate or purchase FEL's are guite capable of figuring that one out in short order with only a gentle reminder. For those who aren't, a Darwin award awaits. As far as dumping a bucket while on a side slope, why are you doing that in the first place? SOP is to be pointed upslope or downslope when unloading. Most children know that. They figure it out in the sandbox while playing with Tonka toys.

I don't know about you but I learned how to operate a loader from Forums and threads like this one before I purchased one . I will admit to playing with Tonkas as a boy but that was not what gave me a heads up on loader use. Most children I know are spending a lot of time on line and don't seem to have a good practical grasp of the physical world. I also know from answering a lot of questions on this forum that quite a few of the members here are new to tractors let alone loaders and don't seem to have a
good grasp of physics at all. I will readily concede that most of the participants in this particular thread have the experience, knowledge and in particular judgement to operate a DIY loader. I'll get back to judgement later.

Capability to lift 2000lb. Hmmm. Do you own a car or truck with the capability of going 160 kph? Why? The speed limit on most highways in Canada is 90 kph. Even on limited access divided highways, the speed limit is only 110 kph. Why do you need almost another 50% to 80% more speed capability? Because you need the performance capability to pass a transport on a hill on a 2 lane road at normal speeds, that's why.

That is not really a very apt analogy Bob. It really proves my point about high limits being dangerous. The chances of being involved in a serious accident increase dramatically when you approach the cars limit. In cars you actually have a few advantages you don't have when using a loader. You have speed limits and you have a speedometer. You don't have those objective cues and instruments when using a loader.
Both cars and tractors have this in common. Good judgement is required to operate them safely.

The same thing applies to loaders. Limiting lift capability with smaller cylinders generates heat in abundance due to higher pressure requirements when making 500 lb lifts. Extreme lifts are done rarely, if ever for most people, and there is a limited opportunity to generate that quantity of heat. At normal lift levels, there isn't even the need for an oil cooler on a hot summer's day. Limiting lift capability with lower relief valve settings makes more sense, but you still run into the heat issue if the setting is too low or if you constantly run into it. GT's are limited by the lack of sufficient counterweight capability anyway.

I can see your point about a system that does not have enough capacity to dissipate the generated heat but I don't believe it should trump safety concerns. I believe my suggestion of smaller cylinders using available pressure is also a valid design choice and is in fact what is commonly used in the tractors I am familiar with.

Since over 90% of the GT's out there can't make anywhere close to these theoretical lifts, they'll lift the rear tires off the ground, it's all a mute point anyway.

Ballasting is necessary and is included in recommendations for new tractors that use loaders. The amount of ballast recommended is often surprisingly high for even modest weights. Again I am not talking about maximum lifts but a lift that is just short of lifting the tires off the ground.

As for liability issues if someone else is using the loader, do you normally lend your loader to someone with no training and not knowing what he's going to use it for? I don't.

Neither do I Bob . I am concerned about people who do. I am also concerned about new owners of tractors with DIY loaders that are far too strong to be safe. Any loader can be dangerous, but I can't agree with designing in extra large lift capacities that compromise safety further. In my first post in this thread I encouraged the adoption or at least the consideration of the lift capacities available in new tractors. These limits are considerably lower than the numbers being spoken of here.

I have been asking myself why this issue is such a button pusher for me. One reason is the number of tractor accidents, some fatal, that occurred in the rural area where I grew up. It made me very cautious in my approach to tractors.
Second is my belief that designing in limits that stress safety over lift capacity is a good way to improve safety. When you rely on the operators judgement as the limiting factor there is a big problem. Judgement can be impaired by a number of human factors. Fatigue, distractions, ego and rushing to complete a job are a few of them. Reasonable designed in limits are there to help protect the operator when human factors cause a mistake to be made. This is a distinction that I thought needed to be brought out in this discussion.




Top