A parallelogram; that describes it best. My Kwik-way wasn't a parallelogram either; I considered it poor engineering, because there was no reason not to have the bucket remain on plane. What if you wanted to use forks? Whoever engineered it, made a compromise. I've been in engineering most of my career, and the bean counters have more effect on the design than you might think. Tudor; the design of the bucket on your GT was driven by engineering.
I used to think the same, but experience has taught me a different outlook. Every fork lift that I have seen in operation tilts the forks back to either lift the load, readjust the load position closer to the headframe, or ensure that it won't slide off the forks while transporting. The same practices were used by myself with my GT with the forks installed instead of the bucket, lumber yard fork lifts, and the Big Reds used at the steel mill for transporting 30 ton slabs.
With the not quite parallelogram geometry, tilt back is automatic for keeping the load in the bucket or on the forks and requires a minimal adjustment to regain level when the desired height is attained. While it is a pain when the operator desires to lift a load level all the way, for high CofG loads, the slight tilt back is more desirable than the massive movement resulting from a bucket without that linkage.
Yeah, bean counters do screw up a lot of engineering, but not with the self leveling linkages. The same amount of material is used whether the linkage is truly self leveling, or the modified self leveling that is on our GT loaders. The only difference is where the front holes are punched for the links.
For the OP, the length of the curl cylinders is not the problem. That come from the large discrepancy between the top links and arms. On our loaders, the distance between the pins is 4" at the posts and 5" at the bucket curl links. The curl cylinders are mounted on the linkage the same distance from the pins in the arms as the distance between the arm pins and cylinder pins on the bucket.
Hydronerd and I may have different brands of loaders, but the basic design came off of the same drafting table.
For Hydronerd, most of my loader work is snow removal and the round back bucket has 33% more volume, 14% more width, a weight penalty of 20%, and considerably fewer inches of corners where snow can get stuck over the bucket that you feel is better engineered. For the specific use
that is most of the work that I do, the round back is better engineered. I made a lot fewer trips up and down the driveway with the GT than I can get away with using the SCUT with its square cornered bucket.
Click for The Hydraulics Forum!
Sometimes you get on a roll, sometimes the roll gets on you.
MF GC2310, Husqvarna YTH20B42T
Down for Repairs
MF1655 w/ FEL, MF1655, MF12H, MF8H, MF7H
Spending too much time on MTF to work on my toys.