My Tractor Forum banner

425 FEL Build

18K views 107 replies 15 participants last post by  Beunbad 
#1 ·
Making some progress. I started with the plan of building a FEL for my 318, but a good deal on a 425 came along. So I will continue with the plan of using the 425. It has better on board hydraulics and a much better directional control (foot actuated).

Do you guys think the bucket mock up in this picture has enough curl at ground height? The loader arm in the picture is positioned so that the bucket would be at ground height if attached to the tractor. I'm thinking of making the bucket a little taller, but this was the tallest piece of cardboard I had handy for a mock up.
 

Attachments

See less See more
1
  • Like
Reactions: Beunbad
#3 ·
Or material coming off the back side onto the hood when lifted to full height and curled all the way back. This is a common occurrence when using a loader for snow removal and can happen almost as easily with gravel or dirt if the material in the bucket is piled high.

Most GT buckets are roughly square in dimension, height equals front to back depth. Your design appears to be shorter in height than front to back. Excess front to back depth results in less lifting force at the cutting edge, a fact that you will appreciate more when you make use of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beunbad
#6 ·
That thread of Eric's was very informative. You discussed 3" below grade and flat bottom. Rudy suggested at least 2". I'll check that in my mock up.

I would like to add a comment, because timberwolf was critical of the cost of a set of plans. I started with Paul's plans from P.F. Engineering. He was really helpful and responsive with initial questions of mine. I'm only an hour away from him and he even offered me to come out and check out his loader in person. I realize there is lots of room for style beyond his design, but I think he makes it so average guys can actually build a FEL. I think his price is very fair for the amount of info you get in one complete package. Very few of us have the time, facility, and skill to build a beautiful loader like Grampajay's. I strayed a little from Paul's design for a few reasons, and most of them are dumb so I won't elaborate. Now I'm in the process of correcting the mistakes I have already made. I don't think I have gotten too far off track.


In Eric's thread you commented on the strength of round cross bar compared to square tube. I have a 2 1/4", 1/8" wall tube that I was planning on using for the cross bar. That's similar to the JD 4X loaders. Eric's cross bar was much smaller, I think only 1.5". Do you think my tube is strong enough?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beunbad
#5 ·
You also want to make the total down position of the bucket when the bottom is parallel to the ground about 2 inches below the surface. This will allow a flat scraping of the ground without having the front edge of the bucket tilted downward. If you wanted to level a bumpy area you would want this function to have a bottom below the surface you are working on. The way I did mine was to put the tractor tires on 2-inch boards when fitting the bucket to the arms. The bucket was on the floor of my shop so when I finished the bucket would go down to two inches below the shop floor.
 
#7 ·
Refresh my memory please. Which cross bar? There are two, one between the arms to control racking, and one on the subframe to support the posts.

On mine, the one between the arms is roughly 3" square by 1/16" (original) and is a bit lighter than I would choose, but it has survived. The one supporting the posts is 2" square by 1/4" wall (my build) and is maybe a bit on the heavy side but it did have to lift the rear of the tractor with over 800 lb of ballast (total over 1500 lb with tractor and operator) to counter payload in the bucket.
 
#8 ·
All the loaders that I have owned or built had round cross arm braces. I know that squares/rectangles are technically stronger but it must not be a big thing because so many loaders have round tubes. The one on my 44 is about 2-inches around and 1/4 thick. I can't imagine twisting that with the short arms on the loader. It also goes through all sides of the arms and is welded on both sides. Maybe Tudor can explain what that does versus welding a square tube on only one side of each arm. I think when we are building a loader, we have a tendency to overbuild them. If you look at the old Johnson series they looked like toys yet they are still around today. No matter, just make it like you want it and it will outperform all of us!
 
#12 ·
All the loaders that I have owned or built had round cross arm braces. I know that squares/rectangles are technically stronger but it must not be a big thing because so many loaders have round tubes. The one on my 44 is about 2-inches around and 1/4 thick. I can't imagine twisting that with the short arms on the loader. It also goes through all sides of the arms and is welded on both sides. Maybe Tudor can explain what that does versus welding a square tube on only one side of each arm. I think when we are building a loader, we have a tendency to overbuild them. If you look at the old Johnson series they looked like toys yet they are still around today. No matter, just make it like you want it and it will outperform all of us!
The bucket is 6' from the top of the posts. That is not a short distance should the side of the bucket slam into something that doesn't want to move, hence the need for that cross bar for additional strength from lateral loads.

Through the arms and welded on both sides makes for stronger connections and a more rigid set of arms for picking up asymmetrical loads such as prying with one corner of the bucket. Since both cylinders apply the same force, the one on the side of the loader that is not lifting a load could potentially bend the loader arms out of square over a period of time if the cross bar wasn't secure.

Round cross bars that go through the arms are not normally as large in dimension as square cross bars that make use of the top and bottom of the arms to the same effect.

With the forces in use for GT loaders, it's a toss-up as to which is better. It is a lot easier to just use a large dimension square tube type cross bar welded to the insides of the arms. A side benefit is the ready made broad, flat surface to mount the crossover lines from one arm to the other.
 
#9 ·
the 425 works well with a loader; suggest adjusting the implement pressure after you finish to maximize your usage of the FEL. Assume you plan to run the FEL off the OEM implement valve? the OEM loader for the 425 was the JD No. 40 loader; which has long been out of fabrication by John Deere and used ones are rare finds ( very few were sold due to the high sticker price approx. $3,000 ) I did own a 425 w a 40 loader, attached are the few pic's I have; hope it helps? good luck!!
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: Beunbad
#11 ·
The skeptic in me tells me that a round crossbar (pipe) is used, instead of rectangular or square tubing, mainly because it is easier to manufacture. I do think that the loader arm assembly is much stronger if the crosspipe goes through the loader arm and is welded on both sides, compared to just butting up to and welded against the inside, like the Johnson loaders. I think it would be harder for a manufacturer to cut the square or rectangular holes.

On my homebuilt loader, I used 2 x 4 x 3/16" tubing, cut through the arms, welded on both sides. A heavy walled pipe would have worked too.
 

Attachments

#13 ·
I think the round pipe (used on my #45 FEL on the x595) is a lower cost install. the hole in the arms is round (drilled ) and the pipe is cheap, just cut to length and weld on both sides. - done. the cross tube is critical to keeping the arms straight. Have seem one instance (cheap over-seas copy) where the arms were bent when trying to lift with just a corner of the bucket!
 
#14 ·
You are exactly right about round supports being done for cost reasons. I built a CAD plans loader and it called for a round cross support because the average guy does not have the means to cut four square holes in the lift arms. JD uses round tubes for economy because drilling a round hole is fast and efficient compared to a CNC cutting machine and the time involved. I drilled my round holes through both arms together so that they would be square when welded. I cannot imagine how a guy in his shop could cut four rectangle holes that are coincident. I have a plasma cutter that would do the job but I would never know until I welded them if they were plumb. As with many things, cost is the big driver but in this case DIY loaders also have simplicity to contend with. That's a very nice looking loader you built!
 
#15 ·
Thanks. I think you were referring to my loader, lol!

"I cannot imagine how a guy in his shop could cut four rectangle holes that are coincident."

I drilled the corner holes on one side, and then just drilled through to the other side. With the tubing laying flat on the drill press table, it was supposed to be quite close on the far side. Then cut the lines with a plasma cutter. Seemed to work.
 
#16 ·
"I drilled the corner holes on one side, and then just drilled through to the other side. With the tubing laying flat on the drill press table, it was supposed to be quite close on the far side. Then cut the lines with a plasma cutter. Seemed to work."
That's what I said. I have a plasma cutter and I know that I could cut the four holes but most people do not have a plasma cutter. Thus the metal cutting hole saw bit does the job for a few dollars. Just like some here on this forum who have an entire machine shop at their disposal, but for most, they have to make do with simpler tools. In the time it took you to drill and cut four rectangular holes I could have drilled four round ones and had them welded up and painted all with equipment that cost just a few dollars. That is why the round bar is so popular.
 
#17 ·
I have a round bar and the correct size hole saw. That's looking really attractive right now. I do have a plasma cutter and a Bridgeport too, but I don't have the rectangular stock. My serious fab equipment is at my shop 40 minutes away. I'm trying to do this build at home, stealing an hour to two at a time to keep making progress. Every time I have to go to the shop costs me 1 1/2 hours in the car not building anything. My dream is to build a big garage at home and move all my shop stuff here, but that's a discussion for another thread or forum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beunbad
#18 ·
Unless a person abuses his FEL, either round or square will work fine. Only at the breaking point would the extra strength/rigidity of square over round come into place. If a person is dumb enough to try and lift or pull a heavy object with only one arm of his FEL then warping it may be what he deserves. The loader is built on the symmetrical principal where loads are divided equally. If you distort that process then the built-in strength of the design will be lost and damage or failure will occur. This is why most loaders have a single hook in the top center of the bucket. It is pretty hard to get an asymmetrical load from that central point. Some use two hooks, one on each side, which is better but makes rigging more involved and difficult and it also makes getting an asymmetrical load more likely if the rigging isn't done right.
 
#19 ·
You are correct, but sometimes maneuvering space restrictions make asymmetrical loading a necessity. To this end, the top edge of the bucket for my GT is turned up to provide a place to position chain hooks to best advantage, In addition, there are 6 hard mounts for chain shackles that also reinforce that edge.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Beunbad
#20 ·
We are talking a comparison of torsional stiffness comparing round tubing to square tubing. The torsional stiffness is about the same given an equivalent size. Take a 2" square tube of 1/8" wall. The equivalent stiffness round tube would be the size of the diagonal of the 2" square (about 2-5/8") and 1/8" thickness.
 
#21 ·
Torsional stiffness is one aspect that has to be dealt with on occassion. Racking resistance due to the bucket moving sideways as the tractor encounters bumps is another factor that the crossbar has to deal with on almost every occasion that the tractor moves, with or without a payload.

A 2" diameter circle has 3.14" of weld around the perimeter. A 2" square has 4" of weld.

It's rarely the first time that does damage to a loader. It may do the same operation several hundred, or even several thousand times before damage occurs. The objective is to fabricate a loader that will have zero structural failures under many maximum loads over an extended life.
 
#22 ·
"The objective is to fabricate a loader that will have zero structural failures under many maximum loads over an extended life."

Tudor should have added, "If used correctly". It is almost impossible to build any machine that will withstand abusive use. So it becomes the aim of the designer to shoot for some compromises such as cost, weight and practicality. Obviously, the material used to build them could be so heavy that small tractors could not use them and the cost would preclude anyone from buying them. As Tudor has mentioned before, all the weight you add to the dead weight of the loader has to be countered by the counterweight. Plus the strain on the front axle/tires goes up for no real benefit.
 
#23 · (Edited)
"The objective is to fabricate a loader that will have zero structural failures under many maximum loads over an extended life."

Tudor should have added, "If used correctly". It is almost impossible to build any machine that will withstand abusive use. So it becomes the aim of the designer to shoot for some compromises such as cost, weight and practicality. Obviously, the material used to build them could be so heavy that small tractors could not use them and the cost would preclude anyone from buying them. As Tudor has mentioned before, all the weight you add to the dead weight of the loader has to be countered by the counterweight. Plus the strain on the front axle/tires goes up for no real benefit.
Not stated on purpose.

Small GT loaders are not designed for super heavy lifting or other such abuse because the tractors are not heavy enough to deal with forces that are that high.

The loader on my MF 1655 has a subframe and front bracing that weighs about 30-40 lb more than what would be considered minimal for any GT. It has lifted and transported payloads as high as 1250 lb using a 250 lb implement on the 3PH for counterweight, and pulled 10" diameter concrete piers out of the ground with the rear wheels in the air and a 385 lb implement on the 3PH plus an additional 80 lb of wheel weights. Permanent ballast, not including wheel weights and 3PH implements, is 400 lb and the tractor, loader, and bucket weigh 2000 lb (scaled weight) in this configuration. The bucket normally on the loader weighs 210 lb with a struck volume of 1/3 cu-yd, or about 800 lb of dirt. With over 2000 hours of brutal service, the subframe and diagonal bracing have had zero structural failures.



I'll point out that subframe and diagonal bracing weight is centered between the axles and does not affect counterweight required.

It doesn't take a whole lot of additional material to make a loader "bullet proof". It just takes the right size of material. The subframe and diagonal bracing is all 1/8" wall structural tubing with only the attachment points and the cross bar supporting the posts being thicker. I used 2x3 for the subframe and 2x4 for the diagonal bracing where 2x2 would have been sufficient for both if slightly lesser loads were involved.
 
#24 ·
My point on abuse was centered more towards the asymmetrical forces rather than overweight lifting. The guy who plows into an unseen stump with one side of the bucket at traveling speed or the guy who tries to lift too much with only one arm taking the strain. I think that just lifting over the recommended limit is still a symmetrical force and would distribute the load evenly to all parts of the structure. Also, if you overbuild the loader then the weakest link in the chain becomes the tractor frame/axle. It would be better for the loader to give rather than the frame of the tractor. In the manual that I have for the JD 44 it states that the loader should not be used as a battering ram. It is obvious what and why they say that.
 
#25 ·
I'm not disputing your comments, merely adding to them a bit of the practical. Asymmetrical loading on a GT gets to be very interesting as the payload increases in weight. The usual effect is that the opposite rear tire gets light with the normal accompanying lack of traction. In extreme cases, the tire will come off the ground and the tractor is at risk of toppling due to the pivoting front axle. An operator learns in a hurry just how much asymmetrical loading can be applied, and that is rarely enough to cause issues other than a severe tightening of the sphincter.

It takes many applications of asymmetrical loading to cause issues with a reasonably well installed cross member. I know, because the cross member for my GT's loader is not up to the same standards that I used for the subframe and it has cracked. There is not a boneheaded stunt that I haven't tried with my loaders over the years, and yet they have, for the most part, survived, and I've learned a lot of lessons in the attempts.

As mentioned, it boils down to the weight of the tractor. With absolute maximum ballast, asymmetrical loading may cause damage to the arms in one lift. Maximum ballast for most heavy GTs is approximately 1550-1650 lb. With a 1500 psi relief setting and 2" cylinders, I'd worry more about the effect of the over 4000 lb of weight on the small front tires than bending the arms. The arms can usually be straightened out using the reverse asymmetrical load and a few minutes work with a welder. Blown front tires and bent rims take a bit more time and money.

Anyone who has used a loader for snow removal, has used it for a battering ram when they encounter frost heaved patio stones. This is why the subframe should butt up against the rear axle tube as the closet point of application of force by the rear tires. JD mounts their plows to a harness bolted to the front of the tractor's frame. When the plow meets an immovable obstruction, the resulting forces attempt to jackknife the frame between the plow harness and the driving rear wheels. The same applies to loaders. I, being the granite headed Scotsman that I am, had to learn this particular lesson after the third repeat early on in my FEL experience. The major cutting edge impact force gets transferred back to the rearmost connection of the subframe to the tractor.
 
#27 ·
I have found the JD OEM design for the #40 and the #45 GT loaders to be very sturdy. Have owned both. have hit road curbs clearing snow, lifted oversized loads ( approaching 2000 lbs with the #45) with no flexing, twisting, or breakage!! Would not hesitate to copy the design(s) if building a FEL. have found that the tractor "tilts" on off- center loads before you over-stress the boom & frame.
For years, I've carried 900 lbs of steel plate in the weight box and 500 lbs or liq. ballast in the rear tires for loader work & snow plowing without issue. The operator has to be smart and avoid un-balanced lifts or loads that can over-turn the machine. More than once. I've had the rear wheels 2 ft off the ground and the bucket buried under an immovable object! :tango_face_devil:
 
#28 ·
I have one more bucket design question. Any ideas why some buckets have the return on the ends of the bucket rather than just being straight? I see this on some modern Deere designs and lots on bigger buckets on back hoes and dedicated FEL's. My only guess is it allows material to spill off the sides before you have it curled all the way back and dump it on the hood.
 

Attachments

#29 ·
Hi Turbo - Nice tractor set up!!! I think your are correct. the material will slide off to the sides before over the back and onto the tractor hood (or operator!) It's probably more of an issue on larger machines that raise the bucket higher? I just installed a 4-in-1 bucket on my x595 - works great - use it a lot processing fire wood!!
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: Beunbad
#30 ·
That's not my tractor, just a picture from a CL add to demonstrate the side profile of the bucket I was asking about. Boy, if I had that tractor I wouldn't be messing around welding up my own FEL!
 
#31 · (Edited)
Bucket volume is measured as "struck", as in laying a straight edge from the cutting edge to the top of the bucket and striking off all material that doesn't fit under the straight edge. The volume will be considerably less without the return at the top of the bucket, and the return offers a secure location for hooks or lugs to lift odd shaped objects that don't fit in the bucket.

In the case of the bucket in your picture, the straight edge would be applied from side to side because of the added length of return at the top. Normally, the leading edges of the side plates are straight from the cutting edge to the front of the return for maximum strength at the top for chain lifts.

The front edge of the return is usually about halfway between the cutting edge and the back of the bucket when the bucket is flat on the ground.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top