I built a small bucket lift for the front of my LGT165. I am using the lift cylinder under the tractor to lift it. I extended the lower arm a couple of inches to get a bit of extra throw. You can see the picture of that and the bar that goes to the front to lift the bucket. I figure I can get about 100 lbs of dirt in the bucket. It seems to lift O, strains a bit when I fill it. Question is, is this going to be too much for my hydraulic system?
Hydraulic question
poncho62
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Joined
·
6,761 Posts
I built a small bucket lift for the front of my LGT165. I am using the lift cylinder under the tractor to lift it. I extended the lower arm a couple of inches to get a bit of extra throw. You can see the picture of that and the bar that goes to the front to lift the bucket. I figure I can get about 100 lbs of dirt in the bucket. It seems to lift O, strains a bit when I fill it. Question is, is this going to be too much for my hydraulic system?
Attachments
Joined
·
1,591 Posts
I don't think it's the hydraulics, it looks like the mechanical leverage is wrong, the geometry for lack of a better word....Mike
You won't hurt the hydraulics. There's a relief valve to protect the pump from overpressure.
Poor geometry and/or poor leverage ratios can put a severe limit on the weight of any load that can be lifted. The load includes the payload, and the bucket and connecting mounting linkages.
Most GT implement lift cylinders have a 2" bore and a 4" stroke. The implement pressure available with an Eaton is generally 750 psi. That gives you a retracting force of about 1950 lb. The angle that the cylinder rod makes with the lifting linkage will reduce that available force by 30% at a 45° angle. The leverage ratio makes a further reduction. It appears from the pics that the bucket is lifted at least 16" above grade. That's a 4:1 lifting ratio with a 4" stroke cylinder using a straight lift. When bell cranks are involved, there is no straight lift and the ratio will be somewhat higher.
And then there is the weight of the bucket and its linkages to be subtracted from the available force that is left over from the above calculations.
In theory, a setup can be designed to lift a combined load of 450 lb to a height (above the lowest point) of 16". In practical terms, maybe half of that, depending on the angles and various friction points. Your big problem is the lifting height required to dump the bucket that needs the bucket to be so far out in front of the tractor.
On a side issue, you're pushing the bucket with the connecting linkage too high up on the tractor. Something will eventually fail. Ideally, the cutting edge should be pushed by the rear axle.
Poor geometry and/or poor leverage ratios can put a severe limit on the weight of any load that can be lifted. The load includes the payload, and the bucket and connecting mounting linkages.
Most GT implement lift cylinders have a 2" bore and a 4" stroke. The implement pressure available with an Eaton is generally 750 psi. That gives you a retracting force of about 1950 lb. The angle that the cylinder rod makes with the lifting linkage will reduce that available force by 30% at a 45° angle. The leverage ratio makes a further reduction. It appears from the pics that the bucket is lifted at least 16" above grade. That's a 4:1 lifting ratio with a 4" stroke cylinder using a straight lift. When bell cranks are involved, there is no straight lift and the ratio will be somewhat higher.
And then there is the weight of the bucket and its linkages to be subtracted from the available force that is left over from the above calculations.
In theory, a setup can be designed to lift a combined load of 450 lb to a height (above the lowest point) of 16". In practical terms, maybe half of that, depending on the angles and various friction points. Your big problem is the lifting height required to dump the bucket that needs the bucket to be so far out in front of the tractor.
On a side issue, you're pushing the bucket with the connecting linkage too high up on the tractor. Something will eventually fail. Ideally, the cutting edge should be pushed by the rear axle.
Joined
·
6,761 Posts
The bucket lifts just high enough so that it is straight down when it dumps. A bit higher would be nice, but works as is. I know the geometry is a bit hokey, but I dont plan on doing anything heavy with it, mainly just moving manure and mulch around. The bar had to go either under or over the axle, thus why I had to add the piece on the end.
Attachments
Joined
·
9,124 Posts
Hey Poncho...
Any bucket that saves you from getting out the wheelbarrow and shovel is a welcome design.:fing32::fing32: It is for scooping, not digging.
There appears to be a lot of similar store bought ones out there for just that reason.
We both have the same 2 stage snowblowers with the long heavy frame beam extending back to almost the rear axle.
The designers put a kink in the beam because of that limited range of travel under the front axle and the complete blower outfit is lifted by the deck lift undercarriage.
Even with 2 garage door sized assist springs, mine struggles to get that probably 300lb complete assembly 3" off the ground because it is so far away from the cyl.
Mind you the hydro is over 40 yrs old.
My point is, their system strikes me as an afterthought design, to utilize parts already in place for the mower deck which is a lot lighter and a lot closer to the lift cyl.
I'm wondering could you pick up another cyl and piece of hose from PA/HF and mount it out front of the grill. The two cyls could rise simultaneously.
The front cyl would take all that leverage out of the equasion, significantly reducing the pressure on the hydro pump and increasing your bucket lifting capacity.
Just my nickles worth....... and we all know that won't buy you much anymore.:tango_face_devil:
Any bucket that saves you from getting out the wheelbarrow and shovel is a welcome design.:fing32::fing32: It is for scooping, not digging.
There appears to be a lot of similar store bought ones out there for just that reason.
We both have the same 2 stage snowblowers with the long heavy frame beam extending back to almost the rear axle.
The designers put a kink in the beam because of that limited range of travel under the front axle and the complete blower outfit is lifted by the deck lift undercarriage.
Even with 2 garage door sized assist springs, mine struggles to get that probably 300lb complete assembly 3" off the ground because it is so far away from the cyl.
Mind you the hydro is over 40 yrs old.
My point is, their system strikes me as an afterthought design, to utilize parts already in place for the mower deck which is a lot lighter and a lot closer to the lift cyl.
I'm wondering could you pick up another cyl and piece of hose from PA/HF and mount it out front of the grill. The two cyls could rise simultaneously.
The front cyl would take all that leverage out of the equasion, significantly reducing the pressure on the hydro pump and increasing your bucket lifting capacity.
Just my nickles worth....... and we all know that won't buy you much anymore.:tango_face_devil:
Joined
·
6,761 Posts
The cylinder with that long rod and 2 pivot points lifts quite a bit, pretty much a bucket full.......If you look at the one side pic, I also mounted a lift handle off of my parts 125. That way if its groaning, I can give a little extra via the "Armstrong" method. I was mainly concerned with damaging the hydraulics, which Tudor says shouldn't happen......thanks guys
One of these days I will put some sides on the bucket.
One of these days I will put some sides on the bucket.
Joined
·
9,124 Posts
The 3ph on my 165 is also lifted by the deck lift cyl. It holds my 125lb counterbalance weight which slowly decends over a period of time working or sitting for several days.
When I raise it back up, the hydro pump simply squeals once I have reached the stops. I quickly let go of the handle and the squealing stops, no harm done.
On the 145 with the snowblower, I don't believe I hear it squeal, it just struggles to reach 3" of lift. This will be my first winter with the blower so will know more later on in the season.
And if I never said it before Poncho, "Welcome to the Loader.... er... well, Bucket Club.":tee:
Joined
·
6,761 Posts
OK......got another question now for TUDOR.
As you can see by my pictures, I have the push rod to lift the bucket. Question is, would there be any advantage to change that to the top to pull the bucket up rather than pushing it up? That is considering the pull/push lengths are the same ratio as before. I just think it would be easier, as the push bar wants to get in the way of the axle and when turning the tire hits it if I turn too sharp......thanks
As you can see by my pictures, I have the push rod to lift the bucket. Question is, would there be any advantage to change that to the top to pull the bucket up rather than pushing it up? That is considering the pull/push lengths are the same ratio as before. I just think it would be easier, as the push bar wants to get in the way of the axle and when turning the tire hits it if I turn too sharp......thanks
I agree with Larry. Any play in the linkage will have a big effect on the lift ability. Judging by the fact that you posted this, the lift isn't moving easily; adding another cylinder and using it in conjunction with the lift, or locking lift in place and using just the new cylinder directly mounted to the bucket will provide better performance.
Joined
·
6,761 Posts
Just had a look....lifting the bucket is on the out stroke of the cylinder, so I guess its better to leave as is.
It works OK as is, but mainly wanted to get around the bar being in the way. Soon be time to take this off and put the blower on for the winter
thanks
It works OK as is, but mainly wanted to get around the bar being in the way. Soon be time to take this off and put the blower on for the winter
thanks
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
