[evo803]

I have posted a project that some friends and I are building in the" backyard round table" section under the name ( I think it might work ). I would really like it if you CUT guys would look at it and comment about my design. I am looking for tips, improvements or hindsight advice so I can learn from someone elses experiences. My bugdet is very small and I cant afford to make any mistakes. Here are a couple pics that will hopefully peak your curiosity.

Thanks I really appreciate any and all comments !

 

[whigden]

The budget might be small but the stock looks great. You must have close friends with some interesting equipment to build with. Good luck looks like you have done some good preplanning already.

 

[TUDOR]

It looks like a real nice basic design. :fing32:

Two things that jump out for me are; lateral stability for the lifting arms, and servicing the lift cylinder.

The arms are usually made from box section material, not flat plate. In this case, the addition of 1/8" plate gussets on the top and bottom between the arms in strategic areas will more than suffice. The arms are certainly strong enough for vertical stress. That looks like 1/2" plate?

The lift cylinder should be removable. I see that you have the rod pin welded on the one side which will mean cutting the pin if you need to remove the cylinder. Not the optimum scenario. A 1/4"x3" plate with lugs for the cylinder will allow a removable pin to be used. Cap this plate with a similar piece to make a drunken 'T', that is, the top of the'T' set at some angle that allows clearance for the rod throughout the cylinder stroke. A similar, or the same, crossbar with lugs on the other side for the bucket cylinder could be used.

Never install hydraulic components in such a manner that it requires destructive methods for removal. I'm a retired millwright and have been in that position. It's neither fun nor beneficial to the equipment. Easy access for future maintenance is always at the top of my list.

Personally, I would radius some of those sharp corners, but that is probably in your plans for the finishing touches.

I really like your overall design!

 

[evo803]

It looks like a real nice basic design. :fing32:

Two things that jump out for me are; lateral stability for the lifting arms, and servicing the lift cylinder.

The arms are usually made from box section material, not flat plate. In this case, the addition of 1/8" plate gussets on the top and bottom between the arms in strategic areas will more than suffice. The arms are certainly strong enough for vertical stress. That looks like 1/2" plate?

The lift cylinder should be removable. I see that you have the rod pin welded on the one side which will mean cutting the pin if you need to remove the cylinder. Not the optimum scenario. A 1/4"x3" plate with lugs for the cylinder will allow a removable pin to be used. Cap this plate with a similar piece to make a drunken 'T', that is, the top of the'T' set at some angle that allows clearance for the rod throughout the cylinder stroke. A similar, or the same, crossbar with lugs on the other side for the bucket cylinder could be used.

Never install hydraulic components in such a manner that it requires destructive methods for removal. I'm a retired millwright and have been in that position. It's neither fun nor beneficial to the equipment. Easy access for future maintenance is always at the top of my list.

Personally, I would radius some of those sharp corners, but that is probably in your plans for the finishing touches.

I really like your overall design!

The lateral stability is definately an issue and we decided to solve this by adding 2 1/2 " sched. 40 pipe at 3 points along the arms.The middle one will serve as the attachment point for the lift cylinder. I have 2 pieces of 3/8 plate that will be welded to the tube that have been bored for the 3/4" cylinder pin. The "pin " you see is temporary just to make sure the range of motion works.Also thinking about making it self-leveling , this would allow me to mount the cylinder closer to the tractor and gain some lifting capacity.

 

[stoonie]

evo803, your bucket looks a little weak- just playin', I couldn't resist. Rear engine with hood facing back looks great. Nice to see the articulation and fabbed chassis. One of a kind fer sure. Love to see it when you get it completed!
Stoonie

 

[MTD snow plow]

That looks simmilar to another members design. Artic-Ingercase with kubota diesel.

 

[TUDOR]

The "pin " you see is temporary just to make sure the range of motion works.Also thinking about making it self-leveling , this would allow me to mount the cylinder closer to the tractor and gain some lifting capacity.

Lifting capacity will not be an issue. You will run out of counterweight loooong before you run out of hydraulic capability.

If that is a 2" cylinder, it can push over 3000 lb. at 1000 psi. Based on a 15* included angle between the rod centerline and the line between the rod end pin and the arm/post pin that should net you something in the neighbourhood of 400 lb. full height lift capability at the pin holes at the end of the arm. I don't think you want to go there. A smaller angle will reduce max height lift capability.

 

[evo803]

Lifting capacity will not be an issue. You will run out of counterweight loooong before you run out of hydraulic capability.

If that is a 2" cylinder, it can push over 3000 lb. at 1000 psi. Based on a 15* included angle between the rod centerline and the line between the rod end pin and the arm/post pin that should net you something in the neighbourhood of 400 lb. full height lift capability at the pin holes at the end of the arm. I don't think you want to go there. A smaller angle will reduce max height lift capability.

You are correct it is a 2" cylinder. I figure the tractor will weigh about 850lbs. when complete plus me 215lbs.The axles are rated to carry 700lbs each so that leaves me around 300 for load carrying capacity. The distance between pivot points on the arm is 28" add 14 " for the bucket thats a 42" moment arm exerting a force of about 1050lbs. So I think this will be O.k. ,but please tell me if I am missing something or if my thought process is completely wrong, you know I am under the influence of alot of narcotics.

 

[TUDOR]

You're looking at the wrong end of the tractor for figuring lift capability.

Take the rear wheels off and put the bathroom scales under the tranny so that someone can read it. Lift the arm up (with the bucket if you have it) just off the floor, climb into the seat and get the scale read. That weight is the max that can be balanced against your payload, as it currently sits, and still have a faint chance of moving once the wheels are reinstalled. If the scale can't be read, or can't read high enough, leave one wheel on and block the scale up so the axle is level when the other axle shaft is resting on it, then double the weight indicated.

I ballpark the weight at about 700-750 lb. (plus operator) from what I can see in the pics. That's assuming that the frame is 1/4" plate and the loader arm is 1/2" plate. (A square foot of 1/4" steel plate weighs 10 lb.) Your entire loader assembly is ahead of the front axle and takes weight off the rear wheels, but your seating position will counter balance the loader nicely and allow some of your weight to be carried by both axles.

That looks like it's close to an even split for moment arms between the cutting edge and front axle and the distance between axle center lines. I'm guessing 38" and 40"? That means for every pound of payload at the cutting edge, almost a pound comes off the rear axle, and it all ends up on the front axle.

I'll stretch a point here and say the max lift capability will be about 550 lb. That will mean 1300 - 1400 lb. on the front axle and not enough weight on the rear axle to move. Safe lifting capacity will be about half that and traction is still going to be at a premium.

There is a reason for those honkin' big counterweights on the back of articulated loaders. Now you know what that reason is! Load the rear tires with RimGuard, not antifreeze. You need all the weight you can get. Wheel weights and chains will also help and none of this weight will affect the axle. From that point, all you can do is add weight to the rear of the tractor. The bad news is that only half of this added weight will directly increase payload capacity. The good news is you can weight the rear of the tractor almost to the axle capacity.

That will be a very handy loader for digging and spreading in awkward places. It won't move mountains, but it will sure knock some big hills down. All it needs is the right combination of counterweights and a little time (for you to learn what it will do).

 

[TUDOR]

OOPS! Just noticed (and I read it before :duh that your critter is 4wd, so moving wouldn't be a problem with a light rear end. But steering (or lack of same) will.

That also puts a slightly different spin on your safe payload capacity. Counterweight behind the rear axle just became a lot more important. You were talking about a back blade? Real good idea! :fing32:

Time to weigh the front axle too, once you get the bucket installed. Same drill as the rear axle. Payload capacity will depend on how much you are willing to overload the front axle. I'll make a WAG and say 125 lb. in the bucket will put you at, or over, 700 lb. on the front axle, if you add no counter weight behind the rear axle. Tire loading and wheel weights won't help with this issue. (They won't hurt either.)

How are you balancing the drives?

 

[evo803]

OOPS! Just noticed (and I read it before :duh that your critter is 4wd, so moving wouldn't be a problem with a light rear end. But steering (or lack of same) will.

That also puts a slightly different spin on your safe payload capacity. Counterweight behind the rear axle just became a lot more important. You were talking about a back blade? Real good idea! :fing32:

Time to weigh the front axle too, once you get the bucket installed. Same drill as the rear axle. Payload capacity will depend on how much you are willing to overload the front axle. I'll make a WAG and say 125 lb. in the bucket will put you at, or over, 700 lb. on the front axle, if you add no counter weight behind the rear axle. Tire loading and wheel weights won't help with this issue. (They won't hurt either.)

How are you balancing the drives?

Thanks for the lesson I really appreciate the time you have taken to help me out.

My design goal was to be able to lift 200 lbs max and this would be done on rare ocaissions when I need to move some loam to patch and level the lawn and to move some rocks to make a water feature. Most of the time I would be using it to spread mulch and move snow around in the winter.I am looking to use this like a fancy wheel barrow because I really don't want to abuse/ break my front axle as it only can hold 700lbs. For the heavy stuff I have access to a Kubota b2400 FEL, the guy who is helping build this owns the Kubota.

I have a Hydro-Gear 314-1700 front and 313-1700 rear these are the same as k66 transaxles.
I will show my stupidity yet again and ask What is balancing the drives ?

 

[MTD snow plow]

I'd put the biggest engine on the back as possible, you already have a good start with that engine. Start looking for gym weights and put them on the back.

 

[evo803]

I'd put the biggest engine on the back as possible, you already have a good start with that engine. Start looking for gym weights and put them on the back.

I have to do some calculations first . I can't just add weight without knowing what effects it will have on the axles and there max load capacity. I actually think if I don't add weights I will have a built-in margin of safety . I am only interested in lifting 200lbs max.

 

[TUDOR]

I will show my stupidity yet again and ask What is balancing the drives ?

That is not a stupid question!!!!!

You have 2 independant drive axles. To operate effectively, they should have their drive controls tied together in such a way that they each turn at the same speed as the other throughout their drive ranges, in both directions and when turning.

Think heavily loaded truck locked in 4wd on concrete making a sharp turn. The same issues apply, just not to the same extent. You won't break the transfer case, you haven't got one, but you will wear your tires at a greater rate, they might wear out in 15 or 20 years instead of 40 years. The real issue will be one axle pulling or pushing the other, instead of working together. On slippery surfaces, this can and will be a concern.

Your machine will have widely varying traction capabilities on each axle depending on what payload the bucket has and what surfaces it runs on, eg. the rear wheels on asphalt and the front wheels on snow covered grass when pushing back a snow bank. Fortunately, hydros will soak up all of these discrepancies, provided they turn at the same rate in an unloaded state. The hydraulic pressures within each hydro will vary according to the work being done, but the swash plates must be set at the same angle (or a close poximity thereof) so that the tires turn at the same rpm. A digital tach will be a real help with this. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Digi...ptZMotorsQ5fCarQ5fTruckQ5fPartsQ5fAccessories

Procedure
- Set up the tractor on blocks and remove all the wheels.
- Bolt a bar to the hubs on the opposite side of your drive control together to keep them from turning.
- Remove the return spring from the drive control so that you can 'set it and forget it' while you check the speeds of the other 2 hubs.
- Set up the digital tach per instructions.
- Start the engine and set at full throttle. * SEE NOTE BELOW
- set hydro contol at full forward and check both hubs with the tach.
- Do the same check at mid hydro speed and low hydro speed and the same 3 points in reverse.
- Throttle back the engine to half speed (working speed) and redo all 6 checks to confirm consistancy between the axles.

*NOTE If you haven't run-in the transmissions, now is the time to do so per the manufacturers instructions. For the run -in, you may not want the wheels off.

For roughing in the set-up, low throttle and full forward will get you in the ball park. The above is to verify the final set-up.

Personally, I would want the differences between axles as close to zero as I could get. One revolution of a tire is over 5' of travel. With the bar out of the picture, the RPM drops to half indicated, but that's still over 2.5' of travel. A small amount of slippage may be tolerable.

For the engine size, the only advantage an engine larger than 18 HP can give is more weight. The hydros can only deal with about 7.5 HP each under ideal traction/weight conditions under full throttle and at full speed forward. You may be able to max out one hydro at low speed, but not both, and neither will be drawing 7.5 HP. Your tractor isn't heavy enough, and I seriously doubt that you can max out even one at full throttle, short of tying the tires to a tree.

Hope this helps.

 

[evo803]

Thanks again for the help. I talked with Hydro Gear about this and they said these axles were specially designed for Ventrac Co. for the 3000 series all wheel drive tractors and no adjustment is needed.

I also weighed the tractor with one tire off on a scale and the tractor perfectly level with the loader arms on and no bucket ( need to make it )with me in the seat and the scale read 160lbs. So that is a total of 320lbs so I should be close to my max load of 200lbs without alot extra weight needed.

 

[Hugh-SS/16]

only issue i can see is that your main pivot point is threaded rod.. i might beef it up.. other than looks great

 

[TUDOR]

Thanks again for the help. I talked with Hydro Gear about this and they said these axles were specially designed for Ventrac Co. for the 3000 series all wheel drive tractors and no adjustment is needed.

Now you've got me curious. How do they do that?

I also weighed the tractor with one tire off on a scale and the tractor perfectly level with the loader arms on and no bucket ( need to make it )with me in the seat and the scale read 160lbs. So that is a total of 320lbs so I should be close to my max load of 200lbs without alot extra weight needed.

I thought that your estimate of 850 lb. was a little high. Once you get the bucket built, weigh it, and then weigh the tractor again after installing it. That should give you the info to find the actual payload capacity. You still may need to put some weight on the rear end of the frame, but it shouldn't be much to make your target payload.

 

[Sam Mac]

If it's not to late in the build I'd try to put the seat and controls on the rear section. It's a pain in the butt when you don't know where the rear is going. Case loaders had the operator’s station on the front section most other loader manufactures have it on the rear. I've run both.

 

[MTD snow plow]

You need tires. http://www.carlisletire.com/products/big_biters/superlug/index.html
I think the recomended size is a 12" rim, cub cadet's rims might fit right on it. But I think what you have should work.

 

[evo803]

I thought that your estimate of 850 lb. was a little high. Once you get the bucket built, weigh it, and then weigh the tractor again after installing it. That should give you the info to find the actual payload capacity. You still may need to put some weight on the rear end of the frame, but it shouldn't be much to make your target payload.

I don't know how they do it , but they must be or else Ventrac would have alot of warranty issues !

I am also curious how they get away with putting a 476lb snowblower on the front. When lifted up off the ground they have to be overloading the front axle. The same goes for there slip scoop that they show fully loaded with dirt.
Any thoughts Tudor , actually I will now refer to you as the "Oracle of MTF".