Anyone have problems with the Rollover Link

[woodlandfarms]

I keep busting my Rollover link. Generally it is on the lift tilt side, and I have buy a new connector and weld it on (this has happend 3 times). The issue is that the tractor and all its weight are rolling forward and an implement gets caught and the tractor stops dead or close to it. I think this stretches the link. But this issue is going to occur when I scoop dirt, or plow the road.

I asked Terry if this was an issue on the 1850's and he said in a vague sort of way no. This makes me think that he is saying yes.

I have read a lot of regular tractor articles and they all seem to say that the top links cannot take a lot of pressure.

The 1850 has 65 HP, only 1200 lbs of lift (meaning the front end build is relatively lightweight).

Terry did say something to me that was of interest. He said that the 1850 was designed first as a slope mower, then it moved into the implements category. But the implements were always an afterthought.

I told him that the 1850 should get a 1445 build up. He said that it could not happen because the tubs would have to get way big to survive the upgrades.

So, I guess the question is has anyone broken their rollover? If so what was your solution for a fix? I don't want to make it so strong I break the lift arms but this will be my 3rd replacement in 2 years.

 

[marrt]

Well, i hate to say it...but can you post a picture? I'd like to see exactly what is happening.

As to the question of this being a problem with 1850's, and given Terry's comments, I'd say you are right. The 1845 front half is basically the same as the 1430. I think the 1850 is too...same size arms, etc... If so, then the weight and power of the 1850 could be a challenge for a design that was originally intended for a much smaller tractor. For slope mowing this would probably work fine. But for ground engaging implements....could be a problem. Just my thoughts.

 

[SnowRidge]

I always wondered why the slope mowers were rated so low in the lift department. I guess the answer is in this thread, and it's a cautionary tale for anyone contemplating buying one for major duties other than mowing.

Guess I'll just have to buy a 1460, when my wife hits the lottery.

 

[KentT]

Not sure if we're talking about the same weak points... but I've had to replace essentially my entire rollover assembly on my PT-425.

1. First, I broke the "rollover tube and arms" that pivots on the shaft. It broke on the right side of the upright arms, as shown in the attached picture. We had it welded up twice, adding more reinforcements each time. The 3rd time was past the point of repair..

2. Over time, the connecting rod, that connects the PT's QA hitch to the rollover, bent slightly. Likely this was getting bent as a side-effect of the damage above. Once it began, it kept getting worse. After straightening it out as best we could with heat and BIG hammers, we welded on a piece of angle-iron reinforcement.

3. Then, last April when planting trees, I had a "catastrophic failure" when using the minihoe in shale rock that not only broke the rollover tube again at the same place (3rd time's a charm?) but also broke the shaft inside that it pivots on. I suspect that the earlier problems with the tube breaking had bent it slightly -- but this time it snapped.

Time to call Tazewell and break out the checkbook... no welding would patch this!

I replaced all of them with new parts. The tubing of the replacement part was thicker and heavier duty, though the shaft that it pivots on is the same size, as was the linkage rod... I saved the ugly, reinforced linkage rod as a spare, just in case...

In my case, I think this was caused by putting downpressure on the assembly that it just wasn't designed to take -- especially when using the minihoe...

I don't recall the total charge for the parts -- somewhere in the neighborhood of $200, plus the cost of having the shaft welded in...

 

[woodlandfarms]

In Kent's picture it is the Linkage Rod. It has 3/4" cleavis on the ends. I am thinking of making them 1" with a sleeve but here we go, spending more money and the wife will kill me for sure

One picture is of the link in good shape, the other is of it broken....

 

[MossRoad]

Why don't you try an AG top link? They are pretty cheap and adjustable. Can't hurt to try it. I think I paid 20 bucks for a couple of them because I wanted the ends for my backhoe project.

If anything, just use the ends from the AG top link and weld them to some solid stock.

 

[J_J]

In Kent's picture it is the Linkage Rod. It has 3/4" cleavis on the ends. I am thinking of making them 1" with a sleeve but here we go, spending more money and the wife will kill me for sure

One picture is of the link in good shape, the other is of it broken....

That looks like a swivel eye fittings, and there will not be any twisting action on that rod. At times you will have considerable push and pull on that rod causing stress. You say you have fixed this three times? There is no grease on that eye piece, but should be.

I replaced my complete roll over assembly last year. The roll over tube jammed itself on the 2 in pin and would not move. Even a shop press could not push it out. My connecting thingy is 1 in by 2 in with two holes for different attachments. I have also built some from 1/2 steel and welded them together.

 

[J_J]

In Kent's picture it is the Linkage Rod. It has 3/4" cleavis on the ends. I am thinking of making them 1" with a sleeve but here we go, spending more money and the wife will kill me for sure

One picture is of the link in good shape, the other is of it broken....

Carl, I think I would cut the swivel eye portion off and weld a piece of 1 in thick 2X2 steel with a 3/4 in hole . If the other end breaks, do the same thing.

I think the stress is caused by the attachments putting to much force on that swivel eye, and I am sure you will be doing the same things you were doing before, so beef up the end piece.


http://img518.imageshack.us/my.php?image=welding0271mi2.jpg

The one in this picture has a tube through each end and gives the pin more support.

 

[woodlandfarms]

I did not know these things had to be greased. There is no zert, not that you need it.

JJ, I have been seriously thinking of just rigging up flat stock as you suggested. But, it was my local welder who cautioned me with "Maybe it is supposed to break off" The front end is just 1430 front (No offense please) so what sort of damage would I do if I put the flat stock on. Would I tweak a $500 assembly over a $50 fix?

That is the dilemma for sure. Any thoughts?

 

[woodlandfarms]

Why don't you try an AG top link? They are pretty cheap and adjustable. Can't hurt to try it. I think I paid 20 bucks for a couple of them because I wanted the ends for my backhoe project.

If anything, just use the ends from the AG top link and weld them to some solid stock.

I am cutting the ends off of Aglinks to make the ends for my bar. I am not sure the adustable tube would survive the abuse. But I do like the sound of it being adjustable. I could then angle my attachments a bit more or less which would be nice as they are not consistent.

 

[J_J]

I did not know these things had to be greased. There is no zert, not that you need it.

JJ, I have been seriously thinking of just rigging up flat stock as you suggested. But, it was my local welder who cautioned me with "Maybe it is supposed to break off" The front end is just 1430 front (No offense please) so what sort of damage would I do if I put the flat stock on. Would I tweak a $500 assembly over a $50 fix?

That is the dilemma for sure. Any thoughts?

Carl, Expand on my picture above, and look at that bar. That is what came with the machine, and has been used for at least 12 to 14 years. What kind of welder do you utilize. I mean the guy. A break away fixture could get you in serious trouble. Your broke connector arm is the first I have seen. There is really no need for swivel eyes on that bar. A solid piece would be better.

 

[J_J]

Why don't you try an AG top link? They are pretty cheap and adjustable. Can't hurt to try it. I think I paid 20 bucks for a couple of them because I wanted the ends for my backhoe project.

If anything, just use the ends from the AG top link and weld them to some solid stock.

David, I think Carl would destroy that top-link in short order. He is doing some serious landscaping on his property.

 

[J_J]

Carl, Something else for you to consider. I believe that all three cylinders on the front are the same. They are capable of lifting about three times the rated load. That is on a straight push. The setup on the PT only pushes at an angle decreasing max push effort. Now consider this, the tilt cylinder is being asked to tilt the same load that 2 cyl were lifting. There is something wrong with that. I think the tilt cylinder should be larger in diameter and shaft size, to make it at least equal. There is some mechanical advantage there also, based on the length of the tilt arms. That might compensate, maybe not.

 

[woodlandfarms]

Carl, Something else for you to consider. I believe that all three cylinders on the front are the same. They are capable of lifting about three times the rated load. That is on a straight push. The setup on the PT only pushes at an angle decreasing max push effort. Now consider this, the tilt cylinder is being asked to tilt the same load that 2 cyl were lifting. There is something wrong with that. I think the tilt cylinder should be larger in diameter and shaft size, to make it at least equal. There is some mechanical advantage there also, based on the length of the tilt arms. That might compensate, maybe not.

I completely agree with this assessment. I have also bent this cylinder a couple of times as well. A complete mystery to me why this cylinder is so weak. I have yet, though, found a cylinder at Surplus Center I feel would work. Still looking. Any thoughts? I think I have the dimensions around here somewhere (I am back in LA for the moment).

 

[woodlandfarms]

Carl, Expand on my picture above, and look at that bar. That is what came with the machine, and has been used for at least 12 to 14 years. What kind of welder do you utilize. I mean the guy. A break away fixture could get you in serious trouble. Your broke connector arm is the first I have seen. There is really no need for swivel eyes on that bar. A solid piece would be better.

Maybe using Grade 2 bolts would provide a bit of emergency "give". Probably what is in there considering how PT puts stuff together.

I would like to ask all the 14 series and 18 series owners to take a look at there toplink / rollover connector. Look hard at that ball. I realized last week I had hairline cracks in mine and I wonder how many other people do.

 

[Marks481]

Now consider this, the tilt cylinder is being asked to tilt the same load that 2 cyl were lifting.

Look at the geometry of the cylinders. The lift cylinders push on the front arm very close to the swivel, so they are at a huge mechanical disadvantage (probably 10:1 or more).

The tilt cylinder has some disadvantage (3:1) based upon the extreme angles that it acts on, but I would be very surprised if it carried anywhere near the load of the lift cylinders. It is not surprising that the hollow cross-over tube has problems, however, with the load placed on the middle of the tube like it is. If there were room for some triangular 3/8" steel gussets on it, it might improve it's rigidity (although definitely a task for a professional welder, to avoid embrittlement of the tubing due to to much heat).

If the tilt cylinder is bending, then it means that it is seeing side loading, which shouldn't be possible unless your crossover arm is binding when it is trying to rotate (lubrication not going where it is supposed to?).

Maybe you should consider the repeated failures of the top link a blessing in disguise; is it the sacrificial element that is preventing too much load on the cross-over tube (which would be much more expensive to repair)?

 

[J_J]

Look at the geometry of the cylinders. The lift cylinders push on the front arm very close to the swivel, so they are at a huge mechanical disadvantage (probably 10:1 or more).

The tilt cylinder has some disadvantage (3:1) based upon the extreme angles that it acts on, but I would be very surprised if it carried anywhere near the load of the lift cylinders. It is not surprising that the hollow cross-over tube has problems, however, with the load placed on the middle of the tube like it is. If there were room for some triangular 3/8" steel gussets on it, it might improve it's rigidity (although definitely a task for a professional welder, to avoid embrittlement of the tubing due to to much heat).

If the tilt cylinder is bending, then it means that it is seeing side loading, which shouldn't be possible unless your crossover arm is binding when it is trying to rotate (lubrication not going where it is supposed to?).

Maybe you should consider the repeated failures of the top link a blessing in disguise; is it the sacrificial element that is preventing too much load on the cross-over tube (which would be much more expensive to repair)?

My assessment of the situation is this. The attachments and the extreme loading on the front is causing the problem. That force can cause the cylinder to burst or bend the shaft. Just from looking at the picture above, the QA plate is at a bad angle, and if the QA plate were tilted up any more, it looks like it could hit the crossover tube. 90 degree angles will transmit the most force, so any work done at the angle in the picture is suspect, as it can not take full loading very long before cracks are seen as Carl has stated. The perfect setup would be if the push force of the cylinder is transmitted to the end use. Otherwise, 3000 lbs of force from the cylinder would be felt at the bucket up front, as though the cylinder were pushing at the bucket at a 90 degree angle. That would also be the worst situation if you wanted to blow the cylinder by ramming a full bucket into a pile of dirt hoping to get a little more. The ram effect.

 

[ponytug]

The lack of grease may be your problem. (I'd bet on it, even with your hidden obstacles.) There should be a zerk on a drilled out bolt. Without grease, the swivel eye will freeze on the linkage arm under load (a pressure weld), which will generate a great deal of force on the metal of the arm. All of the swivels on my PT have zerks, except for the four on the steering cylinders. So, if you don't have a zerk on a moving joint, I would get the replacement bolts from PT.

The break is suggestive of it being ripped open. Do you have signs of galling on the swivel eye, or the metal of the arm?

All the best,

Peter

I did not know these things had to be greased. There is no zert, not that you need it.

JJ, I have been seriously thinking of just rigging up flat stock as you suggested. But, it was my local welder who cautioned me with "Maybe it is supposed to break off" The front end is just 1430 front (No offense please) so what sort of damage would I do if I put the flat stock on. Would I tweak a $500 assembly over a $50 fix?

That is the dilemma for sure. Any thoughts?

 

[KentT]

My PT-425 rollover links, neither the original or the new replacement, have grease zerks -- just the ball/socket swivel like those on the ends of the steering cylinders. I've been spraying them with white lithium grease.

 

[SnowRidge]

My PT-425 rollover links, neither the original or the new replacement, have grease zerks -- just the ball/socket swivel like those on the ends of the steering cylinders. I've been spraying them with white lithium grease.

I asked Terry about that. He said swivels with zerks were so expensive that you could replace a couple of regular swivels for the price of one with a zerk.

What I don't get is all the lift arm parts rotating on bolts, with no lube fittings anywhere except the rollover tube. The Ansung loader on my Branson has hollow pins with zerks everywhere.