Tractor side QA mechanism

[dynasim]

I am pursuing the installation of a standard QA system on my NH TC45 tractor. The implement side attachment plates are readily available, cheap, and space efficient. The tractor side attachements are not.

Because they are out of my price range currently, or extend the bucket significantly, and I want some fab practice, I am going to make my own.

One question I have is that tractor side QA systems that I have looked at have a torque tube, or equivelant, going between the two sides. It is my impression(and true for my equipment) that the attachements themselves are stiff enough that the torque tube does not add any strength. In fact, there are several post here that indicate that mistakes caused that tube to bend, preventing the QA system from reattaching to implements.

Therefore, I would like to not utilize a torque tube, and allow the two sides to move independently( as they now do without QA). Does anybody see a problem with doing that, and can the people who have this system think about the attachments, and tell me if I will have a problem.

Thanks for you help.
Chris

 

[wushaw]

Good question, it would be less weight.

 

[RickB]

The two halves will move independently based on the cylinder/linkage with the least resistence. Unless you diligently leave the bucket cylinders completely stationary whenever there is no attachment on the QA device, it will be a bear to get attached to a bucket or whatever. I had the displeasure of operatong a Deere 5520 that had a 541 loader with pins missing between the coupler halves. It was a real d@#kache.

If you are at square one with this project, look into the 'Euro' style coupler being seen more and more. I am beginning to be a big fan of this style. I believe attachments for this coupler will be more available as time goes on.

 

[scarlo101]

Hi all
I am also in the process of building a FEL using QA bucket and forks. I have also asked myself the same questions about the tube connecting the 2 sides. Rick, I cannot find any info on the euro style coupler. Can you provide more info. thx

 

[dynasim]

RickB,

Is it true that if you approach an implement to hook up to it, the extended connector will push the retracted connector out(by hydraulics) once the extended connector comes in contact with the implement? I may be missing something.

If hooking up were the only issue, I would do a workaround. I am more concerned about whether most implements are stiff enough by themselves to not need that bracing.

Do most implements have their own "torque tube"?

Thanks for you comments, as always.

Chris

 

[Farmerford]

Chris:

Several years ago I built QA's for Kubota B2400 and B2900 because neither offered one when purchased. Since the regular loader attachment did not incorporate a torque tube, I assumed that the attachments themselves were sufficiently rigid. I had no problems with the attachments twisting, which indicates that I was correct.

However, like RickB, I spent a lot of time lining up the arms when attaching to a different implement. Unless the implement were quite heavy, it would slide when pushed by the "out" contact so the "in" contact never lined up. After a bit of that I added torque tubes to both machines just to avoid the hassle.

 

[mwb]

I am working on a homebrew QA (tractor side) and I know why you want to eliminate the torque tube (at least I can only think of one good reason). i am guessing that the torque tube will interfer with whatever you have planned for releasing the bottom catch pin?

The only other reasons I can think of is weight reduction (which would be minimal anyway) or your bucket has a structural section across the back (Kubota's have an angle welded across the back) and it would interfer with the torque tube.

I think most loader attachments are torsionally very strong and you would be ok to eliminate the TT. I would not do that for reasons already stated PLUS the torque tube also acts as a "spreader" keeping your cylinder ends apart. If you delete the torque tube then the tops of the QA can flop side to side. If you mount your bucket with them crooked then you subject the pins and cylinder to side loads. This could be helped or minimised by modifying the bucket, forks, etc but it would become a PITA.

I have been working on my design for a while, I had hoped to finish it this Holiday Season but three kids, wife... I posted a pdf of my drawing here

http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/build-yourself/111086-fel-quick-attachment.html

Cheers,
Mike

 

[Spudland_Dave]

I would say you are correct in that the Torque Tube is NOT required...Alot of skid-steers dont have the tube, my Factory Deere SS QA does not have a torque tube...

As for aligningment of the "Paddles" the little silver tube in the pic is considered a "Timing Rod" and is nothing more then a small piece of pipe which holds the 2 paddles close enough to each other that you can retract/extend the bucket cylinders and keep em close enough to attach implements with no issues.

 

[mwb]

I would say you are correct in that the Torque Tube is NOT required...Alot of skid-steers dont have the tube, my Factory Deere SS QA does not have a torque tube...

As for aligningment of the "Paddles" the little silver tube in the pic is considered a "Timing Rod" and is nothing more then a small piece of pipe which holds the 2 paddles close enough to each other that you can retract/extend the bucket cylinders and keep em close enough to attach implements with no issues.

That is one beautiful tractor!

There has to be more to that than just a pipe; what happens if you only hook one side in and curl? Maybe that is a solid rod (stressproof,etc)? Does the tube allow twisting (i.e. springs at ends)?
Does your loader have a flow divider for each side? Maybe JD uses that to "balance" an unbalanced load when oop's happen. Could you try torquing one side a little and see how it responds? Maybe a closeup pic of the backside (of the QA) would be interesting.

 

[kennyd]

That is one beautiful tractor!

There has to be more to that than just a pipe; what happens if you only hook one side in and curl? Maybe that is a solid rod (stressproof,etc)? Does the tube allow twisting (i.e. springs at ends)?
Does your loader have a flow divider for each side? Maybe JD uses that to "balance" an unbalanced load when oop's happen. Could you try torquing one side a little and see how it responds? Maybe a closeup pic of the backside (of the QA) would be interesting.

Here is a picture that may help... It's a solid rod with 1/4" pins (#9) that tie the two sides together. I can tell you from personal experience that when one of the pins shear off, then it's a PITA to try to hook the bucket up. The shoes have a mind of there own unless they are tied together.

 

[dynasim]

Thank you all for your input. I will report back once I finish(It'll be a month or two).

Chris

 

[RickB]

RickB,

Is it true that if you approach an implement to hook up to it, the extended connector will push the retracted connector out(by hydraulics) once the extended connector comes in contact with the implement? I may be missing something.

If hooking up were the only issue, I would do a workaround. I am more concerned about whether most implements are stiff enough by themselves to not need that bracing.

Do most implements have their own "torque tube"?

Thanks for you comments, as always.

Chris

I found that it is easier to shove attachments around than for the attachmant to have enough friction with the ground to make the QA device equalize. Most attachmants should/will be strong enough to support themselves fine. The problems start when one side of the coupler comes undone. That's what bends stuff.

 

[RickB]

I would say you are correct in that the Torque Tube is NOT required...Alot of skid-steers dont have the tube, my Factory Deere SS QA does not have a torque tube...

As for aligningment of the "Paddles" the little silver tube in the pic is considered a "Timing Rod" and is nothing more then a small piece of pipe which holds the 2 paddles close enough to each other that you can retract/extend the bucket cylinders and keep em close enough to attach implements with no issues.

Go unpin one side of the rod and operate the loader and QA for two months, then report back.

 

[RickB]

Hi all
I am also in the process of building a FEL using QA bucket and forks. I have also asked myself the same questions about the tube connecting the 2 sides. Rick, I cannot find any info on the euro style coupler. Can you provide more info. thx

Here's a thread:
http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/kubota-buying-pricing/92430-m8540-loader-decision.html

Here's the best photo I can find:
HORST WELDING | HLA >> EURO QUICK FIT PLATE

 

[Spudland_Dave]

That is one beautiful tractor!

There has to be more to that than just a pipe; what happens if you only hook one side in and curl? Maybe that is a solid rod (stressproof,etc)? Does the tube allow twisting (i.e. springs at ends)?
Does your loader have a flow divider for each side? Maybe JD uses that to "balance" an unbalanced load when oop's happen. Could you try torquing one side a little and see how it responds? Maybe a closeup pic of the backside (of the QA) would be interesting.

Thank You!

I wouldnt call that rod "stress proof" nor would I call it strong, like KennyD mentioned, theres just 2 1/4" bolts holding it there....You would not ever use it for lifting or anything like that...The sole point of it is to keep the 2 paddles (be it the SS Quick or standard JD Quick) relatively aligned together.

 

[radman1]

I believe the euro style quick attach plates are now standard on all mid size and larger ag tractor FELs. I have one on my 2008 Case-IH 125. They are rated for more lift capacity than the skid steer type. I bought the optional adapter with my FEL so it can convert from euro style to skid steer. However, the manufacture does not recommend the adapter for my loader which has 5700 lbs of lift at the pins.
The euro style are more difficult to attach to my standard and grapple buckets. The hooks on the bucket that attach to the carrier are blocked from vision by the loader arms. I can't tell if the bucket is hooked on unless a little trial and error. Can't see if the bucket is on until I push it and then try to lift. The euro design is a little like I seen on larger wheel loaders. Hooks on the bucket attach over a 1.5" rod on top of the carrier and the bottom is pinned in place.

 

[jinman]

I am pursuing the installation of a standard QA system on my NH TC45 tractor. The implement side attachment plates are readily available, cheap, and space efficient. The tractor side attachements are not.

Because they are out of my price range currently, or extend the bucket significantly, and I want some fab practice, I am going to make my own.

Chris, my loader side attachment was much less than $400. I believe it was $365. Have they gone up by a tremendous amount? The reason I ask is because I think you will spend that much by the time you get your lock arms mechanized and get hardened bushings for the loader arm pins.

I like the idea of the really strong torque tube on my adapter. It is beefy enough that I can wrap a chain around it and lift heavy objects without having the added weight of a bucket. I've even thought of welding hooks near each end for convenience so they are there no matter what I have attached. The other reason is that I have a toothbar and often have uneven loads on the bucket when popping rocks or roots. The torque bar helps to ensure the bucket does not twist, or at least that's my perception. I also think that some lightweight implements like bale spears might not have a lot of built-in torsional strength. By having it on the loader side, you never have to worry.

My torque tube is not just face welded onto the inside of the QA adapter. It goes all the way through and is welded on all surfaces. In the photo below, you can see my 3PH QA adapter also has a brute of a torque tube. It's a NH adapter and is built extremely heavy. It was only $250. I'm sure steel prices have driven up the price of all these items in the last few years.

 

[mwb]

Chris, my loader side attachment was much less than $400. I believe it was $365. Have they gone up by a tremendous amount? The reason I ask is because I think you will spend that much by the time you get your lock arms mechanized and get hardened bushings for the loader arm pins...

I have a few reasons why to make your own:

1. Personal satisfaction / fun to fab
2. Shipping to Canada for a $400 adapter adds a lot of expense
3. Commercially available adaptors push your bucket out a long way reducing lift, etc - especially when adding the QA to an existing pin-on system.

The QA I have designed will be installed on two machines; it will replace my Montana's existing sliding pin QA and be added to a 'Bota LA463 with pins only. My design will actually move my bucket closer to the pins and the worst case for the LA463 it will move the bucket 2" out. I figure I can reduce this to 1" or less because the loader arms are wider than the lock pin centers.

I would like to know what the forward displacement is on an ATI QA; I know they make one specific for the LA463 but I would have to use the "one size fits all" on the Montana.

 

[Spudland_Dave]

I have a few reasons why to make your own:
1. Personal satisfaction / fun to fab

I cant argue that point

2. Shipping to Canada for a $400 adapter adds a lot of expense

Why Shipping? Head to your local Kubota/NH/Deere dealer and pick up an off the shelf unit and modify it to fit your two loaders...

3. Commercially available adaptors push your bucket out a long way reducing lift, etc - especially when adding the QA to an existing pin-on system.

I think this is true with the aftermarket units, but I dont think the Deere unit or the NH Unit Pictured could have been designed to move the bucket any closer...

 

[dynasim]

Jim,

Thanks for the advice, and particularly the pictures.

One of the reasons that I wanted a QA was I was maxed out(just) when lifting some of the equipment I have been using. By putting a lift point closer to the tractor, and making the bucket removable, the lift capacity should increase significantly. I had planned on making an attachment that would move the lift point in, and the torque tube would have gotten in the way. However, your point about just using the torque tube as a lift point is well taken.

I have not talked to my dealer, but looked at the various non-NH alternatives, and they are $500+, and assumed the NH system was more. One can get just the QA lock system for 400. I was somewhat shocked. I will talk to the NH dealer, and report back.

I plan to weld the tabs, with pin tubes, from my current HD buck to attached the QA to the loader. If done correctly, this should extend the bucket less than 1/2 inch.

Finally, I am investigating using a hydraulic locking pin mechanism. I want auxiliary hydraulics at the bucket anyway, and, if I can find appropriate cylinders, the cost difference would not be significant. It would actually make the fabrication easier.

Having a hydraulic lock would make the possiblity of relatively sleek mobile storage devices(like wood boxes, tool boxes, etc) with built in QA receivers that you would not have to get off the tractor to move(and would not need forks to handle.

As for the Euro style couplers, I can't find a good reason to use them, as the lifting capacity of my loader isn't even close to the design limits, and the skid steer qa system has a bunch of attachments.

Thanks again for all the advice.

Chris