3 pt fork set up

[arrow]

This is a picture of how I move logs to the splitter. This oak one weighs about 900Lbs and is as far as my fel would lift. I can easily get under a log like this with my front tine bar but I know with all the wigglin and wagglin the fel goes through moving to the splitter, this cannot be a good way to move this very spread out weight without the fel, front axle and tires getting beat up in some form or fashion. The question I have: does anyone use their 3 point forks such as pictured, to get under a log such as this or do the straightness or shape of the forks inhibit this manuerver. I carry them up in the air so I can buck them right at the splitter without the stem being on the ground.

 

[jeffinsgf]

Arrow,

I have a set of rear forks just for those times when I need to pick something up that my FEL struggles with. I split my wood and stack it in pallets where I have built frames on the sides. My FEL won't break one off the ground, so I know that it is well over a thousand pounds. The rear forks will pick it up just fine, and I have no problem with control while moving.

While a set of rear forks is somewhat functional in a normal 3 point hitch, the addition of a hydraulic top cylinder really makes a difference.

As someone else who brings trunks up to the barn to process them, I'll pass along that I cut the sections into 4' lengths in the field and have a grapple on my FEL. The 4' sections move through the woods easier than 6 or 8. I've been known to have the rear forks stacked full and the front grapple loaded, too, coming out of the woods. I cobbled together a saw buck and throw the 4 footers in the saw buck to cut them into 16" pieces. This is done from a comfortable stance and with a Husqvarna electric chainsaw (fast and quiet). I then split it and stack it into the pallet racks and don't have to touch the wood again until it is going into the stove.

 

[beenthere]

I almost could have written the same post as jeffinsgf. Do it about the same way, but buck logs to 90" length in woods (gives me 18" firewood lengths), move them to the shed using forks on FEL, but buck to 18" while stacked in log pile (faster) at the shed, then split and stack directly on pallets. Stack the pallets two high in rows, but move the pallets to the house after two years drying with forks on the 3 ph. Really a great, efficient way to make firewood.

Looks to me like the manure tines on the bucket work fairly well. Forks would be easier to get under a log though. A top thumb to drop over and hold the log is what I would like to add (thinking on it).

 

[arrow]

The observation that forks are easier to snake under a log is what I am looking for. I did not think as such as the ones I'm looking at are made of angle iron. With the ground frozen, the dropped edge wouldn't be able to dig under the log as the ground is like cement presently. Also, I did not have the success of flipping a log into the bucket until I bent the front edges of the tines. Before that, the logs just kept rolling off and was wondering if this happens with the straight forks as well.

 

[JB4310]

Also, I did not have the success of flipping a log into the bucket until I bent the front edges of the tines. Before that, the logs just kept rolling off and was wondering if this happens with the straight forks as well.

With the forks much longer than the tines, it shouldn't happen as easily or at all since you would be all the way under and beyond the diameter of the log.

Having a hydraulic top link would make for much easier picks, w/o HTL it would be harder, you'd have to have them rolled back a little which would make it tuff to get under log in some/most spots.

JB.

 

[jeffinsgf]

Arrow,

I think the presence or absence of a hydraulic top cylinder will be the difference in whether or not you can slip under a trunk. If you can angle the forks down, I'm pretty sure that even the most frozen ground will give to the pressure of your entire tractor moving against it. If the log tends to just roll along the ground, you could dismount (oh, the horror) and one easy roll with a peavey would have the trunk on the forks.

Take a look at the King Kutter 3 point forks. They're 2 x 4 tube instead of angle. I think they might hold up to moving those big trunks better, and might take the abuse of attempting to slip under a log better.

Both you guys must have your wood lots a bunch clearer than mine. If I tried to bring an 8' trunk out of the woods, I'd have to pick it up 5 times from getting knocked out.

 

[jeffinsgf]

JB,

That is a fine looking set of forks. Does that by any chance fit both 3 point and FEL?

 

[52wej]

You guys are correct about the benfits of a hydraulic top link and rear forks. It makes all of the difference to enable one to get under the log. Once the log is loaded, being able to angle the forks up just a bit keeps the log very stable. I find it also helps with the pallets of firewood. w jones

 

[JB4310]

JB,

That is a fine looking set of forks. Does that by any chance fit both 3 point and FEL?

Yup, they were originally bought with tractor for use on loader.
I modded them to attach to JD I-match 3pt QH. Made by Horst, JD sells them.

There use on 3 pt is what convinced me to do the 3rd scv and get the HTL.

JB.

 

[beenthere]

I did the same as JB4310, and for the same reason added the 3rd scv.
So quick to drop the ballast box and hook to the forks to move pallets of wood.

The thin forks are very helpful when sliding under a log or into a pallet.

 

[arrow]

Arrow,



Both you guys must have your wood lots a bunch clearer than mine. If I tried to bring an 8' trunk out of the woods, I'd have to pick it up 5 times from getting knocked out.

Na Jeff, my woods are a nightmare. I could never get out if I carried them out. I use the traditional skidding method, stack the stems and then bring the stems to the splitter next season.

 

[arrow]

I did the same as JB4310, and for the same reason added the 3rd scv.
So quick to drop the ballast box and hook to the forks to move pallets of wood.

The thin forks are very helpful when sliding under a log or into a pallet.

I think you guys hit a home run with those forks. I should say they'd be easier to slip under a log as thin as they are. I cannot find any one piece carryalls that have their forks as thin as that. Those are super.

 

[arrow]

Arrow,

you could dismount (oh, the horror)



You are a man of noble attitude Jeff. I also winced at the word "dismount"

 

[Johndeere3720]

I use these forks on my Yanmar. i dont have the hydraulic tilt yet but they still work good. I tested them on my Dad's 3720 and they started to bend at 5000 pound load. This was by lowering the dumptrailer onto the ball for the forks. It was full of material. So they should always be strong enough on my Yanmar. I just need to add 2 more weights onto the front because the front end likes to come off the ground with a load over a few hundred pounds. 200 pounds of front weights should help. Atleast i have field brakes. Would you believe those forks used to be for my step Mom's skidsteer?

 

[jeffinsgf]

In general, I'm not a member of the safety police, and have been known to push the limits of my equipment in ways that could easily earn me a Darwin award. However, Arrow's pictures in post 11 give me the willies. I would be amazed if that trunk didn't outweigh that tractor by at least a couple hundred pounds. I would be very reluctant to skid that trunk with that tractor. Arrow, please at least consider making one cut in the field and bringing that trunk out in two pieces.

 

[magicheater]

I agree with the top cylinder making the forks more useful. I have a homemade set that I have had on two tractors now. I can lift a car with them.
As far as logs go I prefer the loader as the front end pivots unlike the rear end.
Logs just seem to want to exit the forks prematurely more so than with the loader. You can see in the picture my forks and the huge log I am lifting with the original prototype of Loader Buddy. You also have much more control with placing with the loader. When I am in the woods making firewood, I will put on my logging grapple and pull logs out but before I will fill the bucket with smaller stuff to make the trips more efficient. Everything goes to the landing for processing.

 

[beenthere]

Na Jeff, my woods are a nightmare. I could never get out if I carried them out. I use the traditional skidding method, stack the stems and then bring the stems to the splitter next season.

I don't think you are doing anything "above and beyond" the equipment. Have skidded out many logs that same way. All depends on the logs, where they lay, and if I want to keep them from getting dirt in the bark. On snow helps a lot.

 

[arrow]

In general, I'm not a member of the safety police, and have been known to push the limits of my equipment in ways that could easily earn me a Darwin award. However, Arrow's pictures in post 11 give me the willies. I would be amazed if that trunk didn't outweigh that tractor by at least a couple hundred pounds. I would be very reluctant to skid that trunk with that tractor. Arrow, please at least consider making one cut in the field and bringing that trunk out in two pieces.

Actually Jeff that stem is probably a little under 2000Lbs. the tractor with fel and loaded tires is approaching 3000Lbs. Thanks for your concern however.

Beenthere: How do you like the tongs for skidding? Are they able to allow you to stay on the tractor for the entire turn or do they take some convincing to get on or off?

Magic: The lifting part or lack there of on my machine is just something I've gotten used to. Its when I walk the log the 100' or so to the splitter that I am concerned about. This is a weight that is sometimes out 6' further than either side of the tractor. That is a lot of torsional force being put on the entire front end of the tractor. Can't be good for such a small machine such as our c.u.t.s. on a repetitive basis such as processing firewood requires. A dirt loaded bucket is one thing and this wide weight is another. From what I see of the contortions my tractor going through with the twisting and such of the fel posts, tires and invisible forces that have already caused a complete split of one of my front 4wd housings, I wouldn't recommend carrying a wide log with the fel for longer travel distances than to scoop it up and place it on the stem pile after skidding it close to the pile.

 

[arrow]

I use these forks on my Yanmar. i dont have the hydraulic tilt yet but they still work good. I tested them on my Dad's 3720 and they started to bend at 5000 pound load. This was by lowering the dumptrailer onto the ball for the forks. It was full of material. So they should always be strong enough on my Yanmar. I just need to add 2 more weights onto the front because the front end likes to come off the ground with a load over a few hundred pounds. 200 pounds of front weights should help. Atleast i have field brakes. Would you believe those forks used to be for my step Mom's skidsteer?

See that little upward slant of the forks? This is one of my concerns. This slant does make it easier to get under a log but as you are picking it up, the log will want to roll off. Hmm, I'm wondering if a little 1" slanted ear welded onto the fork near its end would be just enough to prevent a complete fall off until the angle changed on the 3 pt. Thanks for your pic JD.

 

[beenthere]

.......Beenthere: How do you like the tongs for skidding? Are they able to allow you to stay on the tractor for the entire turn or do they take some convincing to get on or off?

Magic: The lifting part or lack there of on my machine is just something I've gotten used to. Its when I walk the log the 100' or so to the splitter that I am concerned about. This is a weight that is sometimes out 6' further than either side of the tractor. That is a lot of torsional force being put on the entire front end of the tractor. Can't be good for such a small machine such as our c.u.t.s. on a repetitive basis such as processing firewood requires. A dirt loaded bucket is one thing and this wide weight is another. From what I see of the contortions my tractor going through with the twisting and such of the fel posts, tires and invisible forces that have already caused a complete split of one of my front 4wd housings, I wouldn't recommend carrying a wide log with the fel for longer travel distances than to scoop it up and place it on the stem pile after skidding it close to the pile.

Arrow
The tongs are very handy and usually can back to the downed log in the woods, drop the tongs and if done right, will slide/open over the log for lifting. Usually can get out of the woods without dropping/losing the log. But I've found the time taken to throw a choker chain around the log when it is lifted is time well spent. All depends on the log. The one in the pic came out of the woods that way, and if all goes well, the tongs can be released without getting off the tractor (dismount...ugh ).

Regards your take on carrying logs on the forks/FEL, I will take your experience into consideration. This last fall, I bucked all my logs to 90" and brought them out of the woods that length on the forks/FEL. Kept the logs clean and I didn't have to "dismount" (Ugh !!)

A 20" diam, 90" white ash log weighs just close to 1000 lbs. Right at the limit of the FEL on the Deere 4300 without more ballast than I have.