Fun with the loader tonight - pallet fork test

[TSO]

My buddy picked up a pallet load of water softener salt tonight from TSC and had it loaded on the pallet in the back of his truck. We thought it might be fun to see how our tractors would handle it, especially because we could actually define the weight with the bags of salt.

1 pallet = 63 bags of salt
1 bag of salt = 40 lbs
total salt-load weight = 2520 lbs
pallet weight 48"x48" = 40 lbs (maybe ?)
So, we're talking roughly 2560 total lbs with the pallet included .... ?
NOTE: My pallet forks are 42"


THE TEST:

So, first I drove up and sunk the pallet forks right into the pallet and tried to lift it out of the back of his truck. His truck is a GMC 2500, so I would say the bed sits right around 42" high maybe? Well, I put the engine right at 2400 RPM (I figure PTO speed RPM's should have the hydraulic pump working at full capacity) and .... NO GO. The system went right into relief and wouldn't lift the pallet off the bed. We played with it awhile, adding & subtracting bags, finally getting the pallet off the truck and onto the ground, and played some more.

Here's what we found with my R4047 with the LL4101 loader: Once on the ground, using 42" forks, I can lift a pallet with 50 bags of salt (@ 40lbs/bag ... that equals 2000 lbs of salt) to a "working height of about 4' high. The salt bags were evenly stacked on the pallet so that the weight was evenly distributed (no cheating by putting the bags closer to the back). With each added bag of salt, the loader lift-height dropped a bit. I was able to lift more than 50 off the ground, but 50 was the number I could lift to a "working" height.

My buddies tractor is a Kub L3540. We were impressed with the performance of his tractor as well. His tractor is equipped with the LA724 loader, with a lift cap rating of 1792lbs @ full height (pins). He was able to lift 37 bags on the pallet (1480 lbs) to working height.

So, an interesting number here: My LS could lift (using pallet forks @ 42") about 75% of it's lift capacity (2638 @ the pins) to a working height of about 48" ... My buddies' Kubota could lift about 82% of it's lift cap to 48". I would say Kudos to Kubota for this scenario. Anyhow ... Thanks KenB2920 for the beers :dance1:

 

[KenB2920]

More exciting tests to follow. Weight and real world applications should be in store. If anyone has suggestions, please feel free to let us know. Hopefully this can be an ongoing trial / error with several implements and attachments. This will not be brand "A" vs brand "B". It will simply be results of what we try. If just by chance there are two competitive pieces involved, this will be for factual purposes only and not to sell or belittle. Happy Tractoring.

Sent from my iPad using TractorByNet

 

[dragoneggs]

Good stuff... like seeing/hearing real world tests and results. :thumbsup:

 

[bandaidmd]

This is just like consumer reports! btw, i would love to work there.

it would be good to throw a hyd gauge on both to make sure they were at spec.

by restacking the salt onto just half the pallet closest to the tractor your numbers would have gone up.

I have always wondered when the mfg list the lift capacitys if they included the bucket, if you add in the forks and ssqa it would be close to dead on as advertised. thanks for sharing

 

[TSO]

we both ran our tractors at different RPM's during use, to make sure that we were operating at maximum hydraulic pressure. when I found the maximum lift of 50 bags, it did not appear to make any difference whether I was at 2000 rpm, or any number higher than that.

 

[k0ua]

Is there any way you could get a DK 40 to see how much of that 2760 lbs. Would work out to in salt bags on the forks.?

 

[TSO]

Is there any way you could get a DK 40 to see how much of that 2760 lbs. Would work out to in salt bags on the forks.?

I think anybody with any tractor would be welcome to come by and do the testing with us. if anyone is interested, contact me or Ken and we can try to setup a date.

What we also need to find is a scale large enough to weigh the pallet forks and the pallet itself, to make sure we account for those variables. I'm going to guess that the pallet forks weigh 200 pounds, and another guess that the pallet weighed 40.

those weights need to be considered in the overall lift capacity rating of our test.

 

[Deerherd]

What might be interesting/enlightening is how much you could safely lift without any rear ballast. Not sure if you guys had loaded tires or something on the 3 pt hitch for your test.

 

[cartod]

Does not look like you used a counter ballast for this test? Did the rear end get light?

 

[TSO]

The kubota has loaded tires. his did get a little light in the rear while moving with that weight, and he would benefit from something on the three point.

For mine, I had my HD 8 ft back blade mounted. that seemed to be enough weight. It weighs somewhere north of 750lbs, and hangs about 5ft or more off the back, so it's a really good counter balance because the weight is moved so far to the rear.

Either way, we both had enough ballast to reach the maximum weight capacity.

 

[cartod]

Wow, even with loaded tires I cannot lift maximum capacity before the rear end comes clear off the ground.

 

[TSO]

His kubota is also a cab model, I think that adds about 500 pounds of weight to his unit, which most definitely helps as well.

Now, when both of us had that much weight on the loaders and off the ground, if we lowered it too quickly then it would bounce the back tires off the ground for both of us. Now of course that is never advised, so we were both careful to lower the weight slowly.

 

[murphy1244]

I guess I could drive my DK-40 to Michigan. If I start now I should see you about 2 years from now.

 

[grsthegreat]

Wow, even with loaded tires I cannot lift maximum capacity before the rear end comes clear off the ground.

i find the same thing with my DK45. . without added rear weight, i cant come close to lifting max weight without rear coming off the ground. I lifted a pallet of soil conditioners awhile back, and after adding in weight of pallet forks and pallet.... i did reach advertised lifting capacity for my tractor. But i also had to have my heavy brush chipper on the tractor.

this was from my earlier post last year

I had 35 - 3cu ft bundles of top soil delivered earlier this spring I. didn't think about them being very heavy until i went to offload the pallet. The rear end of the tractor started to come off the ground.

So being the nosy person i am, i looked at the bags ... however they did not list a net weight. So i got out my large material scale and weighed 3 bags.

61#
63#
63#

so if i average the load at 62# times 35 bags = 2170 # plus maybe 40# for the pallet and the forks weigh 400 # according to the manufacturers site.

grand total (best as i can tell) = 2,610#.

mind you i had to put the chipper on the back end to help keep the rear wheels on the ground, but dang if this tractor didnt lift what it says it can lift in the advertising. And it lifted it off of a flatbed trailer so it didnt just lift it off of the ground.


also..heres a the old thread

http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/owning-operating/264466-what-largest-load-you-have.html

 

[TSO]

i find the same thing with my DK45. . without added rear weight, i cant come close to lifting max weight without rear coming off the ground. I lifted a pallet of soil conditioners awhile back, and after adding in weight of pallet forks and pallet.... i did reach advertised lifting capacity for my tractor. But i also had to have my heavy brush chipper on the tractor.

this was from my earlier post last year

I had 35 - 3cu ft bundles of top soil delivered earlier this spring I. didn't think about them being very heavy until i went to offload the pallet. The rear end of the tractor started to come off the ground.

So being the nosy person i am, i looked at the bags ... however they did not list a net weight. So i got out my large material scale and weighed 3 bags.

61#
63#
63#

so if i average the load at 62# times 35 bags = 2170 # plus maybe 40# for the pallet and the forks weigh 400 # according to the manufacturers site.

grand total (best as i can tell) = 2,610#.

mind you i had to put the chipper on the back end to help keep the rear wheels on the ground, but dang if this tractor didnt lift what it says it can lift in the advertising. And it lifted it off of a flatbed trailer so it didnt just lift it off of the ground.

also..heres a the old thread

http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/owning-operating/264466-what-largest-load-you-have.html

Were you able to lift it to full height?

And, I guess I need to figure out what this set of forks weighs so I can get a more accurate lift total...

 

[ddb123]

Interesting experiment!

 

[grsthegreat]

Were you able to lift it to full height?

And, I guess I need to figure out what this set of forks weighs so I can get a more accurate lift total...

I lifted it off of a flat bed trailer, but not full height. i didnt want a ton + of manure over my head LOL

here are a few pics. I got the weight of my forks off off the web site i ordered them from.

 

[TSO]

I lifted it off of a flat bed trailer, but not full height. i didnt want a ton + of manure over my head LOL

here are a few pics. I got the weight of my forks off off the web site i ordered them from.View attachment 348644View attachment 348645View attachment 348646

Cool pics. Your forks look just like mine... are they 42" ??? If so, I suppose I can guess mine at 400 lbs as well.

 

[ddb123]

400 lbs sounds high in general for pallet forks. Mine are medium-duty 42" forks from Everything Attachments and weigh 240 lbs.

 

[KenB2920]

Wow, even with loaded tires I cannot lift maximum capacity before the rear end comes clear off the ground.

Not sure where the 3320 JD ranks size / weight. However, my B2920 could clearly lift the rear tires off the ground and they were loaded.

Also, my tires are loaded with "beat juice" ... I am not sure the difference in weight with the variety of fillers.