Hydraulic vs Manual Scrape blade

[sweettractors]

Just looked. Landpride uses a 3.5x14 on the 35 series and a 3.5x16 on the rbt40 series.

A 3x8 would be woefully inadequate and you'd be blowing lots of hoses

I seriously there are many TBN guys that own a 2WD 65-100 HP or 4WD Up to 75 HP, that the 40 series is rated for? I am addressing the larger tbn audience that are using smaller tractors and smaller blades that shorter hook point requirements for the cyl. Ken Sweet

 

[sweettractors]

Ken, you actually recommend using black pipe for hydraulic 90s? I know that they have been used for a long time, doesn't make it right or safe. :no: Also the problem with using a short stroke cylinder is that it makes the adjustments very touchy. There is a reason for using the 14" & 16" stroke cylinders.

Just my :2cents:

Well, actually, I did not recommend anything. I did lay out a inexpensive parts list that is cheap, dependable and easy to source. I fully realize that if you were doing a modification and money was not a limiting factor, you could send all pieces out to get them chrome or gold plated. Ken Sweet

 

[LD1]

Touchy isn't the reason to use a long cylinder.

It's mechanical advantage over the blade.

To get the same degrees rotation as a 16" cylinder has, an 8" cylinder would have 1/2 the mechanical advantage. Thus would need the area of the piston doubled to keep from popping hoses.

And double the area is double the volume. So shorter but larger diameter would me no more touchy.

To match the rbt40's 3.5x16 cylinder, an 8" stroke cylinder would need a bore of 5". Then ofcours you need more massave anchor blocks to handle the higher forces of the larger cylinder, all just to achieve the same force at the tips of the 8' blade.

The 3.5x14 and 3.5x16 that LP uses is a good balance.

 

[LD1]

I seriously there are many TBN guys that own a 2WD 65-100 HP or 4WD Up to 75 HP, that the 40 series is rated for? I am addressing the larger tbn audience that are using smaller tractors and smaller blades that shorter hook point requirements for the cyl. Ken Sweet

The guy that started the thread has a m6800. And this is the thread that you are advising one can convert to hydraulic angle for under $200 using a cylinder that is much too small.

Had no one said anything and the op took your advise, it would have been a waste of money and after spending more to get an adequate cylinder, and redesigning the mounts, and replacing blown hoses, he would have been money ahead to spend the extra $500 to get the hydraulic from the start

 

[sweettractors]

Not many tractors are going to blow the typical ag hydraulic hose rated at Working Pressure (PSI): 3,500.

 

[LD1]

Not many tractors are going to blow the typical ag hydraulic hose rated at Working Pressure (PSI): 3,500.

Say what you want but numbers don't lie.

A 3x8 cylinder mounted to give a 50 degree angle both directions (same as the rbt 35 and 40 blades).....

Gives a force of 2000# on the end of an 8' blade with 3000 psi feeding it.

The rbt35 gives 4800# of force and the rbt40 gives 5500#. See the difference.

With an m6800 it don't take much to well exceed that. Snag a root, or tilting to do ditch work. +shock loading. And those numbers are being generous, since that is the large side of the piston.

Something catching and trying to angle the blade in a way that would make the cylinder retract, the pressures in the hospital would be even greater.

Think of a bottle jack. The blade is the lever, and the angle cylinder is the pump. A small cylinder builds more pressure with equal force of the "lever". THATS why they use large cylinders, to minimize the pressure in the hoses.

A small cut with less pull force and smaller blade (less leverage), sure you could make a 3x8 work.

 

[DK35vince]

So just bump up to the 3.5 x14 or 16" cylinders .
They have them at Surplus Center for just over $100

 

[paulfun9]

None of these guys mentioned money. It's easier to say "hydraulic" when it's not your money. Buy what you can afford and justify. Rear blades have been used for decades without hydraulics. If this is an attachment that you are going to use 3 or 4 hours a year you might want to think hard about hydraulics. If you plan to use it at least a few days a month, then hydraulics are better justified.

If money is no object to you, knock yourself out.

I didn't think money needed to be mentioned! Simply by reading his post you can clearly see he already knows that the cost will be higher.
As for modification of a lighter blade that is possible and I would actually recommend it for someone with a smaller tractor or a blade that comes with all the tabs for HYD already on it if they got it cheep enough. Problem is when you price a new blade that can be HYD from the factory as an option it doesn't seem like most would save any money buy converting it afterwards.

The cost for converting my blade after the fact would be more than the price difference between Man or HYD when I purchased it and it doesn't even need anything welded on for the conversion.


His question was clear and I think My answer was clear.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Touchy isn't the reason to use a long cylinder.

It's mechanical advantage over the blade.

To get the same degrees rotation as a 16" cylinder has, an 8" cylinder would have 1/2 the mechanical advantage. Thus would need the area of the piston doubled to keep from popping hoses.

And double the area is double the volume. So shorter but larger diameter would me no more touchy.

To match the rbt40's 3.5x16 cylinder, an 8" stroke cylinder would need a bore of 5". Then ofcours you need more massave anchor blocks to handle the higher forces of the larger cylinder, all just to achieve the same force at the tips of the 8' blade.

The 3.5x14 and 3.5x16 that LP uses is a good balance.

Actually, that mechanical advantage is exactly what makes the longer stroke cylinders less touchy. Instead of just barely pulling the lever to make a small blade adjustment, you can actually pull the lever because the cylinder needs to move double the distance. I suppose you are correct that it would be the same if you had a larger dia cylinder, but then mounting becomes extended out further and then the shorter cylinder does not work for getting the same adjustments without getting into more thought out cylinder mounts etc.

All I can say is there is a reason that the manufacturers use what they use and if you look at all the main implement manufactures, they all basically build these things in the same way.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Well, actually, I did not recommend anything. I did lay out a inexpensive parts list that is cheap, dependable and easy to source. I fully realize that if you were doing a modification and money was not a limiting factor, you could send all pieces out to get them chrome or gold plated. Ken Sweet

Your typical black pipe 90* fitting is not rated for 3000psi. I don't care if it's black or chrome, has nothing to do with looks, but safety. Yes there are black pipe fittings that are rated for 3000psi, I don't think that they are $3 and I don't think that you just pick them up at the local farm store.

But then I very well may be wrong, things are very different in different parts of the country.

 

[ishiboo]

Hydraulic is great. I have a 3-function hydraulic blade. But it's also stupid. The cylinder only works to send it angling in one direction or straight. You can't go to the other side without switching the cylinder. Seems like a complete waste.

 

[ovrszd]

Hydraulic is great. I have a 3-function hydraulic blade. But it's also stupid. The cylinder only works to send it angling in one direction or straight. You can't go to the other side without switching the cylinder. Seems like a complete waste.

I've never been around one so not sure if that's common?? I guess it must be common for Frontier??

 

[bcp]

Looks like that style blade is straight when the cylinder is fully retracted.



Bruce

 

[ovrszd]

That would so bum me out....

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Hydraulic is great. I have a 3-function hydraulic blade. But it's also stupid. The cylinder only works to send it angling in one direction or straight. You can't go to the other side without switching the cylinder. Seems like a complete waste.

The 21 & 24 series Frontier blades are not like that. None of the Land Pride blades are like that. Equal amount of angle to each side, typically around 45*. You're pretty much screwed if your grading an S shape drive, or just want to turn around at the end and come back grading also.


So just to confirm for others, the hydraulic angle for most rear blades does indeed angle the rear blade to both the left and right side.

 

[ishiboo]

The 21 & 24 series Frontier blades are not like that. None of the Land Pride blades are like that. Equal amount of angle to each side, typically around 45*. You're pretty much screwed if your grading an S shape drive, or just want to turn around at the end and come back grading also.


So just to confirm for others, the hydraulic angle for most rear blades does indeed angle the rear blade to both the left and right side.

Man, I got ripped off!

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Man, I got ripped off!

You have to check these things out. I know that I really liked the Bison rear blades, but the one that I was interested in only offset 22" and the Land Pride that I purchased offsets 35" and yes I do need to offset that far at certain times.

Same size blade, same quality, just built different, so the same amount of adjustment was not available.

 

[Russ7127]

You have to check these things out. I know that I really liked the Bison rear blades, but the one that I was interested in only offset 22" and the Land Pride that I purchased offsets 35" and yes I do need to offset that far at certain times.

Same size blade, same quality, just built different, so the same amount of adjustment was not available.

Having a hydraulic blade has pro's and con's. A manual blade is easy to turn 180 degrees. I wind up plowing snow backward as often as forward. When by buying a scrape blade, you need to evaluate yours needs. My driveway dictates the need the plow snow both backward and forward. If you a long dive and no dead ends, you can plow in one direction. Cost is also a consideration. My use the blade to move dirt or other material is minimal, so I can not comment on the benefits of hydraulics.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Having a hydraulic blade has pro's and con's. A manual blade is easy to turn 180 degrees. I wind up plowing snow backward as often as forward. When by buying a scrape blade, you need to evaluate yours needs. My driveway dictates the need the plow snow both backward and forward. If you a long dive and no dead ends, you can plow in one direction. Cost is also a consideration. My use the blade to move dirt or other material is minimal, so I can not comment on the benefits of hydraulics.

I guess maybe some hydraulic blades are a pain having to change what side the hydraulic is on. You will find that is with the hydraulic angle only blades, not the ones that have hydraulic offset capabilities. I assume that you pull a pin and rotate 180* for your blade, I can do the same thing. No big deal.

 

[ovrszd]

I guess maybe some hydraulic blades are a pain having to change what side the hydraulic is on. You will find that is with the hydraulic angle only blades, not the ones that have hydraulic offset capabilities. I assume that you pull a pin and rotate 180* for your blade, I can do the same thing. No big deal.

Brian, can't remember if your blade is hydraulic angle??

That's what he's referring to. Having to remove the cylinder to reverse the blade. Is yours that way?? Pics if not??