Tweaked FEL

[ray66v]

"Tweaked" would generally be considered slightly bent.

Reminds me of how I could tell when a customer who came in for a body repair estimate, was planning to pay out of pocket. They would ask for an estimate on a "ding", which upon inspection, would end up being a huge dent.

Sorry about your tractor. Like the others, I am amazed at the extent of the damage here.

If this was in fact bent, lifting a heavy load, you would think damage like this would be seen here more often. Since it's not common, it does seem to suggest the possibility that the FEL was in some way defective. Either by way of improperly tempered steel, or of bypass settings.

Since, this looks like fairly typical collision damage. You may have a tough time convincing JD, that it's not.

Good luck.

 

[chriswheeler]

I bought a John Deere 970 TLB for a bargain price several years back. The series 80 loader on it had a similar problem that the OP has. Having worked for Georgia Pacific years back and fixed similar problems, I had the proper set up and tools in my shop to perform this repair, was not going to be my first. Previous repairs were caused by a high speed hit on a immovable object. ( usually a RR track ) The cross tube on mine was twisted and the loader arms needed to be retimed to each other. To do this job, I used a Arcair carbon arc to remove the welds on the cross tubes connecting the two arms. The act of removing the welds and placing the bucket on the ground timed the arms again. I re-welded the cross tubes in that position and all is good. Careful measurement showed the arms were not bent, just the tube that tied them together was twisted. I added gussets to the ends of the tube at the arm weld points to counter any future twist loads. The repair worked well and has been able to hold up for years of use. John Deere, like many other manufactures, try to save a dollar or two on material size used and sometimes their products don't render the service under load that one might expect. The twist in my series 80 loader was caused by a carless operator and the thin tube used in the cross tube binding the arms together creating a timing between the left and right arms. That is not to say that John Deere had not used a due diligence in the design of the loader. These bends I have encountered in the past were caused by a unusual event that it would be hard to engineer for.I expect you to find you have a similar situation to mine if you give a fabricator a chance to look at it and perform some measurements.
Chris

 

[goeduck]

. John Deere, like many other manufactures, try to save a dollar or two on material size used and sometimes their products don't render the service under load that one might expect. The twist in my series 80 loader was caused by a carless operator and the thin tube used in the cross tube binding the arms together creating a timing between the left and right arms.

Some John Deere bean counter probably came up with the idea to use thinner tubes to save money AND increase the lift rating all in one fell swoop. Probably even got an award that year. :irked:

 

[Threepoint]

Some John Deere bean counter probably came up with the idea to use thinner tubes to save money AND increase the lift rating all in one fell swoop. Probably even got an award that year. :irked:

Isn't it a bit premature for that speculation? :confused3:

 

[goeduck]

Isn't it a bit premature for that speculation? :confused3:

Maybe, maybe not. He said thin tube which implies thinner than normal.

 

[Oldoak]

Maybe, maybe not. He said thin tube which implies thinner than normal.

Something has always got to be the first to give. This has been discussed in other threads and other than JD tractors and loaders.

 

[AndyMA]

Holy carp, that's a lot of good comments. Who I thought was my eye witness was in the house at the time. So it's only my word. The tractor was new this spring, and unless the dealer messed it up, it should be set-up properly. My previous tractor, a 1025R, was put through a lot of abuse, and nothing bad happened to it ever. I can't take more pictures until this coming weekend. And I will take some measurements. Thanks again for the help.

You should not be able to twist a loader no matter what you try to lift. Think of the times we are in a pile of what ever and the loader can't lift it. If it was my machine it would be back to the dealer for a warranty claim.

Andy

 

[UtahJock]

By the way, if it had been a collision of some sort, the forks would be messed up also, and they're not because this wasn't caused by a collision.

 

[goeduck]

By the way, if it had been a collision of some sort, the forks would be messed up also, and they're not because this wasn't caused by a collision.

I believe you said on your earlier post that you were taking it to the dealer? The sentence ended oddly so I was not sure.

 

[mercdv]

By the way, if it had been a collision of some sort, the forks would be messed up also, and they're not because this wasn't caused by a collision.

Only if the forks were part of the collision...not saying you had a collision. Just I have seen my fair share of them and the forks are not always the item that impacts the object. That typically only occurs when the impact is square on the front and the forks are sticking out past the item being carried. In reality, most of the impact damage I have seen in my lifetime was caused when the item being carried by the forks was rammed into another object and rarely do the forks themselves show any damage because they are much thicker/stronger metal than the loader frames and fork brackets.

 

[ptsg]

Well if one lock was not engaged properly, even a really heavy duty loader would probably get all twisted beyond repair. The OP refers it on the post on the previous page.

 

[aczlan]

You should not be able to twist a loader no matter what you try to lift. Think of the times we are in a pile of what ever and the loader can't lift it. If it was my machine it would be back to the dealer for a warranty claim.

Andy

Except that the right side is not locked in (as the OP said in their last post). Unless there is something broken that let it unlock the dealer will probably say that it was "user error" due to not keeping the loader arms locked to the tractor side of the frame.

Well if one lock was not engaged properly, even a really heavy duty loader would probably get all twisted beyond repair. The OP refers it on the post on the previous page.

Yes, IMO this is due to the one side of the lift arms not being locked to the tractor frame.
The dealer may warranty it as a mechanical failure (especially if they can find a mechanical reason why the lock disengaged, or if the OP is on the service writer's good side and the service writer is creative in how they write it up). They might also cover it under "goodwill" (where Deere eats the cost of something that might or might not be covered under warranty.
If the OP has insurance that covers "user error" that should cover this as well.

OP, I would try not to be inflammatory when you take/send the tractor to the dealer. Make sure they understand that you have never removed the loader, so you didn't have any reason to check the loader mounting latches.

Aaron Z

 

[goeduck]

OP, I would try not to be inflammatory when you take/send the tractor to the dealer. Make sure they understand that you have never removed the loader, so you didn't have any reason to check the loader mounting latches.
Aaron Z

Good advice :thumbsup:
If there happens to be pictures of delivery from the dealer of that side showing it unlocked, that would be golden.

EDIT. I did a YouTube search and the release levers are behind the towers so I doubt you would have a picture unless from the operators station. Nice release system by the way. Except there sure should be some sort of pin or something that would prevent accidental disengagement.

 

[ray66v]

Only if the forks were part of the collision...not saying you had a collision. Just I have seen my fair share of them and the forks are not always the item that impacts the object. That typically only occurs when the impact is square on the front and the forks are sticking out past the item being carried. In reality, most of the impact damage I have seen in my lifetime was caused when the item being carried by the forks was rammed into another object and rarely do the forks themselves show any damage because they are much thicker/stronger metal than the loader frames and fork brackets.

A head on frontal impact, is not the way this would have been damaged anyway.

The way the loader frame is deformed, is very similar to the kind of damage I saw many hundreds of times on a vehicle frame, when impacted from the side, in the front. It's called "sidesway"

If someone was carrying a heavy load, and hit something with the right side of the load, while moving forward, and turning to the right, I could see it causing the type of damage the OP has. The weight of a heavy load of 2x4's could exert strong forces if it's momentum was suddenly stopped by an impact. In that scenario, you could have no damage, or witness marks on the forks, or signs of direct impact to the loader frame. The loader frame is weakest at resisting heavy side forces, so those forces could conceivably bend it in a manor like we see.

I am not disputing the OP's claim on how this happened. I'm just giving an observation based solely on what I have experienced, and what the photo's show. There could certainly be a material defect, or other explanation that caused this to fail.

But, without prior failures of this model, which would clearly tell them they have a problem, I could see the possibility that JD will conclude it's collision damage.

 

[UtahJock]

Here are pics of the disengaged right side and the normal left side. I would never think to take pics of something for future use like this; I have pics, but not close-up details. It's going to the dealer tomorrow. I guess I shouldn't have touched the lever as it removed the dust.

 

[tmajor]

My opinion (which doesn't count for much): I'd say the OP has given us the correct version of things.
He was exceeding the weight limit, but that wasn't exactly the problem. The problem was, that the load was not centered on the lift arms/forks. With this imbalance and maybe a slight incline, the right mast, which had more weight, gave way. This can be seen in the one picture. It either broke the welds on the mast mount to the tractor or the tube from the tractor to the mast twisted.

 

[ptsg]

You can't really exceed the weight limit on these things as the relief valve will open to prevent any further damage. Unless, you have the arms already lifted and you are adding weight either by hand or by any other way.

One thing I don't understand, is why so many people keep ignoring the fact that the OP already mentioned and showed pictures of the lock that was not fully seated causing the twisted arms.

If that lock had failed with the loader arms lifted all the way up, it could get seriously dangerous.

 

[aczlan]

You can't really exceed the weight limit on these things as the relief valve will open to prevent any further damage. Unless, you have the arms already lifted and you are adding weight either by hand or by any other way.

One thing I don't understand, is why so many people keep ignoring the fact that the OP already mentioned and showed pictures of the lock that was not fully seated causing the twisted arms.

If that lock had failed with the loader arms lifted all the way up, it could get seriously dangerous.

Exactly, this damage appears to have been caused by the lock that holds the lift arms to the loader frame becoming unlocked on the right hand side.
No abuse or impact would be needed to cause this, just trying to lift something that is heavier than the side-to-side resistance to torsion of the loader arms itself (which will be much lower than the lifting capacity of the loader).

Aaron Z

 

[chriswheeler]

I've seen this tube twisted in a few other loaders, not just my jd970. This tube ties the front end loader arms into timing left and right side. Sure could be the lift cylinders having a problem or the arms themselves being bent, I've never seen the arms bent on one. The 2 lift cylinders are on the same valve so the tube keeps the pressure on both the same. When the load on one side becomes unequal, the tube is what gets the load from a unequal load or impact. This tube is made to twist to absorb the load or impact and equalize side to side. Once twisted, it will always stay twisted until the welds are removed and the sides re-timed. I choose to re-enforce with gussets to make it harder to happen again, but some say it's a safety give point and it could be counter productive to do so.
Chris

 

[Oldoak]

Something has always got to be the first to give. This has been discussed in other threads and other than JD tractors and loaders.

I've seen this tube twisted in a few other loaders, not just my jd970. This tube ties the front end loader arms into timing left and right side. Sure could be the lift cylinders having a problem or the arms themselves being bent, I've never seen the arms bent on one. The 2 lift cylinders are on the same valve so the tube keeps the pressure on both the same. When the load on one side becomes unequal, the tube is what gets the load from a unequal load or impact. This tube is made to twist to absorb the load or impact and equalize side to side. Once twisted, it will always stay twisted until the welds are removed and the sides re-timed. I choose to re-enforce with gussets to make it harder to happen again, but some say it's a safety give point and it could be counter productive to do so.
Chris

Just what I was referring to without the thorough explanation you just gave in detail. :thumbsup: