Increasing the lift capacity of a FEL

[4570Man]

The cylinder must extend to lift. It extends by pressurizing the non-rod end. It doesn't matter if the non-rod end is up or down.

And there are loaders with the lift cylinder rod end toward the bucket and loaders with it toward the cab.

View attachment 2378541




View attachment 2379633

You don't often see bucket cylinders with the rod end toward the cab, as that would expose hoses and seals to more damage.

Bruce

That’s more to do with removable vs permanently fixed loaders. The removable loaders have all the hoses going to a central block and the hoses are on the arms where a permanent mounted one has the hoses on the machine. The barrel needs to be mounted at the same side as the hoses so it’s not moving and chafing them.

 

[Farmer495]

I have same tractor/loader. 8500lb with cast wheels and fluid.

Loader seems strong enough to me, pins in "power" position and only time it doesn't lift is when I have way too much in the bucket (wet mud or pen pack manure)

 

[sandman2234]

I haven't even driven my tractor since I posted this! I get limited time at the house and a lot is doing other stuff, trying to catch up on things that happen while I am out on the road.
David from jax

 

[LD1]

The rod side of the piston generates less force for the same pressure, due to the rod taking up some of the piston surface area. So, flipping end to end would make a substantial difference in lift capacity. That is why you don't see cylinders attached with the cylinder end at the bucket.

Makes no difference. Surprises me that people still think this.

As mentioned....regardless of orientation, the cylinder must EXTEND to raise the loader. Therefore the area of the rod has ZERO effect on its lift capacity in either orientation.

The manufactures decision on which way to orient is quite simply which end the hoses are fed from.

On removable loaders, like most modern loaders.....the supply lines run down the loader frame....there for we see the base of the cylinder attached to the loader frame....and the rod end pointing down. Because the base end/barrel of the cylinder doesnt move.

On older non-removable loaders....the hoses were usually fed from the tractor or the loader upright and not down the loader arm. As you can see in BCP's pictures. Its all about where the hoses are fed from

 

[LD1]

I haven't even driven my tractor since I posted this! I get limited time at the house and a lot is doing other stuff, trying to catch up on things that happen while I am out on the road.
David from jax

Breaking down your loader.....the manual shows WAY more in-depth lift capacities than just a max height @ pin rating

I'll give you three numbers from the LA1153 manual.

The lift specs...IN POWER POSITION....and 800mm forward of the pin (~32")

Breakout (which is lift capacity at ground level) is 3415 lbs
Lift to 1500mm (~5') is 2646 lbs
To max height is 1830 lbs

Not to bore you with the physics....but your loader cylinders are mounted at an angle in relationship to the loader arms in which they are lifting. Gotta use some trig to calculate the upward force. Which is the Sine of the angle. If you look at your loader on the ground vs at full height....you can see that the angle of the cylinder changes in relationship to the loader arm. The angle gets smaller. And therefore the upward force also gets smaller.

Thats why the loader is almost twice as strong at its lowest point vs its highest point.

The higher you lift....the less capacity you have.

This is represented in the real world if you have ever lifted something heavy.....and are able to lift it to maybe 3-4' off the ground then it just wont go any higher.....Im sure many of us have been in that scenario before. Sometimes curling the load (which shifts the load CLOSER and therefor less leverage working against us) might allow it to be lifted a little higher)

But in the case of your loader.... It doesnt look like you are lifting more than 5' off the ground. And with pallet forks on....you should have a lift cap of the 2646 lbs or so @ 32" forward. Sure....what you were loading looks like its load center might be a bit more forward of that, but not by much. I'd certainly think your tractor should handle them with ease if they are ~2000lbs or so. Which leads me to assume you are either down a tad on pressure, cylinders getting a bit weak, or really underestimating the weight

 

[bdhsfz6]

Makes no difference. Surprises me that people still think this.

As mentioned....regardless of orientation, the cylinder must EXTEND to raise the loader. Therefore the area of the rod has ZERO effect on its lift capacity in either orientation.

The manufactures decision on which way to orient is quite simply which end the hoses are fed from.

On removable loaders, like most modern loaders.....the supply lines run down the loader frame....there for we see the base of the cylinder attached to the loader frame....and the rod end pointing down. Because the base end/barrel of the cylinder doesnt move.

On older non-removable loaders....the hoses were usually fed from the tractor or the loader upright and not down the loader arm. As you can see in BCP's pictures. Its all about where the hoses are fed from

May not be true in all cases. When posing the question to AI, this is the result:

"No, a double-acting hydraulic cylinder does not necessarily exert the same force in both directions, even though it can apply force in both directions; the force can be slightly different depending on the design due to the difference in piston area exposed to pressure when extending and retracting, which is related to the rod diameter.

Explanation:

• Piston area difference:
  When extending, the hydraulic pressure acts on the full piston area, while when retracting, the pressure acts on a smaller area due to the piston rod taking up space in the cylinder.
• Design considerations:
  While the difference in force may be minimal in well-designed cylinders, it's important to consider this factor when calculating the required force for an application.
  

Key points about double-acting cylinders:

• Functionality: They can apply force both when extending and retracting the piston rod.
  
  
• Application: Ideal for situations where precise control and movement in both directions are needed, like in machinery or construction equipment.
  
  
• Hydraulic pressure: The force exerted by a double-acting cylinder is directly related to the applied hydraulic pressure and the piston area."

Here's why:

...

 

[LD1]

May not be true in all cases. When posing the question to AI, this is the result:

"No, a double-acting hydraulic cylinder does not necessarily exert the same force in both directions, even though it can apply force in both directions; the force can be slightly different depending on the design due to the difference in piston area exposed to pressure when extending and retracting, which is related to the rod diameter.

Explanation:

• Piston area difference:
  When extending, the hydraulic pressure acts on the full piston area, while when retracting, the pressure acts on a smaller area due to the piston rod taking up space in the cylinder.
• Design considerations:
  While the difference in force may be minimal in well-designed cylinders, it's important to consider this factor when calculating the required force for an application.

Key points about double-acting cylinders:

• Functionality: They can apply force both when extending and retracting the piston rod.
  
  
• Application: Ideal for situations where precise control and movement in both directions are needed, like in machinery or construction equipment.
  
  
• Hydraulic pressure: The force exerted by a double-acting cylinder is directly related to the applied hydraulic pressure and the piston area."

Here's why:

...

You are missing the fundamental point.

IT DONT MATTER WHICH WAY THE CYLINDER IS ORIENTED

It STILL EXTENDS to LIFT the loader

 

[LD1]

The cylinder must extend to lift. It extends by pressurizing the non-rod end. It doesn't matter if the non-rod end is up or down.

And there are loaders with the lift cylinder rod end toward the bucket and loaders with it toward the cab.

View attachment 2378541




View attachment 2379633

You don't often see bucket cylinders with the rod end toward the cab, as that would expose hoses and seals to more damage.

Bruce

^^^^^^

Look at these pictures BCP posted.

It doesnt matter which way the cylinder is pointing

They are BOTH extending to raise the loader

 

[ning]

Breakout (which is lift capacity at ground level) is 3415 lbs

Isn't breakout a function of bucket curl (measured with the standard bucket)?
Technically a point load is being lifted slightly, but as the name "breakout" shows, it's like me using a pry bar to dislodge a boulder - yes, I can dislodge a 500 pound boulder, but I'm sure not picking it up, and the loader cylinders aren't involved in breakout.

 

[bdhsfz6]

You are missing the fundamental point.

IT DONT MATTER WHICH WAY THE CYLINDER IS ORIENTED

It STILL EXTENDS to LIFT the loader

You are correct. I responded to your post by mistake.

Sorry.

 

[rScotty]

You are missing the fundamental point.

IT DONT MATTER WHICH WAY THE CYLINDER IS ORIENTED

It STILL EXTENDS to LIFT the loader

It's interesting that AI missed the same fundamental point.

I'll assume everything that the AI says it right, although I didn't bother to check it's math. A compurter ought to know math.

But none of the fancy AI explanation matters when it missed the basic point.

 

[MossRoad]

AI doesn't get it right either....

A hydraulic cylinder generally has more power when pushing than when pulling, (TRUE)as the pushing force utilizes the full surface area of the piston(TRUE), while the pulling force is reduced due to the smaller area available on the piston rod (THEY GOT THIS MIXED UP, THE SMALLER AREA IS ON THE SMALLER PISTON FACE NOT THE ROD)which is subtracted from the total piston area(TRUE); therefore, a hydraulic cylinder typically exerts more force when pushing.

Key points:

• Piston area:
  When pushing, the hydraulic fluid applies pressure against the entire piston face, generating maximum force.
• Rod area:
  When pulling, the force is applied only to the area of the piston rod (NOPE. IT'S APPLIED TO THE PISTON FACE, NOT THE AREA OF THE PISTON ROD), which is smaller than the full piston face (TRUE), resulting in less power.

 

[LD1]

Isn't breakout a function of bucket curl (measured with the standard bucket)?
Technically a point load is being lifted slightly, but as the name "breakout" shows, it's like me using a pry bar to dislodge a boulder - yes, I can dislodge a 500 pound boulder, but I'm sure not picking it up, and the loader cylinders aren't involved in breakout.

No. Common misconception.
No idea where it started or who came up with breakout force somehow having anything to do with curl, or even the mention of somehow using both functions to "increase" the lift potential.

Nope. Its simply the lift capacity AT GROUND LEVEL.

If it had anything to do with curl at all.....how could we have a spec of breakout AT PIN. Because the PIN they are referencing is the pin in which the bucket curls about....therefore the curl cylinders have no bearing on lift force at that point.

 

[rScotty]

AI doesn't get it right either....

A hydraulic cylinder generally has more power when pushing than when pulling, (TRUE)as the pushing force utilizes the full surface area of the piston(TRUE), while the pulling force is reduced due to the smaller area available on the piston rod (THEY GOT THIS MIXED UP, THE SMALLER AREA IS ON THE SMALLER PISTON FACE NOT THE ROD)which is subtracted from the total piston area(TRUE); therefore, a hydraulic cylinder typically exerts more force when pushing.

Key points:

• Piston area:
  When pushing, the hydraulic fluid applies pressure against the entire piston face, generating maximum force.
• Rod area:
  When pulling, the force is applied only to the area of the piston rod (NOPE. IT'S APPLIED TO THE PISTON FACE, NOT THE AREA OF THE PISTON ROD), which is smaller than the full piston face (TRUE), resulting in less power.

Well, good on you for doing the diligence on the AI explanation - though in fairness that the mixup error you point out might just be a matter of poor AI grammar.

Now I really am tempted to check the AI's math.... but I think I'll resist. We've already beat on this enough to know the right answer.
rScotty

 

[LD1]

Isn't breakout a function of bucket curl (measured with the standard bucket)?
Technically a point load is being lifted slightly, but as the name "breakout" shows, it's like me using a pry bar to dislodge a boulder - yes, I can dislodge a 500 pound boulder, but I'm sure not picking it up, and the loader cylinders aren't involved in breakout.

For further reference...there is actually an SAE procedure for loader testing. J732

It goes in depth on measuring breakout....but mostly applied to large wheel loaders and skid loaders. It (breakout) can be measured with either curl or lift cylinders. But it must specify which and which pivot point. And if using a combination of lift and curl, the predominate pivot must be specified.

Again it goes in depth, that machine must be at normal operating weight....if using curl, the loader arms need blocked as to not move/flex. If using the loader lift, front axle must be blocked to prevent tire deflection. If goes on to say that rear cannot be tied down, and if rear wheels lift than at that point it is considered the breakout rating.

We all know good and well there is NO compact tractor that will even come close to reaching its breakout rating with no weight on the rear, standard operating weight (no tire ballast) and not tying the rear down. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

In the real world....compact tractor loaders arent tested to the J732 spec. And breakout is simply how much it can lift at ground level. And if you have a kubota or ever saw a kubota loader manual (other MFGS may be the same)....they actually graph the lift capacity vs height in an x-y chart. And the breakout numbers match the loader lift capacity at a height of 0"

Further.....most manufactures ALSO list a "rollback" or "curl" force. It is NOT the same as breakout, the numbers are always different. And if they were one and the same it would be redundant verbiage.

 

[rScotty]

No. Common misconception.
No idea where it started or who came up with breakout force somehow having anything to do with curl, or even the mention of somehow using both functions to "increase" the lift potential.

Nope. Its simply the lift capacity AT GROUND LEVEL.

If it had anything to do with curl at all.....how could we have a spec of breakout AT PIN. Because the PIN they are referencing is the pin in which the bucket curls about....therefore the curl cylinders have no bearing on lift force at that point.

I've always wondered how loader manufacturers calculated "Breakout". It's a handy word, but is there really such a formal definition of "breakout"?

I admit that your definition of lift at ground level is nice and simple. And it does avoid the problem of calculating curl about the pin.

What I'm thnking is in the real world when the FEL bucket is driven into the pile and won't lift, most of us do try to break out the load by backing a little and then adding some curl to the lift. So the manufacturers could certainly define "Breakout" more usefully for us.

Maybe breakout could be a combination of lift plus rotation from pin to the CG of the mass in the bucket. After all, that is the way most of us think of it . And measuring from pin to the CG eliminates the zero in the moment calculation.

Just musing on a snowy day,
rScotty

 

[4570Man]

No. Common misconception.
No idea where it started or who came up with breakout force somehow having anything to do with curl, or even the mention of somehow using both functions to "increase" the lift potential.

Nope. Its simply the lift capacity AT GROUND LEVEL.

If it had anything to do with curl at all.....how could we have a spec of breakout AT PIN. Because the PIN they are referencing is the pin in which the bucket curls about....therefore the curl cylinders have no bearing on lift force at that point.

I’m not convinced that’s true. Skid loaders have a much less lifting curve than tractors do. They can pretty much reach the tipping load at any height. Skid loaders also rate the tipping load which is a more accurate representation of their true ability. They also rate the breakout force. Excavators also rate the bucket breakout force. The excavators bucket breakout force is frequently equal to or exceeding the machine weight which is much more than the machine could actually lift off the ground.

 

[mike69440]

Here is a tidbit of info on bucket curl, i.e. rollback force. When curling, the pressure is simply applied to the rod side of the piston, however when reverse rollback is used to dump or backdrag, on many tractors the pressure is applied to both sides of the piston, thus intentionally limiting the reverse rollback force to rod area x the pressure. This makes for a fastest dump cycle, & limits the force protecting the cylinder from buckling.

 

[LD1]

This is what is in every kubota loader manual (for at least the last 20 years)

Gotta watch the unit of measurement. Some are in newtons, some in lbs, and some in kg

But bucket rollback force is a measurement all on its own.

And if you look at the graphs (which is in KG for loader lift).....they match exactly at the various heights with breakout being 0" of lift height

 

[LD1]