jeffinsgf
Veteran Member
Bob, I think you may have overlooked an even more sinister ploy by the marketing department, that is, to get you to upgrade to the "heavy duty" bucket.
FEL :: Rated Lift Capacity vs BUCKET Capacity
- Thread starter Bob_Skurka
- Start date
- Views: 12668
OP
Bob_Skurka
Super Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 7,615
Jeff, interesting thought, but I checked the website of Brand X and, in addition to spelling errors on the website, I found they only make standard duty buckets. Each of their various loaders is only offered with that standard duty bucket. So if the marketing department was thinking people would upgrade, then they are doing a fine job for a 3rd party company to sell the bucket.
So that may be even further evidence that they are listing capacity that isn't possible for most users to actualy use. I'm inclined to go along with Neil's statement. But the whole thing seems like trickery to me.
So that may be even further evidence that they are listing capacity that isn't possible for most users to actualy use. I'm inclined to go along with Neil's statement. But the whole thing seems like trickery to me.
MessickFarmEqu
Super Member
In the last few months there has been alot of talk at dealer meetings about a company who is prominently publishing pivot pin lift ratings, sacrificing torque for higher HP ratings, lightening their drive lines, and touting their "3-year" warranty which is really driveline only. There is real hesitation to go this route, its kinda whats happened to the lawn tractor market since the big box stores got involved.
OP
Bob_Skurka
Super Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 7,615
Neil
Interesting comments. So I started looking at specs for several brands. Big 3 and Minor brands. Hmmm. I've always said that the specs are hard to use for "apples to apples" comparisions, but it seems like they are getting harder.
I found 2 minor companies that are popular here on TBN that only list Pivot Pin specs. One of the Big 3 brands listed SOME specs but no measuring points so their data is suspect at best! Two other Big 3 companies list multiple points of measurement. I found another modestly popular minor brand that gives SOME specs at the Pivot Pin and some specs at 500mm in front of the pin. My investigation is far from complete because some of the companies make it hard to find all the data. But it is interesting because the specs, if not studied carefully, could make the capacities seem higher than they really are. We all should know by now that the farther forward of the FEL's pivot pins, the lower the capacity. The standard I used to see being the center of the bucket, which in commonly assumed to be 500mm forward of the pivot point.
Now I am beginning to wonder about 3pt capacity. I know some companies measure at the ball eyes, some at ball eyes +12", some at ball eyes +24" and some list (or at least used to list) all 3 measurements. Same thing applies to capacities on the 3pt, the farther behind the ball eyes, the lower the capacity, but the more appropriate for "real world" use.
These numbers from some companies are beginning to look more like legal lies (read that as a deceptive, but still legally acceptable, while morally reprehensible, marketing ploy).
Interesting comments. So I started looking at specs for several brands. Big 3 and Minor brands. Hmmm. I've always said that the specs are hard to use for "apples to apples" comparisions, but it seems like they are getting harder.
I found 2 minor companies that are popular here on TBN that only list Pivot Pin specs. One of the Big 3 brands listed SOME specs but no measuring points so their data is suspect at best! Two other Big 3 companies list multiple points of measurement. I found another modestly popular minor brand that gives SOME specs at the Pivot Pin and some specs at 500mm in front of the pin. My investigation is far from complete because some of the companies make it hard to find all the data. But it is interesting because the specs, if not studied carefully, could make the capacities seem higher than they really are. We all should know by now that the farther forward of the FEL's pivot pins, the lower the capacity. The standard I used to see being the center of the bucket, which in commonly assumed to be 500mm forward of the pivot point.
Now I am beginning to wonder about 3pt capacity. I know some companies measure at the ball eyes, some at ball eyes +12", some at ball eyes +24" and some list (or at least used to list) all 3 measurements. Same thing applies to capacities on the 3pt, the farther behind the ball eyes, the lower the capacity, but the more appropriate for "real world" use.
These numbers from some companies are beginning to look more like legal lies (read that as a deceptive, but still legally acceptable, while morally reprehensible, marketing ploy).
Dk45_Jeff
Silver Member
Don't most folks have hooks welded on their buckets? If so they can easily chain loads to the bucket that would demonstrate the real lifting power. Falsifying specifications is a real gamble for a company to take, not that I would put anything past a marketing department.
Did the dealer mention anything about damaged buckets? If not, then maybe the bucket is strong enough for the loader despite its light weight.
I've seen paper copies of lift versus height curves for JD and Kioti loaders. The points of measurement and the weight of the bucket used were identified. My loader's manual has it in the front with the other specifications. Other dealer's I spoke with while tractor shopping didn't offer to show me the information, but I assume they could have if I had asked. Bad assumption?
Did the dealer mention anything about damaged buckets? If not, then maybe the bucket is strong enough for the loader despite its light weight.
I've seen paper copies of lift versus height curves for JD and Kioti loaders. The points of measurement and the weight of the bucket used were identified. My loader's manual has it in the front with the other specifications. Other dealer's I spoke with while tractor shopping didn't offer to show me the information, but I assume they could have if I had asked. Bad assumption?
Osconda
Silver Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2005
- Messages
- 184
- Tractor
- New Holland TC55DA, delivered 05/25/2005
This is quite an interesting discussion. I have to consider, what would I care what the pivot pin rating is if I'm just scooping up material in the bucket, unless of course I'm trying to lift something from those pins.
Then again, the loader isn't always equipped with a bucket for all tasks. So, if I had a bale-spear attached I'd like to know that I could actually lift the size bales I'd be dealing with, given I had adequate ballast. In this case, pivot pin rating would be pretty important. But even then, you couldn't balance all the weight of that bale right over the pivot pins anyway. So then what does it really matter?
Maybe the "extra" unused capacity is the product of the breakout force. For example, enough breakout force has to be generated to fill the bucket and at the same time this force also yields more lift capacity even though you can't put that in the bucket.
I think one of the many smart guys around here ought to come up with some kind of scale for some testing amoung TBNers. Maybe like a huge fish scale. You know... the kind with a spring... and some numbers on the scale.
I wonder what manufacturers would be doing if customers wouldn't just take their word for capacities, cause we could actually test them. What a can of worms that would be. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Then again, the loader isn't always equipped with a bucket for all tasks. So, if I had a bale-spear attached I'd like to know that I could actually lift the size bales I'd be dealing with, given I had adequate ballast. In this case, pivot pin rating would be pretty important. But even then, you couldn't balance all the weight of that bale right over the pivot pins anyway. So then what does it really matter?
Maybe the "extra" unused capacity is the product of the breakout force. For example, enough breakout force has to be generated to fill the bucket and at the same time this force also yields more lift capacity even though you can't put that in the bucket.
I think one of the many smart guys around here ought to come up with some kind of scale for some testing amoung TBNers. Maybe like a huge fish scale. You know... the kind with a spring... and some numbers on the scale.
I wonder what manufacturers would be doing if customers wouldn't just take their word for capacities, cause we could actually test them. What a can of worms that would be. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
OP
Bob_Skurka
Super Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 7,615
osconda wrote: <font color="blue"> the loader isn't always equipped with a bucket for all tasks. So, if I had a bale-spear attached I'd like to know that I could actually lift the size bales I'd be dealing with, given I had adequate ballast. In this case, pivot pin rating would be pretty important. But even then, you couldn't balance all the weight of that bale right over the pivot pins anyway. So then what does it really matter? </font>
Actually you make good points but your logic is a just bit faulty. The farther forward the load is the lower the capacity of the loader. A bale spear will hold a load that is actually FARTHER forward than a bucket will, largely because a medium or a large bale is deeper than a typical bucket. So really the farther FORWARD of the pivot point you measure, the MORE ACCURATE under real life conditions. HOWEVER, please bear in mind that the MAJORITY of people who own a loader bucket do NOT own pallet forks or bale spears. So while we could talk about the fact that it is even MORE IMPORTANT to get the 500mm measurement IF you use a bale spear, I'd prefer to limit the discussion to what effects the MAJORITY of users, even if your point actually HELPS make my point even stronger. You do make an interesting point about the breakout and rollback needed to get a bale over the pivot point. But again, it has been mentioned by a couple folks that they can scoop up a heaping bucketload of material from a pile already so the breakout part may be as much technique as anything else?
DK45_Jeff wrote: <font color="green"> Don't most folks have hooks welded on their buckets? </font>
No. Most people do not.
<font color="green"> Falsifying specifications is a real gamble for a company to take, not that I would put anything past a marketing department.</font>
I agree, but nobody is talking about "false" specs, just the fact that by only posting pivot point specs, the specs are actually very misleading because they do NOT reflect real life capacity. Consequently one might presume the marketing departments are involved because it looks good.
<font color="green">
Did the dealer mention anything about damaged buckets? If not, then maybe the bucket is strong enough for the loader despite its light weight.</font>
Under normal working conditions one would not damage a bucket by simply scooping material, the question is not regarding the construction, but rather the capacity to hold what the loader can be presumed to lift. If a small lightly constructed bucket is installed, then there is no way to test the capacity because as some previous poster mentioned (I think it was _RaT_ ) you'd have to load the bucket with gold bars to get up to capacity. Again, we are suggesting the marketing department might be the culprit here. Put a smaller bucket on and the tractor will strain less, it will FEEL stronger than another brand with a larger bucket simply because it is lifting LESS.
As for comparisions between brands, I would prefer we not post brand names here, no reason to start a brand war. So far we have a good conceptual thread going.
Actually you make good points but your logic is a just bit faulty. The farther forward the load is the lower the capacity of the loader. A bale spear will hold a load that is actually FARTHER forward than a bucket will, largely because a medium or a large bale is deeper than a typical bucket. So really the farther FORWARD of the pivot point you measure, the MORE ACCURATE under real life conditions. HOWEVER, please bear in mind that the MAJORITY of people who own a loader bucket do NOT own pallet forks or bale spears. So while we could talk about the fact that it is even MORE IMPORTANT to get the 500mm measurement IF you use a bale spear, I'd prefer to limit the discussion to what effects the MAJORITY of users, even if your point actually HELPS make my point even stronger. You do make an interesting point about the breakout and rollback needed to get a bale over the pivot point. But again, it has been mentioned by a couple folks that they can scoop up a heaping bucketload of material from a pile already so the breakout part may be as much technique as anything else?
DK45_Jeff wrote: <font color="green"> Don't most folks have hooks welded on their buckets? </font>
No. Most people do not.
<font color="green"> Falsifying specifications is a real gamble for a company to take, not that I would put anything past a marketing department.</font>
I agree, but nobody is talking about "false" specs, just the fact that by only posting pivot point specs, the specs are actually very misleading because they do NOT reflect real life capacity. Consequently one might presume the marketing departments are involved because it looks good.
<font color="green">
Did the dealer mention anything about damaged buckets? If not, then maybe the bucket is strong enough for the loader despite its light weight.</font>
Under normal working conditions one would not damage a bucket by simply scooping material, the question is not regarding the construction, but rather the capacity to hold what the loader can be presumed to lift. If a small lightly constructed bucket is installed, then there is no way to test the capacity because as some previous poster mentioned (I think it was _RaT_ ) you'd have to load the bucket with gold bars to get up to capacity. Again, we are suggesting the marketing department might be the culprit here. Put a smaller bucket on and the tractor will strain less, it will FEEL stronger than another brand with a larger bucket simply because it is lifting LESS.
As for comparisions between brands, I would prefer we not post brand names here, no reason to start a brand war. So far we have a good conceptual thread going.
DavesTractor
Elite Member
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Maybe the "extra" unused capacity is the product of the breakout force. For example, enough breakout force has to be generated to fill the bucket and at the same time this force also yields more lift capacity even though you can't put that in the bucket.
I think one of the many smart guys around here ought to come up with some kind of scale for some testing amoung TBNers. Maybe like a huge fish scale. You know... the kind with a spring... and some numbers on the scale.
)</font>
I think you hit the nail on the head with the breakout force issue. When we go into a pile, we generally do so at or near the ground and lift up as we curl, so we are trying to lift a big chunk of a pile to get our full bucket. That is where the stronger loader shines. Most any loader will handle a full bucket of gravel or sand, but how well and how easily it fills the bucket is very important. Moving half buckets of material is a waste of time.
We have a hydraulic pull scale that we use to test load lift capacities on loaders. Some times the "seat of the pants" estimate can fool you. A 5000 lb tractor lifting 1500# will do so uneventfully and perhaps not feel real strong. A 1500 lb tractor lifting 600# will lift the rear tires, or nearly so, and feel like a real brute.
I think one of the many smart guys around here ought to come up with some kind of scale for some testing amoung TBNers. Maybe like a huge fish scale. You know... the kind with a spring... and some numbers on the scale.
)</font>
I think you hit the nail on the head with the breakout force issue. When we go into a pile, we generally do so at or near the ground and lift up as we curl, so we are trying to lift a big chunk of a pile to get our full bucket. That is where the stronger loader shines. Most any loader will handle a full bucket of gravel or sand, but how well and how easily it fills the bucket is very important. Moving half buckets of material is a waste of time.
We have a hydraulic pull scale that we use to test load lift capacities on loaders. Some times the "seat of the pants" estimate can fool you. A 5000 lb tractor lifting 1500# will do so uneventfully and perhaps not feel real strong. A 1500 lb tractor lifting 600# will lift the rear tires, or nearly so, and feel like a real brute.
slowzuki
Elite Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2003
- Messages
- 4,100
- Location
- New Brunswick, Canada
- Tractor
- Kubota L5030 HSTC, MF 5455, Kubota M120, Allis Chalmers 7010
Observations from my position:
LA 853 loader and the big 84" material bucket. It holds 1/2 yard level I think, maybe 2/3 yard heaped.
Kubota publishes the full specs in the manual with lift curves for the full range of motion.
I can run out of lift capacity easily when digging if I'm not rolling back correctly. The rollback limits the digging. I can lift a heaped bucket of anything from crush rock to wet dirt once it is broke out.
The tractor I used to have had not so good roll back / break out. It could lift 4000 lbs at the pins and had a 1 yard bucket but could barely lift a heaped bucket of rock and couldn't breakout manure even when the tines were on the bucket.
I honestly would look at rollback numbers for digging ability and lift numbers for pallet moving.
The pin lift numbers on the kubota are pretty darn high when working near the ground, good for moving pallets but not great for bringing em off the side of a flatbed.
LA 853 loader and the big 84" material bucket. It holds 1/2 yard level I think, maybe 2/3 yard heaped.
Kubota publishes the full specs in the manual with lift curves for the full range of motion.
I can run out of lift capacity easily when digging if I'm not rolling back correctly. The rollback limits the digging. I can lift a heaped bucket of anything from crush rock to wet dirt once it is broke out.
The tractor I used to have had not so good roll back / break out. It could lift 4000 lbs at the pins and had a 1 yard bucket but could barely lift a heaped bucket of rock and couldn't breakout manure even when the tines were on the bucket.
I honestly would look at rollback numbers for digging ability and lift numbers for pallet moving.
The pin lift numbers on the kubota are pretty darn high when working near the ground, good for moving pallets but not great for bringing em off the side of a flatbed.
OP
Bob_Skurka
Super Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 7,615
<font color="blue"> ( In the last few months there has been alot of talk at dealer meetings about a company who is prominently publishing pivot pin lift ratings, sacrificing torque for higher HP ratings, lightening their drive lines, and touting their "3-year" warranty which is really driveline only. There is real hesitation to go this route, its kinda whats happened to the lawn tractor market since the big box stores got involved. ) </font>
Neil, your comments really stuck with me and bothered me because if this is a trend, then it is ANTI-consumer and it shows that the manufacturers are hiding real numbers. Yesterday after you posted this I glanced at some numbers, and posted. Today I have some real information.
IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER so as not to show brand bias: (taken from information found on the respective websites, 1 or 2 models were selected from each brand, some brands MAY have more data that I did not find, but in the obvious places to look this is what I found)
<font color="purple"> Purple highlights indicate the meaninful points. </font>
Branson
3pt numbers: lift capacity at ball ends only
FEL numbers: lift capacity at pivot point only
<font color="purple">Breakout force: at bucket center </font>
Century
3pt numbers: lift capacity at ball ends only
<font color="purple">FEL numbers: lift capacity at pivot point + bucket center
Breakout force: at pivot point + bucket center </font>
Deere
3pt numbers: unclear, PRESUMED to be at ball ends only
FEL numbers: lift capacity at pivot point*
Breakout force: at pivot point only*
*<font color="purple"> Complete data is available in downloadable owners manuals</font>
Kioti <font color="purple">
3pt numbers: at distance behind the ball ends only</font>
FEL numbers: lift capacity at pivot point
Breakout force: at pivot point only
<font color="purple"> Kubota
3pt numbers: at ball ends + at distance behind ball ends
FEL numbers: lift capacity at pivot point + bucket center
Breakout force: at pivot point + bucket center </font>
Mahindra
3pt numbers: lift capacity at ball ends only
FEL numbers: lift capacity at pivot point only
Breakout force: at pivot point only
Massey Ferguson
3pt numbers: lift capacity at ball ends only
<font color="purple">FEL numbers: lift capacity at pivot point + bucket center
Breakout force: at bucket edge (the MOST honest place to measure breakout!)</font>
<font color="purple"> CASE - New Holland
3pt numbers: at ball ends + at distances behind ball ends
FEL numbers: lift capacity at pivot point + bucket center
Breakout force: pivot point + bucket center</font>
Now for MY bias, any manufacturer who does NOT provide 3pt capacity numbers BEHIND the ball ends is not providing REAL LIFE information to the consumer. Any manufacturer who does NOT provide FEL at the BUCKET CENTER is not providing REAL LIFE information to the consumer. Any manufacturer who measures breakout force at the pivot point is providing data that is NOT CLOSE to REAL LIFE usable data, and might be construed as intentionally misleading the consumer.
The most honest manufacturers have the most to lose because they post numbers that don't look as good as the companies who post only pivot point/ball end capacities. The ONLY companies who can pass my test for honesty are KUBOTA and CASE-NEW HOLLAND
The other manufacturers seem to be run by their marketing and/or advertising departments? Are they trying to hide something? Confuse the consumer? Artificially make their numbers look better? All of the above?
So why should anyone care?
In looking at the numbers, there can be a substantial DROP in capacity from bucket center to pivot point. In fact that drop seems to be about 35+% lower at the bucket center. So if you buy a loader "rated" to lift 2000#, your REAL capacity is only 1280#. Now if you have pallets to lift that weigh 1800# each, then you are going to be sorely disappointed in your tractor, and you back will likely be sore from unloading part of that pallet and moving the load by hand!
Breakout force drops by 30% or more as measured from the pivot point to the bucket center, and drops further at the bucket edge. So again, if you buy based on the pivot point spec, you may end up seriously disappointed.
Neil, your comments really stuck with me and bothered me because if this is a trend, then it is ANTI-consumer and it shows that the manufacturers are hiding real numbers. Yesterday after you posted this I glanced at some numbers, and posted. Today I have some real information.
IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER so as not to show brand bias: (taken from information found on the respective websites, 1 or 2 models were selected from each brand, some brands MAY have more data that I did not find, but in the obvious places to look this is what I found)
<font color="purple"> Purple highlights indicate the meaninful points. </font>
Branson
3pt numbers: lift capacity at ball ends only
FEL numbers: lift capacity at pivot point only
<font color="purple">Breakout force: at bucket center </font>
Century
3pt numbers: lift capacity at ball ends only
<font color="purple">FEL numbers: lift capacity at pivot point + bucket center
Breakout force: at pivot point + bucket center </font>
Deere
3pt numbers: unclear, PRESUMED to be at ball ends only
FEL numbers: lift capacity at pivot point*
Breakout force: at pivot point only*
*<font color="purple"> Complete data is available in downloadable owners manuals</font>
Kioti <font color="purple">
3pt numbers: at distance behind the ball ends only</font>
FEL numbers: lift capacity at pivot point
Breakout force: at pivot point only
<font color="purple"> Kubota
3pt numbers: at ball ends + at distance behind ball ends
FEL numbers: lift capacity at pivot point + bucket center
Breakout force: at pivot point + bucket center </font>
Mahindra
3pt numbers: lift capacity at ball ends only
FEL numbers: lift capacity at pivot point only
Breakout force: at pivot point only
Massey Ferguson
3pt numbers: lift capacity at ball ends only
<font color="purple">FEL numbers: lift capacity at pivot point + bucket center
Breakout force: at bucket edge (the MOST honest place to measure breakout!)</font>
<font color="purple"> CASE - New Holland
3pt numbers: at ball ends + at distances behind ball ends
FEL numbers: lift capacity at pivot point + bucket center
Breakout force: pivot point + bucket center</font>
Now for MY bias, any manufacturer who does NOT provide 3pt capacity numbers BEHIND the ball ends is not providing REAL LIFE information to the consumer. Any manufacturer who does NOT provide FEL at the BUCKET CENTER is not providing REAL LIFE information to the consumer. Any manufacturer who measures breakout force at the pivot point is providing data that is NOT CLOSE to REAL LIFE usable data, and might be construed as intentionally misleading the consumer.
The most honest manufacturers have the most to lose because they post numbers that don't look as good as the companies who post only pivot point/ball end capacities. The ONLY companies who can pass my test for honesty are KUBOTA and CASE-NEW HOLLAND
The other manufacturers seem to be run by their marketing and/or advertising departments? Are they trying to hide something? Confuse the consumer? Artificially make their numbers look better? All of the above?
So why should anyone care?
In looking at the numbers, there can be a substantial DROP in capacity from bucket center to pivot point. In fact that drop seems to be about 35+% lower at the bucket center. So if you buy a loader "rated" to lift 2000#, your REAL capacity is only 1280#. Now if you have pallets to lift that weigh 1800# each, then you are going to be sorely disappointed in your tractor, and you back will likely be sore from unloading part of that pallet and moving the load by hand!
Breakout force drops by 30% or more as measured from the pivot point to the bucket center, and drops further at the bucket edge. So again, if you buy based on the pivot point spec, you may end up seriously disappointed.