Loader specification question

[jbwilson]

My manual says that the maximum lift capacity of the fel for my tractor (Yanmar EA2400) is 700 lbs at pivot. My question is whether the lifting capacity need to take the weight of the bucket into account or is there a standard that says the specification is for a fel with a bucket attached?

I am asking this as I soon will need a first service carried out and the dealer says he can get more lifting capacity if I need to. I have a dealer fitted 4 in 1 bucket which I guess the weight at around 300lbs, probably around 100 lbs or so heavier than a standard bucket. I can lift around 400 lbs equivalent at the pivot point. Therefore my tractor meets the specification providing it means that the capacity includes the bucket weight. However if the specification excludes the weight of say a standard bucket, then I would ask the dealer to extract a little more lifting capacity.

Your expertise on this would be deeply appreciated.

John

 

[xring100]

I'm pretty sure that number is capacity of just the loader, any attachments on the loader would be subtracted from that number.

 

[kennyd]

I'm pretty sure that number is capacity of just the loader, any attachments on the loader would be subtracted from that number.

That is the way I understand it to be as well.

 

[jbwilson]

Thank you. I'll advise the dealer that the fel is fine and no adjustment is needed. I don't know what adjustment could be made anyway if the loader meets or exceeds specification. i have already found that the tractor's capabilities for the 3pt exceeds specification by about 10% or so and the fel seems to be the same. It's nice to know that specifications given are slightly conservative.

John

 

[xring100]

They just turn up the pressure on the relief valve going to the loader to give you more capacity.

 

[mikehaugen]

Thank you. I'll advise the dealer that the fel is fine and no adjustment is needed. I don't know what adjustment could be made anyway if the loader meets or exceeds specification. i have already found that the tractor's capabilities for the 3pt exceeds specification by about 10% or so and the fel seems to be the same. It's nice to know that specifications given are slightly conservative.

John

I think you are mis-understanding, they are saying that the specification does not include ANY bucket. If that is a concern, then you should probably talk to the dealer about making the adjustment if it is something that they recommend. I was under the impression that the reliefs were set at the max recommended setting for given tractor, I am surprised that they would be willing to turn it up.

Maybe I am misunderstanding though.

 

[jbwilson]

They just turn up the pressure on the relief valve going to the loader to give you more capacity.

Thank you. I won't need to do this now given that specifications are met, although it's good to know this is possible. I previously adjusted the relief valve to obtain stronger bucket dump performance because the bucket flopped too much when I was back grading. It works well now to the extent that I can lift the front of the tractor using the dump function - which I understand is how it should be.

The relief valve for the dump function on my tractor is located on a blocked attached to my loader arm. The block has 3 sets of hose inlets and outlets, with 2 hoses going to an electric solenoid diverter valve to operate the bucket curl/bucket open and dump/close function and the 3rd hose to operate the fel lift. The hose inlet/outlet ports are marked T1 (bucket curl/open), T2 (fel lift) and A1, A2 (bucket dump). I gather that the relief valve on this block operates the bucket dump A1, A2 ports only and that the block otherwise serves only to keep the fel hoses tidy.

Anyway when I turned the relief valve in clockwise (2 turns) it made a massive improvement to the bucket dump/close function.

Again thank you for your advice.

John

 

[J_J]

Never heard anything like you describe for the loader.

Do you have a FEL valve and another valve like this? If so , this is a diverter valve for use with a grapple., and is installed in the curl circuit hydraulics. The lift , curl, and grapple would be controlled with a lever valve. The diverter vale is controlled by a switch.

http://www.surpluscenter.com/Instruct/I9-7852.pdf

Can you show pictures of your setup?

 

[IceStationZebra]

Every capacity test I have ever done or looked at is with a bucket or specified attachment. It it useless to quote the capacity without the attachment because you will never use it like that.

The capacity with a bucket is stated as worst case, at the center of the mass of a heaped load, with some safety factor (which varies by product and standards organization). For a standard FEL this would be with the appoximate center of the bucket at the same hight as the lift arm pivots. Unless otherwise stated your grapple is taking away from your usefull load. You may not notice it though because of the safety factor, which is mandated by SAE/ISO.

Usually the capacity is stated with the "standard" bucket, but sometimes they will list it for each optional bucket/attachment. I have heard that some skid loader companies "cheat" and list the capacity of a machine with special short foundry buckets. This makes a difference because the center of mass is closer to the machine, allowing a higher lift capacity.

ISZ

 

[jbwilson]

Mikehaugan - your quote "they are saying that the specification does not include ANY bucket"

From Xring100 and Kennyd, my understanding is that if the fel specification says 700 lbs lift capacity at pivot, the weight limit of the material that can be carried is 400lbs (pivot point equivalent) if the bucket weighs 300lbs. In asking the question I thought that there may have been some tractor engineering standard that says that any fel weight specification given would be the maximum weight that can be carried by a standard bucket. My understanding now is that the specified fel capacity has to cover the weight of the bucket - even if the bucket comes standard with the loader.

J.J. - I'll try and post some photos later today.

John