Need some quick advice, IMatch Hitch Deal

[kubotakid USA]

Jenkins, While the Imatch fits very good, Still no weight is carried on the top hook, Quick Hitches rely on the weight of the implement, to secure the lower pins in the lower jaws, very important to have down pressure on the lower jaws. so the pins dont walk around. Eric

 

[RoyJackson]

Jenkins, While the Imatch fits very good, Still no weight is carried on the top hook, Quick Hitches rely on the weight of the implement, to secure the lower pins in the lower jaws, very important to have down pressure on the lower jaws. so the pins dont walk around. Eric

Mine, as well as all other QH's I've seen, have locking mechanisms on the lower hooks that prevent the implement from riding out.

 

[BlacknTan]

The lower pins carry the weight, as they should.

Two points will carry the load, be it both bottom points, or the top point and one bottom point... I'd prefer both bottom points, and this is the way things are designed.
Tolerances on ALL the parts in question would have to be EXTREMELY tight for three points to carry load.

 

[kubotakid USA]

Mine, as well as all other QH's I've seen, have locking mechanisms on the lower hooks that prevent the implement from riding out.

OK Roy, I got it, I was referimg to pin movement in the lower hooks,,, Not jumping out. Eric

 

[scottrh]

Yeah the non adjustable top hook worries me some.

I have a carry all, woods grader blade, woods bush hog, KK tiller, KK box blade and 3 point hitch trailer mover. What's the chances of all those lining up right? :confused2:

Agree. that why I bought one with adjustable top link. In fact, now my seed spreader will work with it by just adjusting the top link.

 

[jenkinsph]

I understand what all of you are saying and agree that for most uses the lower arms carry the load. The point I was trying to make is that with the IMatch this can be more evenly distributed.

Now for all of those who think the lower arms carry all of the load, try disconnecting the top link and see if you can pickup that brush hog.

 

[RoyJackson]

Now for all of those who think the lower arms carry all of the load, try disconnecting the top link and see if you can pickup that brush hog.

I can quite easily...of course, that upper link is there to keep the implement level and stabilized. It doesn't bear any lifting weight, but it does prevent to implement from tilting back over.

 

[jenkinsph]

Roy, I agree that the applied lifting forces are all provided by the lower arms. The forces around these pins at 18 inches are quite high though. A study of the reaction forces forces would show that alot of weight is transferred to the top link.


Still not the point I was making initially, forty years ago when using cat 1 equipment the lower pins would often wear badly and bend/break, an I Match setup would help alot with this problem as it would allow the top hook to assist with the downward forces on the lower implement pins. Does this make sense to you?

 

[BlacknTan]

Roy, I agree that the applied lifting forces are all provided by the lower arms. The forces around these pins at 18 inches are quite high though. A study of the reaction forces forces would show that alot of weight is transferred to the top link.


Still not the point I was making initially, forty years ago when using cat 1 equipment the lower pins would often wear badly and bend/break, an I Match setup would help alot with this problem as it would allow the top hook to assist with the downward forces on the lower implement pins. Does this make sense to you?

I understand your point, and I'm not trying to be argumentative here..

The top hook on a Quick Hitch, does carry weight, but it's not applied downward. Now, I have a Land Pride with an adjustable top hook, not an I-Match, but when I have an implement on, there is a slight space under the bushing for the top link at the hook. The point of contact is 90 degrees off the bottom, at the back..

I don't know if the same occurs with an I-Match

But, I agree that if the lower pins started to bend, the top hook could limit that action if tolerances were kept reasonably tight..

 

[PapaPerk]

I understand your point, and I'm not trying to be argumentative here..

The top hook on a Quick Hitch, does carry weight, but it's not applied downward. Now, I have a Land Pride with an adjustable top hook, not an I-Match, but when I have an implement on, there is a slight space under the bushing for the top link at the hook. The point of contact is 90 degrees off the bottom, at the back..

I don't know if the same occurs with an I-Match

But, I agree that if the lower pins started to bend, the top hook could limit that action if tolerances were kept reasonably tight..

This statement is correct. :thumbsup:

 

[RoyJackson]

Roy, I agree that the applied lifting forces are all provided by the lower arms. The forces around these pins at 18 inches are quite high though. A study of the reaction forces forces would show that alot of weight is transferred to the top link.


Still not the point I was making initially, forty years ago when using cat 1 equipment the lower pins would often wear badly and bend/break, an I Match setup would help alot with this problem as it would allow the top hook to assist with the downward forces on the lower implement pins. Does this make sense to you?

All the top link is doing is limiting the rotational travel of an implement around the lower links...you could use a chain or any other device to prevent that rotation.
It's not bearing weight...just limiting travel.
That's about all the upper hook of a QH is doing too. All the lifting force is still at the lower links.

Visualize this...if you used square links and mating slots (rather then pins and corresponding holes) at the lower links...the square links preventing the implement from rotating...would your tractor lift the implement without an upper link?

 

[bullsram]

I have a gently used cat 1 I-Match QH that I would sell for $200.00 if anyone is interested . It wont fit my 5103 deere. Shipping my be alot though. Bull

 

[kubotakid USA]

Id like to say that maybe the best word for the top hooks function is to HOLD the implement, It dosent lift , it holds the Implement, Hey what ever works for you, is all that matters, :thumbsup: Eric

 

[RoyJackson]

Id like to say that maybe the best word for the top hooks function is to HOLD the implement, It dosent lift , it holds the Implement

Yeah, that's about it...

 

[bcp]

You could also say the bottom hooks lift the front of the implement, and the top hook lifts the rear.

Bruce

 

[RoyJackson]

You could also say the bottom hooks lift the front of the implement, and the top hook lifts the rear.

Bruce

What powers that upper hook?

Put it like this...remove all implements, including the QH. Then raise the 3PH...what moves up?

 

[bcp]

Hook up the 2 lower pins only and lift the hitch.

What part of the implement doesn't lift?



Bruce

 

[jenkinsph]

Roy,
It is all in the moments or forces about the lower pins. In the previous post I agreed with you that the lower arms are providing the lifting forces. That said if I leave my rockshaft alone and shorten my hyd. top link it will raise the rear of the implement.

I understand what you are saying about a square rod connection as opposed to a pin connection but you would also loose the parallegram configuration too.

Black and Tan,
So far has the best analogy and understands what I meant about the quick hitch limiting the lower pin damage. Anything I buy that has alot of weight to deal with I am trying to get with the clevis hitch pin set up, the pins last much longer imo.

 

[RoyJackson]

Hook up the 2 lower pins only and lift the hitch.

What part of the implement doesn't lift?



Bruce

The aft end, of course...

 

[hink10]

I just bought a quick hitch w/ adjustable top hook from Iowa Farm Equipment. $249, free shipping, no tax and got it the next day. It's USA made, came with a set of bushings and is black in color. I liked the idea of adjustable if I were to rent something or buy a non compatible implement. It was supposed to come with a "floating top link" for implements on which the the hook would not work. It did not and I've emailed the company to check on that.

That being said, I am fairly unfamiliar with quick hitches. I have not actually looked at an i-match but I know they wanted $300+. I've had my BH on so I didn't have the 3 pt. on until last week. Trying to mount a loaded ballast box is a PITA, especially with a bad back. I also just bought a box blade and may need to switch between the two fairly regularly. It didn't take long to realize the value of the QH!

So... I mounted the QH today and bolted the top hook where I thought it should be. It seemed to mate ok with the box blade but even w/ the 3 pt. at the lowest position the top hook was just a bit high and seemed to carry the weight on the hook. If I adjusted the top link it would just clear the implement center bushing.

I then lowered the top hook and that solved the problem, able to back up and mount easily. The one thing I was concerned about was that top hook was about 3/4" or so lower than the box blade top center bushing. All weight on the bottom. Now after reading this thread, sounds like no big deal. That's kind of what I thought after looking at the design of the 3 pt hitch, the bottom carries/lifts the weight, top link is more of a stabilizer. Does this situation sound normal with an adjustable top hook QH? Seems pretty well made to me.

Thanks,
Steve