Shorter FEL ??

[Slackdaddy]

Looking at most FEL's that come on CUT's (20-30HP range), the bucket is a good 3-4' out in front of the front tires.
If the FEL arms where shorter, and the bucket was up tight to the front tires (6-12" off) the FEL could lift more and the tractor would be more manuverable, only sacrificing lift hight.
Soo, are there after market FEL's that have shorter arms for the Kioti or Mahindra ?

Thanks,
Slack

 

[Toolguy]

Reach is important. So is lift height. You need both to build a pile or load a truck or trailer. Some tractors have more than others. Too much of both sacrifices weight capacity. On the other hand, for lifting heavy loads a forklift is best. Not much good for anything else, though. I think you will have to compare what is out there and get the one you like the best.

 

[CurlyDave]

As Toolguy says, lift height is important, and shorter arms mean less lift height.

Another consideration is that the first time you use a chain on your FEL to lift something heavy and it lifts up & then swings back toward your radiator, you will be grateful for a little extra length in the FEL arms.

 

[GinNB]

Grillguards should be required equipment on all FELs. Not just the rambumpers, but a good heavy mesh. Lifting with a short loader would put the dangling equipment right into any guard though.

Good question about the shorter loaders though. Even though the ones with longer lift arms are way more common, there should be specialized shorter ones out there for heavy pallet work (or whatever). That's usually when I run out of rear ballast even with a heavy mower on the back. Surprisingly, the rear lifted on my 105 when trying to lift an excavator bucket with a chain (no rear ballast though). Dealer tells me I'm rated for 3500lbs at the pins, 3000 at mid bucket (2500 real-world if I subtract the weight of the bucket). That'd presumably give me 2000 real-world pounds from the front of the bucket where the chain dangled. A shorter loader would help in cases like that.

 

[john_bud]

It's easier to make a loader with a looooong front overhang. It's harder on the tractor, less manuverable and has less lift cap (due to leverage). The shorter ones are typically taller above the hood and have longer top members to get the same lift height. (the back mount is often intrusive to the operator station.) This gives them worse sight lines. All depends on what you want. Many folks are super happy with the long overhang as it gives better sight to the work.


Have you tried Koyker, woods, bushog loaders?
jb

 

[Mickey_Fx]

IMO your concerns about weight transfer are well placed. If one were to give consideration on adding a FEL to their tractor it would serve them well to do the math on weight transfer. This will require weighing your tractor, front and back independently, the load rating for the front tires, wheels and possibly axle. Doing the math takes a litle time but isn't too difficult.

I bought my tractor with the FEL and hadn't given any consideration to load capacity. Later I decided to do the home work. My tractor has a relatively short wheel base and the nose sticks our fairly far. It turns out the bucket is a far away from the front axle as the rear axle is. It boils down to on my setup, for every lb in the bucket the front axle sees 2 lbs additional load.

For some tractors, it doesn't take too many lbs in the bucket before the tires or other front axle components are over their rated capacity.

IMO not breaking something on the front end is more important than lift height.

 

[ChuckinNH]

"It's easier to make a loader with a looooong front overhang. It's harder on the tractor, less manuverable and has less lift cap (due to leverage). The shorter ones are typically taller above the hood and have longer top members to get the same lift height. (the back mount is often intrusive to the operator station.) This gives them worse sight lines. All depends on what you want. Many folks are super happy with the long overhang as it gives better sight to the work."

Bingo! That, and, especially with smaller tractors, the impression a customer gets sitting in the seat in the dealer's lot is what sells tractors.

 

[Slackdaddy]

So,
are there any CUT's made like My Case 580 ?
I really would like a Kioti CK30 sized machine that is built like My 580
But I do not like the little tires on the Kubota BX's

Nick

 

[john_bud]

So,
are there any CUT's made like My Case 580 ?
I really would like a Kioti CK30 sized machine that is built like My 580
But I do not like the little tires on the Kubota BX's

Nick

Built like a 580? Whew! That's a tall order. Closest would be a Kubota L35 or the newer L39. They are both industrial tractors and are a full size tougher than the equivalent ag versions. Good machines. I am pretty sure the loaders are tight tucks also. (The industrial stuff is more built for utilization by certified equipment operators and not for first time owners. )

The smaller B21 is about the size of the BX, but in a full strength industrial version.

There are probably some versions of the Deere and NH tractors that fill the bill too.

 

[LBrown59]

Rather than looking for a way to shorten the feel arms to get the loader bucket closer to the front wheels I find I more often need a way to get the bucket to perform out further from the front wheels than it now does.
I find it difficult enough to keep the front wheels from dropping down over and embankment or down into a ditch when working out over them with the FEL.
I need more reach with the FEL not less.

Looking at most FEL's that come on CUT's (20-30HP range), the bucket is a good 3-4' out in front of the front tires.
If the FEL arms where shorter, and the bucket was up tight to the front tires (6-12" off) the FEL could lift more and the tractor would be more manuverable, only sacrificing lift hight.
Soo, are there after market FEL's that have shorter arms for the Kioti or Mahindra ?

Thanks,
Slack

 

[Casco1]

Looking at most FEL's that come on CUT's (20-30HP range), the bucket is a good 3-4' out in front of the front tires.
If the FEL arms where shorter, and the bucket was up tight to the front tires (6-12" off) the FEL could lift more and the tractor would be more manuverable, only sacrificing lift hight.

I read your post with interest. After today I have an opinion. I spent most of the day moving a month's worth of snowfall, about 18" wet and heavy, I used every inch of reach to get the new snow over last month's piles. I think I'll be happy to sacrifice some lift for reach. Only my opinion.

 

[john_bud]

Isn't it great they make multiple types for multiple uses? For everyone that wants it shorter, there is someone that want's it longer.

jb

 

[LBrown59]

I read your post with interest. After today I have an opinion. I spent most of the day moving a month's worth of snowfall, about 18" wet and heavy, I used every inch of reach to get the new snow over last month's piles. I think I'll be happy to sacrifice some lift for reach. Only my opinion.

I see it like this.
If you want more lift get a bigger tractor.

 

[LBrown59]

Isn't it great they make multiple types for multiple uses? For everyone that wants it shorter, there is someone that want's it longer.

jb

Put it to a vote-see which one wins.

 

[john_bud]

I see it like this.
If you want more lift get a bigger tractor.

While I do agree with that (!!), if the snow pile is too big -- maybe you should just pray for more global warming.

jb

 

[gboudreau]

I just bought a Kioti DK 40SE back in October and was looking between a couple of different manufactures. On of the things I was looking for was longer loader arms for the reach. If you are running a Case 580 and went to a tractor with shorter arms I think overall you would not be happy. I know the longer reach is one of the areas that kept me from buying a Massey/Agco tractor.