Somebody explain this.... CK20....

[shoppintractors]

<font color="blue"> why? Leverage? </font>

Yep, Take a five gallon bucket of water and pick it up by your side. Now take a 20" long stick, hook the bucket on the end...hold this out in front of you and try to lift the bucket....heavier now? Chances are you'll need to decrease the amount of weight in the bucket to be able to lift it. Same principles apply to a front end loader.

Don

 

[Brian_Stephens]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( <font color="blue"> why? Leverage? </font>

Yep, Take a five gallon bucket of water and pick it up by your side. Now take a 20" long stick, hook the bucket on the end...hold this out in front of you and try to lift the bucket....heavier now? Chances are you'll need to decrease the amount of weight in the bucket to be able to lift it. Same principles apply to a front end loader.

Don )</font>

yes but the 20' stick weighs something I can understand that (that would equate to my foks) , and the pole itself deflects that will also make it heavier (the forks should have minimal deflection) .. There is no additional mechanical advantage on the forks (assuming they are flat) and there is no additional gravity other then the forks?

Again not a big deal... The engineering behind it is making me go hmmmm....

 

[rback33]

shoppin....we have delved off into a tangent here *LOL* You are right there as to how to acheive the most breakaway capabilites of a loader. The only point I was trying to make was that, from a purely spec related standpoint, there is not correlation of roll back power and breakout force. They are two completely different measurements. I have personally taken calls from people who sell these loaders that believe the breakout force is the roll back at the ground. It is not. Then they get nervous because they have been telling their customers that their loader won't do what he had told him it could. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[Woodbeef]

Ok let me try again......

Not sure where you are getting your ratings at,but from the Kioti Implement & Attachment guide(which claims loader can be equipped with QT). Lift at pins is 770lbs for the KL120 loader ......A 48" bucket weighs 168lbs,54" 190lbs for this loader.

Mounting the forks in the bucket will cost capacity,plus puts the forks out further than boom mounting,which also costs lift capacity.

Talk to Terry and see if he has any suggestions for a plate to mount the forks to,instead of the bucket. Is anybody from Kioti listening?????Time for a QT setup here!!!!!

 

[shoppintractors]

<font color="blue"> Lift at pins is 770lbs for the KL120 loader </font>

Those specs have been updated by Kioti. You'll find the most current information at www.Kiotitractor.com The specs are now measured with ballast on the three point hitch (600 Lbs ballast for the CK20). The 770 Lbs was with no ballast on the three point hitch. The 150 lb bucket weight was an approximation, as noted.

Don

 

[Woodbeef]

True,the ballast column is empty in the brochure,but has 700lbs on up for the other tractors. That makes for quite a bit of extra lift then.

 

[pilonidal]

I am impressed with the lift of my CK20. Some ballast weight would really get the full potential out of it. I have a huge pile of subsoil/clay left from the excavation of my basement. The middle of the pile is really wet. You could mold and fire a vase out of the stuff. I run my loader into it and roll back the bucket and lift and come out with a full scoop, unless I hit one those Pennsylvania icebergs (looks like a small rock on top, but it's a **** boulder) then my tail end lifts up. The bottom center of the pile is lifting my tail end up also. That stuff is so thick and heavy. The loader lifts the rear of my tractor, that has to mean something. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif