Top and Tilt Regrets?

slowrev · Jun 17, 2004

Bill,
Do try it. If you don't like it you can give it to me, wouldn't want you to keep it around cluttering up your place if you did not like it /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

jinman · Jun 17, 2004

( I am thinking of using two tilt cylinders, operated by independent control valves, so I guess that would even be better...the thought being that when both 4" stroke cylinders are pulled fully in the 3PH will be at about the normal mid point...also plan on leaving the cylinders on the tractor all the time...
)

Henro, I would strongly recommend you reconsider putting hydraulic cylinders on both sidelinks. Not only is it not needed, you will have another control to have to "mess with" when trying to get the adjustment right. I'd say go ahead and get three remote valves, but only one HTL and one HSL. IF you are not happy with only one, you can add the other later.

Remember, a small adjustement at the sidelink is multiplied a lot by the time it gets to the end of a blade. If the blade is tilted too much, you will tend to dig in and kink your lift arms due to the excessive stress. You just don't need a lot of movement in the sidelink to make your blade do "magic tricks." /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

...just my opinion.

JerryG · Jun 17, 2004

Henro,
If you are thinking about two tilt cylinder, who about running a dead line from the in-side of one cylinder to the out-side of the other. If you do it this way, the tilt center is always the same. Plus, you only need on valve for both.

_RaT_ · Jun 17, 2004

I agree Jim. After having used double tilts on Industrial loaders for years, I'm sticking too a single tilt. There are a few times being able to tilt in the opposite direction has benefits, but having a single is bonus enough and the ability to have things in aligment are easier. The lower links can also be placed at such odd angles it raises fears of lower destruction.

OkieG · Jun 17, 2004

Remember, a small adjustement at the sidelink is multiplied a lot by the time it gets to the end of a blade.

Right! I love hydraulics. But, since 99.9% of the time I want my implement level with the tractor, I opted not to install a hyd. side link (hsl) at all. I figured the rare instance (for me) that side tilt would be helpful is more than out-weighed by my desire for level. My feel is that with a hsl you will just be waving at level as you go past it either too high or too low. My tractor has 3 sets of OEM and non-OEM valves and cylinders. All suffer from drift down to some degree or another, so once I got my implement level, it would need tweaking before too long.

Anyway, I'm not trying to talk anyone out of anything. I've never had the pleasure of trying a hsl, so maybe I don't know what I'm missing. My comments are just conjecture. And if you're going to do it, doing the install along with the toplink makes sense. I am just a small voice saying that I could have installed a hsl, decided not to, and no regrets so far. Of course, I'm always looking for a reason to install more goodies. So, let me know if I'm off base.

Now the hyd toplink is another story. Unbelieveably good decision for my tractor.

OkieG

Henro · Jun 17, 2004

Jinman, Jerryg, RaT, and OkieG,

I am glad you picked up on the two-cylinder idea for tilt. I really do want feedback on this idea before I spring for the extra valve and cylinder.

I realize that the one cylinder can do a lot. But two four inch cylinders could do the same as one eight-inch cylinder on one side. And maybe not flex the system as much.

But more than that, I don't want to keep taking off and replacing my tilt cylinders. I have a backhoe and use it a lot. So if I have tilt, I want that to be there all the time, even though it would never be used with my backhoe. Guess I am lazy! /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Now the advantage of two cylinders with check valves somewhwere in the system, that would prevent drift, or at least really minimize it, is that if both were retracted the 3PH would be leveled wothout any need to measure or look at anything.

I think this would be an advatage with my backhoe, which is a Kubota unit and attaches to the 3PH.

So I am getting close to ordering what I need to make what I think I want happen. Please do your best to shoot holes in my logic, as putting my tail between my legs will be easier than crying about the money I spent buying parts that I don't need or want... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Gary_in_Indiana · Jun 18, 2004

"But two four inch cylinders could do the same as one eight-inch cylinder on one side. And maybe not flex the system as much." 

Bill,

How about combining that idea (which I happen to like) wiith Jerry G's idea about;

 "running a dead line from the in-side of one cylinder to the out-side of the other. If you do it this way, the tilt center is always the same. Plus, you only need on valve for both."

The combination of those two sound like they might be everything you want. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Be sure to let us know what you decide to do and include lots of pictures and a thorough description. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

jinman · Jun 18, 2004

( How about combining that idea (which I happen to like) wiith Jerry G's idea )

The only problem I have with linking two cylinders together is that the fluid passing between cylinders is trapped. How do you initially fill that area without getting trapped air? If there are leaks, how do you replenish the fluid? For that system, the trapped fluid is the "gotcha" in my opinion.

Two 4" cylinders... hmm... If it doesn't work well and you take one of the cylinders off, what do you have? You have a single HSL that only adjusts 4". If you use two 8" cylinders and it doesn't work out, at least you still can fall back to a single 8" cylinder and have the other as a spare or sell it on TBN. I'm thinking the possibility would make me go to 8" cylinders and just be careful not to overadjust. That way I always have a "fall-back" plan of action.

Those are just my thoughts. I understand Bill's reasons, but I keep thinking about keeping those cylinders attached while the backhoe is on and I keep getting lost in all the hoses and connections. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

OkieG · Jun 18, 2004

But two four inch cylinders could do the same as one eight-inch cylinder on one side. 
At first glance, your thought sounds somewhat plausible. But, the only way two 4s will equal an 8 re: total amount of tilt available, is if one 4" cylinder is fully extended and the other fully collapsed when the implement is level.

OkieG

MadReferee · Jun 18, 2004

Two tilt cylinders is expensive $$$ overkill in my opinion.

On the B-series the 3pt linkage geometry limits the tilt to about 3" in each direction. My TCC cylinder with its 5" stroke gives 2.5" of tilt. This is plenty of tilt (see this pic) and is more than enough to do anything that will ever come up on your property. If you need more tilt then you need a different machine!!

The real key though is to get the correct size tilt cylinder. A cylinder with a 4" stroke and a 10"-11" retracted length BEFORE adding the end forks would be ideal for the B-series. My experiments indicate that this would give pretty much an even tilt in both directions.

The TCC cylinder is generic and they only change ends for different tractors. Its retracted length is 4" too long for the B-series so I now have a situation where I had to lengthen the forks on the non cylinder side. This has the effect of making the max tilt in one direction less than the other with the limiting factor being the 3pt geometry. However, it is still plenty of tilt (see next pic).

Bottom line, based on my experience, is that a single, correctly sized tilt cylinder is the way to go. I can see no advantage to dual tilt cylinders. Adjusting the tilt cylinder to make the implement level takes 2 seconds and one lever.

Don't waste your money on a second cylinder. Spend it on beer instead.

MadReferee · Jun 18, 2004

This picture shows the tilt in the non cylinder direction. It is not quite that of the other direction (see previous picture).

Henro · Jun 18, 2004

Gary,

Interesting idea Jerry G has. I don't think I would do that for the reasons Jinman stated, but I like the concept! /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Jinman,

One problem with my B2910 Kubota is that it is on the small side and I doubt I could make an 8" cylinder work if I used one, and still keep the factory-designed relationship(geometry) between the various parts of the 3PH.

I had thought that using 2 cylinders might also give me more lift, but it turns out that with them both retracted, I would have about the same max lift that I have now. I guess I could get more drop with both extended, but going lower has never be a need so far. I am hoping to do the install in a way that will keep the hoses under control and out of the way...if I decide to go with two tilt cylinders...wish me good luck!

OkieG,

That is exactly correct. AND an advantage over one cylinder I think. Normally, both cylinders would be retracted fully and that would put my lower arms level at about the mid point of the manually adjustable lift rod that I have in place now. Depending on which way I want the tilt to go, I would extend only one cylinder. To put the lift arms back to level, I would retract that same cylinder.

It seems like with only one tilt cylinder one either has to guess or have some kind of pretty good indicator of where level is. With two cylinders the 3PH could be put back to level, the same every time with one's eyes closed...or so it seems to me when I think about it. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Henro · Jun 18, 2004

MadFeferee,

I am glad you are advising against the two cylinders as this will help me think through the idea fully! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Let me reply to some of the points you raised, as this will help my thoughts gell...I still am up in the air about the two cylinder idea, but I am tending to lean towards doing it at the moment...

 On the B-series the 3pt linkage geometry limits the tilt to about 3" in each direction. 

I have not measured this yet, but I have read, in one of the threads I have bookmarked, that one B2910 owner has been happy with a single 4" tilt cylinder. At first thought this looked like if one would work, two should work just as well, but that may not be the case. I will have to check that out...it could be that a 0~4" movement on one side or the other is not the same as +/- 2" movement on one side and no movement on the other... /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

I have a backhoe that I put on and off a lot so I was thinking that if I had a setup where it was easy to make the lower arms level, and the same elevation (with respect to the top link attach point) as the fixed lift rod on the tractor does, it would be a good thing. I don't want to keep removing a tilt cylinder and replacing it with the manual lift rod every time I use the backhoe. If I had to do this then I would forget about the tilt option...

The real key though is to get the correct size tilt cylinder. A cylinder with a 4" stroke and a 10"-11" retracted length BEFORE adding the end forks would be ideal for the B-series. My experiments indicate that this would give pretty much an even tilt in both directions.


Those demensions are attainable using a Prince cylinder...which brings up the thought of using two cylinders with less than 4" stroke, and gaining a little 3PH lift when both cylinders are retracted. My Rhino PHD auger tip is very close to the ground when transporting with the 3PH all the way up...for example.

 The TCC cylinder is generic and they only change ends for different tractors. Its retracted length is 4" too long for the B-series 

That could be a problem when hooking the Kubota backhoe to the 3PH arms or it may not be at all. By buying the right lenght cylinders and welding the ends on myself I should be able to duplicate existing B2910 component lengths I hope...

 Bottom line, based on my experience, is that a single, correctly sized tilt cylinder is the way to go. I can see no advantage to dual tilt cylinders. 

Here are the advantages I see:

Easy to put 3PH level and exactly the same every time.

More than enough tilt functionality while at the same time maintaining factory designed geometry, which may be important with a Kubota 3PH backhoe.

Possible to go with shorter stroke cylinders (less than 4") and gain added 3PH lift

Downside:

Cost of extra control valve section and hydraulic cylinder. More hoses to deal with too...

_RaT_ · Jun 18, 2004

Bill, what your suggesting is certainly interesting to consider. I line myself with Jim's comment about the cylinders working 180 deg.'s in series. It seems it would be a lesson in frustration. My take on the tilt cylinder is that I use it infrequently and I probably cut and move more dirt then most folks. 90% or greater percent of the time I have the tilt cylinder fully retracted which puts on the same plane as the tires. My most useful purpose on the tilt is for cutting ditches or more accurately swales in a landscape. It works well on my Harley rake too. There are plenty of times that the little 8 inches or so of travel is not nearly enough, but a quick look at the configuration out back clearly shows the limits of 3 pt setups. Your idea seems like a great way to go if, IF, you could find that happy medium of having the two cylinders working perfectly in conjunction, have no oil leak by the seals inside the cylinders and not have to fight getting the whole thing back to a level plane with the tractor. An electronic angle determining cylinder/valve is needed, but I am not familiar with such but don't doubt they exist after seeming all the new ways the dozers are cutting the hills around here with incredibly accuracy by wireless communication via things like GPS and other fancy smancy equipment. Rat...

MadReferee · Jun 18, 2004

Bill,
My experiments and measurements were done assuming only one tilt cylinder and when in a level condition the cylinder was extended 50% of its stroke. The 3" of tilt corresponds to moving the cylinder 3" in either direction after being centered. There is more to the tilting than just moving the arms in one direction. Other factors include the movement range of the swivel in the ball socket, length of the top link, length of the side links, and the 3pt pins/top link spacing.

By using a single cylinder that has a 10"-11" retracted length BEFORE adding the end forks and a 4" stroke you will be able to closely approximate the Kubota factory geometry and still get more than adequate tilt.

Making the lower arms level with a tilt link has been, in my experience, easy. I use 1/4" hoses that restrict flow and I can very quickly and smoothly level the implement with a short stroke of the spool lever. It does not have to be EXACT, just within a 1/4" or so. As for gaining additional lift height, that would depend on the length of the top link since the 3pt lift arms can only go so high themselves. By shortening the side links you can only go so far before the top link tops out when the 3pt is at max height. Its all in the geometry.

BTW, I did a leak down test yesterday of the tilt and top link cylinders. After 12 hours there was no noticeable leak down which tells me that the check valves were functioning as advertised.

It would be interesting to see if your 2 cylinder strategy is really an advantage. At a cost of about $200+ including spool, hoses, fittings, extra cylinder, forks, etc. I would find it hard to believe that it could be justified on an ROI basis. I would rather spend the money on another implement, like a spreader. BTW, with an additional spool, the Prince SV valve will not fit in the same position as mine is. You really have to look at the big picture here as mounting space must be factored in along with hose configuration and who knows what else.

jinman · Jun 18, 2004

( One problem with my B2910 Kubota is that it is on the small side and I doubt I could make an 8" cylinder work if I used one, and still keep the factory-designed relationship(geometry) between the various parts of the 3PH.
)

Bill, I guess I should have been more generic in my response and not said an 8" cylinder. What I should have said is that I'd suggest buying two of the normal sized cylinders used for your tractor. If that's 4", 5", or 6", that's what I'd use because if you see that two are overkill, you can go with one and sell the other...probably make somebody very happy. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

If I was seriously considering getting my blade level to the tractor, I think I'd buy two little cheap line levels. Glue one to the tractor and one to the boxblade where you could see both and then adjust until they are both the same. You don't have to be on level ground as long as both levels are at the same reading. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

_RaT_ · Jun 18, 2004

Except that line levels will already be at there furthest most position (out of level) on even the slightest of slopes. A tiltmeter type level would be needed. Good point too Jim on the extend lenght. Each tractor will need to be appropriately sized for the extentend/retract length. Variables such as where they attach to the lower links will affect what length is needed. I believe mine is about 8". The bore is large on tilt cylinders because the leverage ratio is pretty high and a strong cylinder is often needed in order to accomodate it.

MadDog · Jun 18, 2004

Bill, I'm not sure that I understand why you want to use cylinders on both of the lift arms.

If it is to be able to tilt an attachment in both directions, you can still accomplish this with only one tilt cylinder by setting it to 1/2 of its stroke and then adjusting your other lift link so that the lift arms are both level. You can then get tilt in either direction by running the tilt cylinder stroke either in or out from its midpoint.

If you are concerned that you may not get enough tilt to your attachment by this means, I agree with MadRef that it seems quite adequate to me. Since my tilt cylinder has a stroke of 5", it means that you can get 2 1/2" of adjustment in each direction which, as pointed out earlier, muliplies considerably between the lower arms and the end of an attachment like a boxblade. If you figure that the end of the lift arm is not much more than 1 to 1 1/2 feet from the attachment centerline (the toplink) dropping 2 1/2" over that distance is multiplied to 5 to 7" at the end of a 60" boxblade, which is quite a bit of tilt (about a 1 in 10 incline). I doubt that there are any likely applications where you will need more than that.

I also agree with others about the ease of leveling. I thought, when I first had the TCC, that I would make a little guage so that I could set the tilt cylinder to exactly 1/2 of its stroke, but I have found that it is so easy to adjust by eye that it isn't needed.

Whichever way you go, best of luck with it. I know you will have much fun designing and building it.

MadReferee · Jun 18, 2004

Ok, Bill.

It's now 2 Mad's against 1 Henro. Ready to submit?

Henro · Jun 19, 2004

Bill, I'm not sure that I understand why you want to use cylinders on both of the lift arms. 

I think what started me considering this was a desire to maintain the existing 3PH geometry when the implement is level...

It looks like a cylinder with 4" stroke and ends to match the original equipment would have about the same length as the stock fixed lift rod on a B2910 Kubota. At mid point on the stroke, and with the adjustable lift rod on the other side and extended 2," the net result would be a 2" lost of lift on the 3PH. I don't know if this matters or not in the practical sense...but it feels like it should.

Looking at my backhoe yesterday when I put it on, I don't think 2 or 3 inches difference would have any effect on it at all, so the backhoe concern seems to be a non issue.

The T&T is not on the front burner yet, so I still have time to think about what I will do... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I really appreciate everyone's advice.