Yes it is, which imho means the oem prob should have addressed it a very long time ago, cost would have been relatively minor to have used a beefier ram shaft, who doesnt use a tractor to back drag
My new (to me) CAT 977 has cylinders as big as my leg. It will take an awful lot to bend them. Although I'm sure someone has figured out how to do it.
Actually, the little tiny John Deere 440ic with the ATCO loader looks like the loader is built pretty tough. But, that is a bit more industrial than most tractor loaders.
What I've found is that front end loaders seem to be sized to the tractor. In particular for lifting. So my Ford 1715 seems to have very weak lifting. But, that is likely in part safety. Don't ever lift anything that you don't have enough weight in the rear end to handle. And, more
ballast, more lifting, something is bound to break.
Back dragging puts the entire engine hp into the bucket. I can see how it may not be designed to handle it.
Pushing stretches the cylinders, while back dragging compresses them (and folds them into a pretzel).
One could reverse the cylinder orientation so they're closed when the bucket is straight down, and open when the bucket is curled to its maximum lifting angle. That would help some for this specific instance of bulldozing either direction. Although, if the loader is primarily designed for pushing or lifting, then having the cylinders to stretch on lifting is probably much better.
