Not an expert, but I'll put my 2 cents here.

In my opinion, the fork lift mast itself would require a lot of steel and put a lot of weight on the front axle, even when empty. With all the rotation/extension framework and cylinders, more added weight. And without some extension device, you'll have limited reach due to the masts. Forklifts are also made with the weight bearing on the front axle and they steer with the rear. Unless you beef up the front axle and it's steering mechanism, the front end on your present tractor will probably limit your mast idea.

Just another thought, the masts in front would limit your view when driving. At least with our present FEL design, when you lower your bucket, you get a clear view of your path. Extending masts that can lower to clear your view would add a lot of weight to the framework.

Interesting idea though, I'll have to give it more thought.

 

I've seen the forklift style masts for the 3-point hitches but never considered one hanging off the front. I guess if you can figure out the weight/balance thing, there isn't any reason why it couldn't be done. I do know that the typical sit-down forklift has massive weight in the back end to counter the weight on the forks when then mast is all the way up.

 

All the ag and construction tractor companies made off-road fork lifts back in the 1950's/'60's. The tele-handlers of today have replaced them. The tractors were set up for reverse operation, forks & mast by the large non-steerable drive tires, small rear tires steered.

Early end loaders were rigid frame, rear steer also, but the buckets still attached to pivoting lift arms. Whether it's a small walk behind skid steer up to an articulated end loader the size of a four bedroom house, they all have buckets mounted onto pivoting lift arms.

Do a little research, and then I bet you'll think, "I bet there's a reason they do it THAT way!"

 

I've read through all of the comments and this is how I look at it. If you take away all of the mechanics of it (imagine just the bucket), the plain and simple of it is that the bucket moves up and down on an arc. The motion of a bucket doesn't need an arc does it? It needs to go up and down as far as I know. Once you get the up and down, then it needs to curl up to cradle or down to dump.

A mast style lift would only change the arc movement. Instead of going up and down on an arc and therefore eventually going closer to being over the hood, a mast style would stay above the original spot or if you have tilt like on a fork lift, slight forward or backwards of where it lifted off. I don't think a tilt on the mast will provide any benefit though.

Steering is a moot point. The bucket would still be at the front of the tractor and it would act just like it did with customary FEL lift arms that travel on an arc. The masts obstructing vision is a potential issue but I doubt it would be tough to maneuver.

Weight is almost a moot point as well. The bucket load and steel of the mast style FEL are still on the front tires and axle. The frame for a mast style lift would need to be tied into the mid-frame of the tractor as well as the front end with a bit of triangulation and structure. The load lifted would be in exactly the same spot as a conventional FEL.

So far, I don't see why it won't work.

 

Look at any forklift and it has the big tires on the front and small on the back. Its designed to have the weight on the front axle. A FEL mounts behind the front axle and transfers weight to the back. I do not see how a mast could be built on the front that gets enough weight to the rear. I have seen forklift masts that mount on the 3pt hitch, they seem to work ok, with the right ballast.
Another thing I've noticed that the mast on most forklifts is very close to the ground this would not be good on a tractor that sees rough terrian.

One more point, how would you work the curl on the bucket to be able to have the same breakout force for digging?

 

The weight isn't actually on the back tires with a tractor mounted FEL. The weight is ahead of the front axle and therefore is on the front axle (pivot point). As you put more weight into the bucket, the back tires will get lighter on the ground. It doesn't matter where it's connected to the frame, it acts like a solid entity. The only aspect that matters with frame connection is the strength of the area it attaches to. A regular FEL will start to transfer weight to the back tires as you lift higher and start to come over the hood and therefore front axle.

Dedicated fork lifts for rough terrain have large tires near the forks because as you load it up, you need them and you need to be able to get through the dirt. A tractor with a FEL would benefit from larger tires on the front as well as them being driven. A tractor is a general purpose piece of machinery though. Lots of compromises. Large tires on the front and small on the rear will compromise other attachments.

The mast doesn't need to be close to the ground. You can theoretically leave the mast as high off the ground as you want. You just need to extend the bucket mechanism down to meet the ground.

Not sure what you mean about the breakout force. The curl on the bucket would be exactly the same as a conventional FEL.

 

Breakout force is the amount of weight a loader will lift from ground level. Typically it's 25-35+% greater that the lifting capacity to full height.

Most end loaders are used to load trucks, trailers, spreaders, rail cars, you name it! The ability to be able to dump several feet ahead of the furthermost part of the loader is required. The bigger the loader, the bigger the truck/trailer it will load and the farther away it will have to dump. Having run all types of loaders, the ability to dump further away is much better than having to run into the side of the truck/trailer to load the truck evenly side-to-side.

I could never understand why people would think filling a loader bucket transfered weight to the rear of a loader either. In effect, the whole loader is a Class 1 lever.

 

Gotcha on the breakout force. I was thinking that it must be a torquing force as in when you get the lip under something to then lever it, aka break it out such as asphalt when breaking up a road.

The "loader" aspect was topmost in my mind when I was thinking of this design. Since the conventional FEL arcs back and almost on top of the hood, I thought that this would be a better way to do it. Tough to say until it all falls out on paper and then real life though.

 

OK, I'll bite... What advantage do you see with a mass type FEL?
We know there would be some disadvantages such as weight and less visibility.
The amount of steel and a large multistage cylinder would make it MUCH more expensive. In fact you would pay more for the cylinder than most entire loaders would cost.
If vertical lift is what your after, take a look at some of the bobcat loaders on their skid steers. They have a special linkage on their loader arms that they are quit proud of, that gives them nearly vertical lift.

 

I don't agree that it will be heavier and it would be a lot easier to build than a conventional FEL. After all, it's pretty much cam followers and Box/C-Channels. I was toying with building an FEL for my small GTs (455) and when I used to design machinery, I would always throw away whatever is conventional thought and refine the project to the essence of what is trying to be accomplished i.e. the bucket has to go up and down and rotate.

Hey, it kept me employed in some pretty cool stuff as an inventor/developer. I know a lot of people dislike the term "out of the box" but that kind of defines me. That's why I see an advantage, whether perceived or real, who knows. I don't do "normal".

True that multistage cylinders are expensive but who says it has to be multistage? There are lots of other ways to get range of motion out of hydraulics.

I don't know if this is a good idea or not. It's just a bit of a brain storm right now. Might turn into nothing in the end.

 

What makes you think I'm upset?
IF your are just thinking about something that will lift a couple feet for your 445, then it shouldn't be too hard.

 

You need to Google "four-in-one bucket". That is what you built. The design was first built by DROTT Manufacturing in Wisconsin. Was put on an International Harvester crawler tractor. Couldn't find a date on the first one, Drott started in 1916, but the 4-in-1 bucket was common by 1930-1940.

The loader bucket does arc back towards the hood of the tractor it's mounted on but I know of NO situations where a loader dumps on the hood. The bucket actually arcs forward the first 4-5-6 feet the bucket raises. Please re-read my post about loading trucks. Summer job I had between my Sophmore & Junior year in college I worked for the township road commissioner. I chipped and sanded roads the Boss and my buddy oiled. I had to get them chipped ASAP after they were oiled. I had to FLY! Took me about 4-5 minutes to load 22,000# of chips in a 16 ft spreader box, six buckets on the Case 530 Construction King TLB. I had to reach the center of the box to get that much weight in the box. Took them 10-12 minutes to oil a mile of road, took me at least an hour to chip it. If the Boss had a good day oiling I knew I was in for a long day!

 

You need to Google "four-in-one bucket". That is what you built. The design was first built by DROTT Manufacturing in Wisconsin. Was put on an International Harvester crawler tractor. Couldn't find a date on the first one, Drott started in 1916, but the 4-in-1 bucket was common by 1930-1940.

I only wish that I built something like that. I tried to grapple something with it out of curiosity but it really wasn't built for that. It is actually a better version (I think) of the bucket scoop that JD builds. Mine will attach to a 54 blade without drilling any holes. Theirs is used to pick up light stuff like mulch where mine you can run into a pile of soil at top speed. The other thing that mine does is rotate forward 8" to provide a really big nearly 7 cu. ft. of bucket for holding lots of lighter materials. It only has a 400 pound capacity but gets some of the work done that I need it to do.

 

It would look HORRIBLE!!!:lol:

 

Wouldn't it be cheaper to buy a used forklift and either use it or modify it to meet your needs?

 

Probably not. Like I said at the start this is kind of a thought exercise but might turn into something for me personally. Not sure if it would be ugly as one poster said but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.:laugh: My trade is Tool & Die so I can build almost anything out of metal (wood is a whole other story:banghead. As far as cost is concerned, labour is free, parts and steel aren't. My Plucket cost me about $150 due to having to have the steel sheared and rolled. Everything else was either scraps or my own time.

Besides, I have four 4x5 tractors so I need something to keep them occupied and feeling worthwhile.:good2: Also, if it came down to buying something, it would be a real FEL.

 

That is some nice fab work sir. :drinks:

 

Back in the dark ages of tractor development, the early 1900's, 1910's, hydraulics were in their Infancy. Loaders & blades were raised by steel cable with all kinds of pulleys, drums, shafts, and brakes to allow them to work at all. Most common design was the lift arms pivoting from around the rear axle and the mast pivoting from it's bottom mounting point and moving forward/back as the lift arms raised.

Do an internet search on "CASWELL LOADER", was a crude loader built in the 1940's, '50's. Large lift cylinder mounted vertically and two chains ran over pulleys to raise the loader arms & bucket. The lift arms followed a curved rail which stabilized them as the raised, and the rail also protected the large lift cylinder. It was better than a manure fork and shovel for most farm uses but that doesn't mean it was a good design. It's impossible to push with a chain, so no down force, when driving over rough ground the bucket would bounce up/down, which always put a ton of dust in the air which blew back in your face. The first loader I had any experience with was a Caswell. The company was located in Cherokee, Iowa
So they were somewhat common in the Midwest.

Dad replaced his Caswell loader with a Stanhoist loader around 1960. It still had a trip bucket like the Caswell but had 2-way cylinders which allowed the FARMALL M it was mounted on to be quickly converted to live hydraulic and the usability of the loader increased several magnitudes. BTW, the M & Stanhoist loader are out in my shop after all these years. The pipe frame proved to not be as strong for extended service as the tubular frames of today's loaders, but the tractor/loader still gets called on for loader duty occasionally.

I guess I have to say that loaders are designed the way they're ALL built for a reason. They work best that way. Fork lifts are designed differently because they do a different job in different situations and they work best built that way. The skid steer loader was created and became popular in the 1960's because it bridged the two functions, but borrows the most design features from loaders.

 

It's impossible to push with a chain, so no down force

You can push with a chain....you just have to weld the links solid:mocking:

 

techie, I say go for it. my jd model 50 was produced in 1953, it was bought 5 miles from me and takened about 20 miles from the dealer. now I don't know if jd offered the better loaders at that time or not. the man that bought it put a after market loader on it. it 2 cylinders with cables and a pulley at top, like powerstroke said, no down pressure, but no different than running a bulldozer with no tilt on blade, just use ur imagination to get level, same for loader, still have all my parts and loader sitting in the bottom, just hate to sell it, took all parts off when I got the 2520 with the loader. sorry no pics of it. my youngest son copied all our old pics onto a ah u know them little square disks don't know right name!! and we cannot plug that in these new computer to burn a cd. I'm sure it can be done, its just been on back burner for years because of sickness. well good luck big jim:bigthumb:

 

my youngest son copied all our old pics onto a ah u know them little square disks don't know right name!! and we cannot plug that in these new computer to burn a cd. I'm sure it can be done, its just been on back burner for years because of sickness. well good luck big jim:bigthumb:

Hey Big Jim, I think they called them a Limp Disk - no, that's not right. Maybe it was Droopy Disk? I remember now; Floppy Disk. Yeah, that's it.:lol: Floppy Disk!

 

We had an old Cat bulldozer with a mast on the front end. It used cables to raise and lower the blade.

Reasons against a mast:

• Less reach for dumping into trailers/trucks
• Heavier
• More complex
• More expensive
• Raises the center of gravity (very bad when the front axle is on a pivot)
• No down force
• Not well suited for pushing/ramming
• No real need for it when there are already self leveling bucket loaders available
• Slower
• Impairs visibility