Lesson learned... Don't use your bucket as a bulldozer 😅. Now how to get more curl travel out of this Wagner?

[K5_489]

I'm a dolt, I know it

Was pulling/moving some brush around the property, thought I was clever by dropping the bucket down to push a pile of brush farther back because I didn't want to drop the rear rake to get the blade....worked great, until it didn't

I rarely use this as a loader (really just tends to be a mobile crane for me), but the few times I have, the one annoyance I've found is that I have to lift the bucket quite high to keep material in it, as the full curl back position still leaves the bottom parallel to the ground.

Is there some relatively simple way to move some mounts around to get to curl back farther? I know it's just simple geometry, but I'm not sure just what the geometry should be...

 

[Bob Bancroft]

I'm a dolt, I know it

Was pulling/moving some brush around the property, thought I was clever by dropping the bucket down to push a pile of brush farther back because I didn't want to drop the rear rake to get the blade....worked great, until it didn't

I rarely use this as a loader (really just tends to be a mobile crane for me), but the few times I have, the one annoyance I've found is that I have to lift the bucket quite high to keep material in it, as the full curl back position still leaves the bottom parallel to the ground.

Is there some relatively simple way to move some mounts around to get to curl back farther? I know it's just simple geometry, but I'm not sure just what the geometry should be...

View attachment 6166

Would a shorter cylinder still give you enough dump?

 

[bmaverick]

I'm a dolt, I know it

Was pulling/moving some brush around the property, thought I was clever by dropping the bucket down to push a pile of brush farther back because I didn't want to drop the rear rake to get the blade....worked great, until it didn't

I rarely use this as a loader (really just tends to be a mobile crane for me), but the few times I have, the one annoyance I've found is that I have to lift the bucket quite high to keep material in it, as the full curl back position still leaves the bottom parallel to the ground.

Is there some relatively simple way to move some mounts around to get to curl back farther? I know it's just simple geometry, but I'm not sure just what the geometry should be...

View attachment 6166

I see a welding job in the near distant future. Just do the weld correctly and it will last decades.

 

[stevieb49829]

Now that its loose, do your geometry work. Lift it barely off the ground and see how far the bucket will curl before it runs into an obstruction. See if moving the plate with the pin will get you more curl with the cylinder fully retracted.

 

[K5_489]

Would a shorter cylinder still give you enough dump?

I'm thinking no, for two reasons - full extension puts the bottom about vertical, and given where the pivot point is on the bucket now, I think going shorter would just try to the pull the mount off the bucket.

 

[K5_489]

Now that its loose, do your geometry work. Lift it barely off the ground and see how far the bucket will curl before it runs into an obstruction. See if moving the plate with the pin will get you more curl with the cylinder fully retracted.

I can easily move it farther up the bucket, and get more curl that way, and I have plenty of room that way, but then it seems like it will bind when dumping, by way of the rod hitting the bucket as it curls down.

I feel like there's more to this than merely moving the pin cylinder pin, I'm just not sure how.

 

[Jim.ME]

I can easily move it farther up the bucket, and get more curl that way, and I have plenty of room that way, but then it seems like it will bind when dumping, by way of the rod hitting the bucket as it curls down.

I feel like there's more to this than merely moving the pin cylinder pin, I'm just not sure how.

What you have is common for old loader buckets. The shape of the bucket comes into play as well as where the cylinder mount is. It will be hard to make any significant change by only moving the cylinder connection point on the bucket. Rotating the upper mount ear up a couple inches might help.

If you try to push with the bucket curled (rolled back with the cutting edge higher than the heel at the loader arms) it will just ride up over things even with double acting cylinders and you likely have single acting cylinders which ride up even quicker.

The metal of torn eye, on the rod of your cylinder, appears to be thin. it wouldn't hurt if that was at least 5/16 or 3/8 thick. It may just be the picture but from blowing the first picture up it appears that the eye has been cracked for a time.

If you want to push with the bucket in the dumped position, you should fix the stops on the bucket that should come against the gussets that are under the lift arms. They need to contact before the dump cylinder is fully extended to prevent pulling on the fully extended cylinder.

 

[stevieb49829]

As Jim says! People have bent cylinder rods when the rods are the only thing restraining the bucket while dozering, instead of having effective stops on the bucket/frame. Without some different levers involved, or a shorter stroke on the dump cylinder, I think you are just about at the limits of the geometry. John Deere got past that problem with more brackets, levers and pivot points. My JD 510 loader is an example of that advanced engineering. That is not an advertisement for JD. I'm a Massey Harris kind of guy (with a JD loader). steve

 

[BarnyardEngineering]

I can easily move it farther up the bucket, and get more curl that way, and I have plenty of room that way, but then it seems like it will bind when dumping, by way of the rod hitting the bucket as it curls down.

I feel like there's more to this than merely moving the pin cylinder pin, I'm just not sure how.

I don't think there's a way you can get what you want with what you have. At least not easily.

That bucket was not designed for hydraulic dump to begin with. It's a trip bucket, modified for hydraulic dump and as-is, is probably the best compromise of range and function.

To get the bucket to tilt back, you need to move BOTH the tilt pin AND the bottom pivot pins up around the back curvature of the bucket. There is no free lunch. Moving the bucket pins up like that will reduce your overall lift height and reduce your dump angle, BUT you will retain the range of motion.

The only way to get more range of motion is to introduce complex linkages like you see on an industrial loader bucket.

 

[K5_489]

If you want to push with the bucket in the dumped position, you should fix the stops on the bucket that should come against the gussets that are under the lift arms. They need to contact before the dump cylinder is fully extended to prevent pulling on the fully extended cylinder.

It wasn't a case so much of wanting that function as it was more of I got lazy, and paid the price for it. I had been dragging piles to one corner of the property, lifting the rake, then reversing over the pile, eventually ending up with multiple rows that I then pushed forward with the bucket in the dump position.

I didn't want to constantly be swapping the rake back and forth with the blade to do this... Which clearly wasn't the best idea

Even after the repairs, I won't be doing this again.

 

[K5_489]

I don't think there's a way you can get what you want with what you have. At least not easily.

That bucket was not designed for hydraulic dump to begin with. It's a trip bucket, modified for hydraulic dump and as-is, is probably the best compromise of range and function.

To get the bucket to tilt back, you need to move BOTH the tilt pin AND the bottom pivot pins up around the back curvature of the bucket. There is no free lunch. Moving the bucket pins up like that will reduce your overall lift height and reduce your dump angle, BUT you will retain the range of motion.

The only way to get more range of motion is to introduce complex linkages like you see on an industrial loader bucket.

Near as I can tell, it's a Wagner WM-3 loader (ID tag long since went unreadable) which originally came equipped with hydraulic dump, though the dump rod may have been replaced at some point as it doesn't match what is pictured in the WM-3 manual. Cylinder is the same design and mounting style, but the rod end looks much beefier in the manual diagrams.

Though I suppose it's certainly possible that Wagner merely modified existing trip buckets to work hydraulically.

I would be absolutely OK with losing some lift height at the bucket. I've never had the bucket more than about 5 feet up anyways, and it clears something like 10 feet fully raised. I can't even imagine a situation where I would ever need the bucket that high up.

 

[K5_489]

As Jim says! People have bent cylinder rods when the rods are the only thing restraining the bucket while dozering, instead of having effective stops on the bucket/frame. Without some different levers involved, or a shorter stroke on the dump cylinder, I think you are just about at the limits of the geometry. John Deere got past that problem with more brackets, levers and pivot points. My JD 510 loader is an example of that advanced engineering. That is not an advertisement for JD. I'm a Massey Harris kind of guy (with a JD loader). steve

After googling JD 510, the images make it much more clear as to what I'm after.

Picture says 1000 words, as they say

 

[stevieb49829]

After googling JD 510, the images make it much more clear as to what I'm after.

Picture says 1000 words, as they say

Think also about moving the pivot point on the other end of the dump cylinder. Higher it, and further back would give you more clearance, in combination with moving the mount plate on the bucket. steve