Loader aesthetics

[DavidP,South Wales]

Hello,
Let me say at the outset that a front end loader is there to do a job of work first and foremost.
I wonder how many of our friends here have stopped for a moment to consider the visual appearance of a FEL. How does it look on the tractor? Phil's post a couple down show his Wagner loader which is no doubt capable of doing its job. This is purely my opinion (sorry Phil) but I think that all of the pipework frame looks hideous and hides the tractor. There were UK and European loaders of similar round tube construction that in no way seemed to swamp the tractor. Over here MF and others used rectangular box section from the very early 60s.
Again, my opinion, but this type of loader looks far better designed from the appearance angle and you can still see the tractor underneath.
A photo of my 135 is attached with an early 60s loader made by Steelfab in Cardiff, capital of Wales. I am ready to duck down behind the parapit. Your thoughts very welcome.

DavidP

 

[Anonymous-0]

Quite a few brands/models of loaders sold here in the US "back in the day" were boxed frame such as yours. I have a Kelly loader, circa 1960, that was on a Ford tractor of mine. It vaguely resembles yours, sans the extended reach beyond the front of the tractor (which I find rather odd looking by the way )

Just a guess on my part, but years ago, when "looks" weren't as much of a consideration as they seem to be these days, COST was the most important factor, followed by utilitarian practicality. I'd think bending standard gauge pipe into shapes would have been cheaper than fabbing frame components from sheet steel or box tubing. There's all sorts of styles of loaders from days gone by. Some look better than others. Most importantly, did they work OK? And were they affordable?

All sorta follows what my dad used to say. That's why they make chocolate, strawberry, and vinilla ice cream....so we call all have a flavor we like.

 

[DavidP,South Wales]

Hello,
That is the correct loader frame for a tractor of that size. It was fitted to our 3-cyl 35 before and was on that from new. It does go out what seems like a long way. The profile of the bucket adds to this.
DavidP

 

[DavidP,South Wales]

Hi,
Should be appologies to Gilbert as well.

DavidP

 

[Anonymous-0]

Don't take this the wrong way, but if the loader, tractor and tires are covered with manure, which was the most common substance loaded on a farm, does aesthetics really come into play, here?

 

[MH Poor]

Non the less - nice looking unit!!

 

[Anonymous-0]

Most all the loaders I've seen (in the US) for a tractor the same relative size as a 135 would have a much shorter frame, all the difference being in less distance from grill to bucket. That resulted in a less "tippy" tractor with a raised bucket full of whatever. That results in less overall height and reach, but it results in a much more stable tractor/loader. Look back a few years before the era of the 135, and you'll see more (US marketed) loaders with that longer reach.

 

[DavidP,South Wales]

Hi,
Yes, I've noticed that many US loaders are of a more compact design. Don't know why, you must do the same sort of work over there. There are times when that extra reach or height is essential. The bucket is quite heavy and it would be easy to get into difficulty if risks were taken. I was always aware of that. The only moments that I had were when using the flail hedge cutter on a bank. Lowering the loader was good additional stability.

DavidP

 

[mlauk]

Here is a picture of my 1968 MF 2135 with loader. Industrial version of the 135.

<a href="http://s91.photobucket.com/albums/k300/mlaukoter/?action=view&current=MF2135.jpg" target="_blank">

</a>

 

[Anonymous-0]

That 100 is a nice looking loader. The original Davis is also a nice looking loader. David P's loader sticks too far out the front and isn't very appealing to me. The bucket linkage is kind of wonky too but just my opinion. Dave

 

[DavidP,South Wales]

Hi,
The higher and further reach seem to be standard on UK loaders. The bucket linkage, yes, I hold my hands up to that. It is not oroginal and was designed around the cylinder that I had. It hasbeen on the tractor for 28 years and worked perfectly. The attached photo is for a Steelfab loader using a later model but one with the same frame size.
DavidP

 

[massey333]

Sorry Dave,but Phil's loader is made to work,not look at.It will lift 3-4 times what yours will plus go 12+ ft.high.Mine will lift 3000-3500 lbs.10 ft.high without breaking a sweat and has a 25GPM at 3000PSI pump on it.Wagner made a WM6 that would lift more for those tractors too.

 

[GaryF]

if we are talking about mlauk's loader I had one identical to it (except for a ton of ugly welds) and it was a MF/Davis 200 loader with 4 bar linkage

 

[Zachary Hoyt]

Here is a photo of our MF35 with a Davis 101-102 loader. It runs off the internal pump, so it's a little slow, but it lifts to about 10'. I mostly use it for snow and logs. The yellow/red is a little much, but it all makes for good visibility, which is not a bad thing if you don't like being run into. I just put the loader on a little over a year ago, and I like it a lot. I'm the one on the tractor. The other folks came to haul away the old shed which was replaced by the new one in the background.
Zach

 

[mlauk]

The loader says "100", but with the 4 bar linkage, I always thought it was an MF 200.