Homemade rear set of forks for WD

I want to make a set of forks for my wd. 

My thought is to build simple square frame which the top of bolts loosely to the lift arms at both sides.  I would mount a hydraulic cylinder between the bottom center of the frame and the snap coupler where the draw bar normally attaches.  I figure then I can use the lift arms to raise and lower it and the cylinder to tilt it up and down.  Also attached to the bottom of the frame would be the pallet forks sticking out the back.

I may have to put a ball valve on the line to the lower cylinder but I hope that I can adjust the delay between the lift arms and the auxiliary line that it work on its own.

Can anyone see a reason why this idea would not work?  Also does anyone have photos of other rear fork set ups?

I just took this part off of my forklift in order to change to a sideshift setup. Would something like this do you any good?



The forks are 36" IIRC. It could be bought pretty reasonably compared to buying forks by themselves. This is the backside of it.


Edited by redline - 19 Jan 2015 at 5:28pm

redline wrote: I just took this part off of my forklift in order to change to a sideshift setup. Would something like this do you any good? The forks are 36" IIRC. It could be bought pretty reasonably compared to buying forks by themselves. This is the backside of it.

Not really, I have all the steel for actually building the forks I have axces to a large pile of worn out grader cutting edges that I plan to make the forks and frame out of.  Mostly I am having troubles imagining how to set up the linkage and controls.
 

Somewhere on here, I posted the three point kit and forklift attachment I made for my WDs and D17... I'll hafta go home and find the photo on my server.

But basically, I made my three point, and then fabbed a face that ordinary forks mounted on.

When you build it, keep several things in mind:

The 3-point system will be a Category 1... not by design of size you make, but the fact that you'll only have so much lifting capacity.

Next, the tractor will only balance SO MUCH weight aft of the drive wheels, without adding considerable ballast to the nose.

If you go crazy adding more ballast, you'll find that the lift arms' lift capacity won't make that ballast worth anything aside from sinking the front tires into the ground.

Now, I've been using MY forklift attachment on my WD and D17 3-point for years, and it's the greatest for moving pallets of shingles, bricks, and other stuff over terrain that my Hyster is just too heavy to traverse. I've found that using the tractor/3-point has it's disadvantages, but all in all, it's handy-as-heck.

here's my advice:
Shoot for about 2000lbs capacity max... and don't be surprised if your lift gives up at 1600lbs.

Build the mounting face to be JUST STRONG ENOUGH to safely do the 2000lb job, and use SMALLER forks. Keep in mind that your attachment takes away part of your lifting capacity... a 5000lb 42" fork will weigh around 100lbs... If you overbuild the face, and use heavier face and forks, it doesn't increase the machine capacity, instead, it REDUCES your capacity. You need to be able to lift up AND balance the load, to be useful.

DaveKamp wrote: Somewhere on here, I posted the three point kit and forklift attachment I made for my WDs and D17... I'll hafta go home and find the photo on my server. But basically, I made my three point, and then fabbed a face that ordinary forks mounted on. When you build it, keep several things in mind: The 3-point system will be a Category 1... not by design of size you make, but the fact that you'll only have so much lifting capacity. Next, the tractor will only balance SO MUCH weight aft of the drive wheels, without adding considerable ballast to the nose. If you go crazy adding more ballast, you'll find that the lift arms' lift capacity won't make that ballast worth anything aside from sinking the front tires into the ground. Now, I've been using MY forklift attachment on my WD and D17 3-point for years, and it's the greatest for moving pallets of shingles, bricks, and other stuff over terrain that my Hyster is just too heavy to traverse. I've found that using the tractor/3-point has it's disadvantages, but all in all, it's handy-as-heck. here's my advice: Shoot for about 2000lbs capacity max... and don't be surprised if your lift gives up at 1600lbs. Build the mounting face to be JUST STRONG ENOUGH to safely do the 2000lb job, and use SMALLER forks. Keep in mind that your attachment takes away part of your lifting capacity... a 5000lb 42" fork will weigh around 100lbs... If you overbuild the face, and use heavier face and forks, it doesn't increase the machine capacity, instead, it REDUCES your capacity. You need to be able to lift up AND balance the load, to be useful.

I used to have the loader mounted on the rear of the tractor.  According to a log weight calculator the largest log I could lift and still keep the front wheels mostly on the ground was around 1600lbs but that was with the load about 4 feet behind the wheels.  I now have the loader on the front and it can very easily lift that same log but I can no longer steer the tractor. 

When I build the fork set up  I plan to make it so the load is only 6 inches or a little more behind the rear wheels.  Until you said what it should be able to lift I had no idea how much weight the rear lift system could lift.  Once it is all built if I can lift 1000 pounds with it with the load all the way forward it will do most of the lifting I will need it to do.


I had also thought of building the frame so the forks bolt on but also include attachment points so I can use it as a quick hitch on some 3 point equipment.

Here it is:

David- only thing wierder than the color of your tractor, is it's wheels...

That carriage face appears to have been fitted with a rotating hub to spin and dump a materials hopper, barrel clamp, or pallet. Having shaft-mounted forks AND that big steel plate face makes it substantially heavier than the common slide-on hanging forks... so there's lots of weight there that swallow up 3-point capacity rather quickly.

There are many instances where guys will take the entire mast off a small forklift, put 3-point pins and a hydraulic hose on it, and use it as-is, and they work... some even use a hydraulic top-link to give tilt, however, the masts are really heavy, so it takes a Category 3 tractor to make them work well. The other problems one runs into, is that the 3-point hardware may be strong enough to lift the mast, but not strong enough to withstand the forces generated when a load is lifted really high... and of course, the machine's footprint and counterweight is fine for lifting the load a few inches off the ground, but entirely insufficent for elevating it more than a few feet off the ground.

Not that the OP avertised any intention to do so, I'm just pointing out that the physics of going that route become very, very complicated, and as such, very dangerous... but using a nice light fork setup directly on the 3-point is incredibly handy. My D17 and WD move things around in places and ways that my Hyster and Clark could NEVER do...

gerkendave wrote: The only downfall I can see is you may have some twisting action if you only have one center point attached to the lower porting of the lift frame. For example think of lifting something heavy on just one fork.   The weight of that object will be pushing down which in turn will push back on the lower corner of your frame   (where there will be no support. But I'm also no engineer! Good luck!

That is a good point.

Between that and the suggestion that I can use a two way cylinder plumbed so it will pull with one way hydraulics has me thinking that maybe I should change my plans and build something similar to a standard 3 point. 

The reason I didn't want to build a three point is because to do it right it requires more parts to be bought and or fitted.  Although If I build it without ball sockets and use chain to connect my lower and upper lift arms I can do it without having to buy anything and can keep the draw bar in place.

DaveKamp wrote: gerkendave wrote: The only downfall I can see is you may have some twisting action if you only have one center point attached to the lower porting of the lift frame. For example think of lifting something heavy on just one fork.   The weight of that object will be pushing down which in turn will push back on the lower corner of your frame   (where there will be no support. But I'm also no engineer! Good luck! Hmmm... guess I'm not sure what reaction you're suggesting here... I'm guessing you mean that it'll twist the implement up? If so, it can't, because the lower lift arms are rigidly linked to the upper lift arms. I can lift enough with one fork, to pick the front wheels off the ground, and no ill affects, other than the fact that steering gets extremely light, and very poor...

As I'm understanding the op's original design was to basically build a square frame where the lift arms would attach at the top (one on each corner) and a small cylinder would then attach to the bottom right in the middle.   With this setup I'm imagining that with the way a normal fork attaches (like a forklift) that hangs from the top plate then rests against the bottom plate would create a lot of "forward stress" on the lower corners of frame they are resting on

Steve Zidlicky wrote: keep one thing in mind and that is trying to build this contraption on the cheap may very well cost you a lot more in the long run either by damage to the tractor or worst getting someone hurt which one cannot put a value on. a true 3 point type of lifter is very handy, but you should probably stick with proven designs

So, what constitutes proven designs, and are you implying that a commercially-made device eliminates the possibility of damage to the tractor, or someone getting hurt?

If so, you're overlooking some critical facts:

1) Tractors, implements, and the work they do, are inherently intertwined with danger... one of the greatest facets, being gravity, the other, being inertia.

2) The mere act of working with a machine, constitutes de-facto disclaimer to the safety of oneself, and others... and there is no 'invisible shield' or umbrella that will protect anyone engaged in doing so...

3) the intent of protecting oneself as you've suggested guarantees nothing, aside from that, when things DO go wrong, there is someone else to blame, rightfully or not... for what has happened... which has no bearing on wether or not you'll see any bona-fide benefit, but rather, you may find an avenue for suit... right, or wrong...

4) Money can't fix injury or death.

5) Engineered to sell, does not constitute any implication of safety.

6) The ONLY effective, and thus, important safety feature, is located between a person's ears.

If a man comes up with an implement design which is sufficient to exceed the capacity of the machine DOING the lifting, one can surmise that much greater failures will occur, than the failure of his implement. I know by inherent principle, that a 3-point forklift attachment like mine, is clearly capable of providing at LEAST 2x the capacity of the Category 1 3-point for which it was designed. I proved it, by putting it on a Category 3 tractor, and lifting a heavy enough machine to deflect some much more substantial forks. I could present the engineering analysis, but a test proof identifies not only design validity, but sufficiency in manufacture.

If it weren't for people building experimental implements on their own, we wouldn't have jack $#it. Nobody would have built a tractor, Allis wouldn't have used pneumatic tires, Ferguson wouldn't have developed the 3point, and nobody would believe that people could fly, much less go to the moon.

Steve Zidlicky wrote: I guess that you did not realize what my thoughts meant

Hi Steve!

My apologies to you for my answer having a terse tone, and yes, per your clarification, it was not immediately apparent what you were advocating. All too often, people dismiss DIY, when it should actually be encouraged, because the best education one can get, is self-tuition.

The suggestion of inverting the lift design, (3-point being two low, and one high link, reversed to two high, and one low) from a functional aspect, wouldn't be by any measure ineffective, and if done with basic physics in mine, wouldn't be dangerous. The possible benefits include much less hardware (lighter tare = greater capacity), but it would require some careful testing to make sure that the lower link's geometry didn't allow it to collapse to one side or the other.

In a conventional 3-point arrangement, the top link is under tension... and the lower arms under compression. Put the 'free swinging' link below, and the opportunity for things to get out-of-control DOES exist.

I've found that people who do what we do, are well experienced... and experience means not only having an occasional case of success, but in the interim, several incidents of something 'other' than success. Failure, is nothing more than a stepping stone on the path of success. While to stray from a beaten path of other's attempts can result in falling from the same horse, it sometimes reveals the nature of an issue that would otherwise be permanently dismissed. In other terms, while it seems wise to avoid repeating others' failures, it's often worthwhile to revisit those conditions, perhaps to realize and learn the nature of those conditions, if not to conquer, to at least develop greater understanding.

Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement.

Safety starts from performing experiments with the expectation of drastic failures, and being wise enough to take precautions to contain the drastic failures, becomes a great benefit in daily life.

Chains work fine for lifting, but be advised that if you load one heavily, and the other not at all, that having chains rather than rigid rods, can allow one side to flip UP while the top link swings to one side.

If your lower wishbone-type setup doesn't pan out, here's how I did it on my WD and 17:

Oh, and the gadget you see mounted there:



Is an old engine hoist that a buddy bought, and had one of the legs fall off the side of some concrete, hence bend, damaging the bottom of the column... he gave it to me, and rather than fix the legs, I opted to make it even handier yet...

I finally got the three point and forks all finished up and tested.  Everything on it works but it doesn't lift nearly as much as I was hoping but it should still do most of what I want,  also in the daylight tomorrow I will check the hydraulic fluid level, it may be low when the loader and rear lift cylinders are all extended and may be part of the reason for not having as much power as I had expected.

Once I got it built and started lifting with it I was very happy that none of my welds broke.  All the steel I use it old grader blades so I didn't know if the steel would take a weld or not or if my forks would bend or just snap off.  So far they have stood up to more than the tractor can lift.

The three point doesn't have as much travel in it as I would like but I think I can make do with it.  And if I add a hydraulic top link it will be better.  Right now it just barely has enough travel to move the forks from the ground to the bunks of my sawmill which is what I intend to use it for. 

I will try and put of pictures of the set up tomorrow.

CTuckerNWIL wrote: Don't fill the hydraulic fluid to the top with your loader raised up. When you lower it, you might have a bunch of extra oil spray all over your clutch and flywheel.

I found that out when I first got it but one of the loader cylinders has a slow leak so I know I can add some to it which may help with lifting power when the cylinders are fully extended.  I also have to try playing with the delay between the lift and the auxiliary hydraulics to try and get them both to go up and down at the same time.  Otherwise a ball valve on the loader should make it useable.