Hydraulic Lift-Say it isn’t so

[jay bee 896]

I recently had the opportunity to add a 1979 C-141 to my small herd. This appears to have lived a fairly comfortable life as it doesn’t appear to have been rode hard and put up wet like so many others have been. It appears also that the previous owner or owners kept it inside and out of the elements for the most part. Looking it over I don’t see a lot of things that have been “tinkered” with. It just seems “very original”. There are a couple little things that need some love and attention but for the most part, all is good. 
Now for the part that I just don’t understand.  The hydraulic lift lever acts in reverse order. When you push the lever forward the lift should go down. When you pull the lever rearward the lift should raise up. NOT SO on this one. Just the opposite. Forward is down and rearward is up. I checked the routing of the four hoses and all are correct as far as the schematics show me. At first I figured that a couple hoses were reversed but that doesn’t seem to be the case. 
What else could be the cause of this?  As I said before, it doesn’t look like anyone has been messing around in there, but you never really know. 
 

 

[kpinnc 11,994]

Swap the hoses at the cylinder. Likely had the seals replaced and the PO left it as it was. I've had one like that as well. 

[jay bee 896]

I don’t know if that rear cylinder hose will stretch to the front of the cylinder. 

[Handy Don 12,207]

52 minutes ago, jay bee said:

Now for the part that I just don’t understand.  The hydraulic lift lever acts in reverse order. When you push the lever forward the lift should go down. When you pull the lever rearward the lift should raise up. NOT SO on this one. Just the opposite. Forward is down and rearward is up. I checked the routing of the four hoses and all are correct as far as the schematics show me. At first I figured that a couple hoses were reversed but that doesn’t seem to be the case. 

Yep, we have TWO like that and I believe it is “as designed". I’ve trained myself to think of the lever as working a REAR implement--pull back to lower the rear and push forward to raise it. 

Switching the hoses at either the valve end or the cylinder end will do what you need. There is probably barely enough slack in the hoses to do it at the valve, but you would need at least one new hose to do it at the cylinder.

[Wayne0 454]

Those lines have been off the valve unless you cleaned them. The sticker shows the correct movement. Swap them (PITA) or just deal with it.

[jay bee 896]

11 minutes ago, Wayne0 said:

Those lines have been off the valve unless you cleaned them. The sticker shows the correct movement. Swap them (PITA) or just deal with it.

Yes,I cleaned them, or attempted to. Looks like I got a little more cleaning to do. I will probably just deal with it because swapping them doesn’t look like a pleasant thing. 
 

10 hours ago, Handy Don said:

Yep, we have TWO like that and I believe it is “as designed". I’ve trained myself to think of the lever as working a REAR implement--pull back to lower the rear and push forward to raise it. 

Switching the hoses at either the valve end or the cylinder end will do what you need. There is probably barely enough slack in the hoses to do it at the valve, but you would need at least one new hose to do it at the cylinder.

 

I guess now I have ONE like that and will need some retraining!!!
 

 

 

[gwest_ca-(File Mod) 11,040]

The fitting at the front of the valve appears to be different than the others.. Will guess at least that hose has been replaced.

[jay bee 896]

43 minutes ago, gwest_ca said:

The fitting at the front of the valve appears to be different than the others.. Will guess at least that hose has been replaced.

Agreed, and I wouldn’t doubt that at all, but still all the hoses are to the correct ports according to the schematic. That’s the part that really confuses me. 

[Handy Don 12,207]

41 minutes ago, jay bee said:

Agreed, and I wouldn’t doubt that at all, but still all the hoses are to the correct ports according to the schematic. That’s the part that really confuses me. 

The re-training is possible. On one of ours, I’ve added a joystick control for two additional hydro circuits at the front while leaving the original system intact. The joystick is correct (forward for down). Definitely had to develop muscle memory.

 

There IS another solution, though! A couple of models had a hydro control lever that stuck out the left side (mirroring the PTO engage lever on the right). Using that lever, the mechanical linkage to the valve was reversed and it was "push down, pull lift.” I might have some of those parts around.

[Pullstart 62,834]

Maybe see if Terry could print you a backwards label?  

[jay bee 896]

30 minutes ago, Pullstart said:

Maybe see if Terry could print you a backwards label?  

That thought was in the back of my mind, and he might be able to do that, but then I figured maybe my little label maker might be able to do the job good enough for who it’s for. 

[jay bee 896]

Problem Solved!!!

 

 

[jay bee 896]

Update on the “Up/Down” dilemma. I consulted the schematics and discovered the previous owner had the lift chain and lift trunnion in the wrong positions on the bellcrank and lift bar. I put things back to the schematic drawing and everything works as it should. 
In the photo the blue line represents how he had it and the yellow line shows the correct attachment positions. Don’t ask me why that would make such a change, but it does. Now I can take my homemade labels off. 
@Handy Don  you may want to check the routing on your two and see if that is also the problem. 

Edited August 7 by jay bee

[Handy Don 12,207]

15 hours ago, jay bee said:

check the routing

I’m not able to visualize how they were wrong.

The two arms on the rock shaft do move in different arcs: the “upper” on moves about ±30º from horizontal (for lift/drop) and the “lower” one moves about ±30º from vertical (for push/pull).

On one tractor, we only have used it with a rear hitch and I know the cable is connected to the “lower” arm (the hole is a different size for the clevis) and there is no routing that would reach the “upper” arm.

On the other, we use a deck and dozer blade and I know they are connected correctly via the #27 lift bar to the upper arm--I’ve adjusted the chain length at the trunnion behind the lower hoodstand panel.

Hmmm.

Did you get any pictures?

[jay bee 896]

Sorry, I didn’t take any pictures. My guess is because he had the lift trunnion in the lower arm, when you put the lever in the down position that lower arm moves to the rear tightening the chain and lifting the lift arm. When you put the lever in the up position that lower arm moves forward and lowers the lift arm. He also had the chain bolted in the second chain link apparently to take up the slack so that the vertical movement would pull on the chain a little more.

I now have things attached according to the schematic and the lift arm bolted into the fourth link and the lift bolt adjusted to maximum length  but I’m only getting about 3 to 4 inches of travel from full up to full down. That doesn’t seem like enough to me. I would think at least 6 inches would be normal but I really won’t know until I put the mower deck on and check the travel. Right now when the lift arm is in the down position the lowest point of the arm is about 9 inches from the floor. That seems rather high to me. 

[Handy Don 12,207]

31 minutes ago, jay bee said:

I’m only getting about 3 to 4 inches of travel from full up to full down.

Thanks for the extra extra explanation. Kind of a wacky hookup, but I can now visualize it!

This is the correct range of motion!

 

Tedious extra stuff....

It’s all trigonometry, right?! With ±30º of rotation, the triangle formed by the arm’s upper and lower positions and the travel of the trunnion forms an equilateral triangle so the length of the arm from the center to the attachment point = the range of the lift!

[wallfish 16,994]

10 hours ago, jay bee said:

I now have things attached according to the schematic and the lift arm bolted into the fourth link and the lift bolt adjusted to maximum length

Just be sure whatever attachment you connect doesn't end the mechanical movement and travel of it BEFORE the end of the hydraulic stroke. If it ends mechanically first, the hydraulic pressure could bend something and find the weak point or snap that chain. 700 ish PSI isn't 2500 like other systems but it's still pretty strong.

[WHX?? 48,813]

Is this the one you need the brake band for Jay B? I looked and most of my parts sunnys are older and do not have one. I have a 520 one but don't think it will work. 

 

These sure are nice working tractors. I have a 141 mower that's backwards I'll have to check that rock shaft 

[jay bee 896]

13 hours ago, Handy Don said:

 

Tedious extra stuff....

It’s all trigonometry, right?! With ±30º of rotation, the triangle formed by the arm’s upper and lower positions and the travel of the trunnion forms an equilateral triangle so the length of the arm from the center to the attachment point = the range of the lift!

Thanks for that explanation. Although I understand what you’re saying, it reinforces my decision 65 years ago after taking algebra and geometry not to take calculus or trigonometry. I didn’t think I would make it through the classes. I have high regard for those that did. 
Thanks, Jim

[jay bee 896]

3 hours ago, wallfish said:

Just be sure whatever attachment you connect doesn't end the mechanical movement and travel of it BEFORE the end of the hydraulic stroke. If it ends mechanically first, the hydraulic pressure could bend something and find the weak point or snap that chain. 700 ish PSI isn't 2500 like other systems but it's still pretty strong.

Thank you for that info. I will make sure there is no interference before the end of the hydraulic piston stroke. 
Jim

[jay bee 896]

3 hours ago, WHX?? said:

Is this the one you need the brake band for Jay B? I looked and most of my parts sunnys are older and do not have one. I have a 520 one but don't think it will work. 

 

These sure are nice working tractors. I have a 141 mower that's backwards I'll have to check that rock shaft 

Yes, this is the tractor that needs a brake band and the adjustment rod that operates it. 
I don’t know if the band on a 520 is the same number as the older C models. I’ll have to check into that and see. 
Thanks, Jim

[Handy Don 12,207]

BTW, Jim, if you look at this part of the IPL:

Arm #27 pivots around the shaft at A. The trunnion with ~3” of vertical travel attaches at B. Because of the extension from B to C, where the mower lift attaches, the mower’s lift travel is a bit more than the trunnion travel. Not a lot, though, maybe an extra ½”? 

This lever was added more for aligning the lift forces at the rock shaft and mower deck chassis than for extra travel.

[jay bee 896]

Thank you Don. You make a great teacher. We are fortunate to have so many very knowledgeable members here on Red Square that are willing to share that knowledge with others. I know I appreciate it and I’m sure others do also. 

[WHX?? 48,813]

8 hours ago, jay bee said:

 the band on a 520 is the same number as the older C models.

It's not ...I checked it against a C-121 that has what you are looking for. 

[WHX?? 48,813]

On 8/7/2024 at 7:57 PM, jay bee said:

when you put the lever in the down position that lower arm moves to the rear tightening the chain and lifting the lift arm

Which would be correct if one was running a tiller with a lift cable.