Beef up fork/SSQA interface or not?

[trikepilot]

Ye of more experience than I... please weigh in on this mod or improvement.

I lucked into a good deal on a set of Caterpillar SSQA front forks. When I attach them to the front of my tractor via SSQA, the top of the SSQA plate has - to my eye - less of a contact patch than I would preferand certainly much less than my front bucket.

I have sourced some ⅜in thick steel plate at ½in wide and my plan is to butt weld it to the existing flange on the fork to substantially improve the contact patch that holds the forks on the tractor. I started grinding a land onto the piece to be added and then thought maybe I should poll OTT to see if I am making much ado about nothing. Is such a small overlap - about ¼in - normal for the top of a SSQA plate and I have nothing to worry about? Or am I on a suitable pathway to make my forks better, safer, and more useful.

Some pix

 

[chim]

I would add the metal. I'd also have the bottom of the added metal match the plane of the existing metal. Maybe tack and bang it down? Weld it in shorter stitches and let it cool between. Watch out that it doesn't pull back up as the weld cools.

EDIT TOO ADD: I'm not an engineer or professional welder but I've made a lot of stuff that hasn't broken

 

[jimh406]

I don't think it is needed, but I don't see any issue with adding the metal. If you have the metal and can weld, I'd probably just do it.

 

[PoTreeBoy]

Could you maybe extend your adapter plate? I think the nose on most plates touch the attachment.

 

[jimh406]

Could you maybe extend your adapter plate? I think the nose on most plates touch the attachment.

I wouldn't do that since it might cause an issue for other attachments like the bucket, for instance.

 

[McMXi]

Ye of more experience than I... please weigh in on this mod or improvement.

I lucked into a good deal on a set of Caterpillar SSQA front forks. When I attach them to the front of my tractor via SSQA, the top of the SSQA plate has - to my eye - less of a contact patch than I would preferand certainly much less than my front bucket.

I have sourced some ⅜in thick steel plate at ½in wide and my plan is to butt weld it to the existing flange on the fork to substantially improve the contact patch that holds the forks on the tractor. I started grinding a land onto the piece to be added and then thought maybe I should poll OTT to see if I am making much ado about nothing. Is such a small overlap - about ¼in - normal for the top of a SSQA plate and I have nothing to worry about? Or am I on a suitable pathway to make my forks better, safer, and more useful.

The engagement does appear to be on the low end of the scale and I think your solution is a good idea. Here's the Land Pride STB1596 on the SSQA on my MX. You can see how much more bearing surface their is and this is not an implement that will place a large moment about that interface compared to pallet forks.

I would have considered making a couple of notched plates placed in a similar manner to your magnets to add interference with less prep and less welding, but nothing wrong with your approach.

 

[John T]

Completely unnecessary.

The only thing it does is add weight and further restrict the already lame lifting capacity.

 

[trikepilot]

I had the steel already so i did one side last night and the other this AM.

Ha! Add weight? Nice troll... the added steel reinforcements maybe totaled 3lbs which is negligible.

I probably went overkill on it but now I won't have to worry about anything more than the "already lame lifting capacity."

 

[chim]

That looks sturdy

 

[McMXi]

I had the steel already so i did one side last night and the other this AM.

Ha! Add weight? Nice troll... the added steel reinforcements maybe totaled 3lbs which is negligible.

I probably went overkill on it but now I won't have to worry about anything more than the "already lame lifting capacity."

Nice job! Nothing wrong with an I. K. Brunel approach to solving a problem. The comment above about adding weight is beyond ridiculous. You will never have to worry about the pallet forks separating from the loader now.

 

[trikepilot]

Nice job! Nothing wrong with an I. K. Brunel approach to solving a problem. The comment above about adding weight is beyond ridiculous. You will never have to worry about the pallet forks separating from the loader now.

Thanks MCMXi.... my tractor will fail before that SSQA attachment will.

That was a completely unexpected but wildly entertaining romp down the IK Brunel rabbit hole. Lotsa of fascinating history and innovation in there. The 1840s vacuum powered train was kinda out there but my favorite part might be this from his wiki page...

While performing a conjuring trick for the amusement of his children in 1843 Brunel accidentally inhaled a half-sovereign coin, which became lodged in his windpipe. A special pair of forceps failed to remove it, as did a machine devised by Brunel to shake it loose. At the suggestion of his father, Brunel was strapped to a board and turned upside-down, and the coin was jerked free.

 

[John T]

That looks sturdy

Sturdy?
As in... It won't break? Yeah probably.

Not much pressure on it.


But as a Welding critique... It's a cold weld.
little to no penetration. typical "squirtgun" welding.

Next time crank up the Heat.

-Negative Nancy...

 

[Yooper]

Nice job! And you will have peace of mind when using the forks!

 

[trikepilot]

But as a Welding critique... It's a cold weld.
little to no penetration. typical "squirtgun" welding.

Next time crank up the Heat.

-Negative Nancy...

Awww... and nothing about my crappy paint job? Why hold back now?

 

[John T]

Awww... and nothing about my crappy paint job? Why hold back now?

paint looks good.

Thats the best part of painting when it's still hot.

Baked-on Enamel finish....