SSQA mod

[Old_Paint]

Ok, I gotta ask WHAT's with the stickers of ARROWS for ???

They mean "HEY, LOOK RIGHT HERE TO MAKE SURE THIS IS ENGAGED"

 

[SidecarFlip]

Dummy stickers for dummies..........

 

[SidecarFlip]

When I first got my tractor I didnt know there were grease zerks on the quick attach pins. It wasnt until the levers were so hard to move that I cleaned up all the factory grease and grit that had accumulated only to find the zerks that I didnt know were there. Once I got everything cleaned and greased, the levers were so easy to move that when I got one of them caught on a branch while using the grapple, it disengaged the locking pin on one side, and the grapple came loose. My solution was to drill a hole in each lever and use a bungee wrapped under the loader tube to hold them in place. No more problem, and no worn off paint.

Surprised you never saw them. When I grease my parallel linkage on the front of the FEL, I raise it up to a convenient height and those fittings are right there in front of your face. Guess you weren't looking.

 

[mcfarmall]

Ok, I gotta ask WHAT's with the stickers of ARROWS for ???

That's an excellent question. Due to my aging condition, some things are getting harder to see. The orange SSQA bracket against an orange bucket is a prime example. I made a pencil mark on the back of the bucket while it was attached and then applied the pipe marker arrow tape along that line on both sides. They're like runway lights on a landing strip. Worked so well I put arrow strips on all my SSQA attachments. Helps out a lot on the black ones too like my pallet forks and grapple.

 

[xrocketengineer]

I dont know about that... the wedge pins have a spring between them and the handle. I think at any time you hit the bottom of those wedge pins hard enough and force them upward, i still think they can be popped out of their hole even if the handles are locked into their home position with anything. Or maybe i`m not seeing this as others are. I would think you would want a way to actually lock the wedge pins in place instead of the release handles.

EDIT:
Ok, so i went out to my shop, grabbed a prybar, and YES, you can still push those wedge pins upward even with the arms locked/chained/roped/bungee`d in the home position. So, my theory is, you will not stop the problem by just locking/securing the arms down with a chain or any other form or method to secure the handles. If the wedge pins get hit, they will not keep the bucket/grapple safely on the loader framework.

Until you find a way to lock the wedge pins from being able to move up, other than by its own spring pressure, you havent really fixed anything to actually resolve your problem.

Please forgive my "tractor" ignorance. I got my first tractor just over a year ago at my tender age of 66 and I do not have the SSQA but the pin on bucket. A choice made based on the limited FEL capacity of the BX1880 (plus it was cheaper).
But what I just learned about the overcenter mechanism of the SSQA latches scare the hell out me. I am familiar with plenty of overcenter mechanisms from my years working for NASA and I understand that a tractor is not "critical flight hardware" but still, that an attachment remains firmly attached to the FEL during operation seems critical to me too. I have never seen an overcenter mechanism where one of the linkages was not rigid. In every case the linkages are rigid and the spring (if any) was in parallel with a link but not in series like in the SSQA.
When you look at the diagram below, you can see that the spring is (sort of) parallel to the link and not part of the link. The spring pushes to rotate the bellcrank to make the link go to either side of the of the on-center position (horizontal position).
When you look at Position B, the bellcrank stop has rotated to the the fixed stop and the linkage is overcenter, past the horizontal position. At that point, you can push on the slider (pin) all you want in the direction labeled as "Backdrive Force" and it is not going to budge unless something bends or breaks. In addition, if the pins on the SSQA worked that way, the hand lever could not be moved all the way if the SSQA pin was not properly aligned with the hole that it is supposed to go into.
Am I missing something on why this SSQA attachment scheme appears to be the industry standard but does not follow the conventional design for overcenter mechanisms? My inquiring mind would like to know.

For the explanation how the mechanism works see:

Daerospace.com

 

[D2Cat]

With a grapple it's possible to get something to move the lever enough to release the lock pin. The solution can be simple, two holes and a bungee cord.

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

The main reason SSQA's work so well is that they allow for variations in materials, attachments, climate, conditions, and debris.
With a spring loaded wedge very little stops it from engaging.

I've run bobcats for years with an SSQA and I've yet to have anything fall off or become unlatched.
My tractor has a home made SSQA and it only gave me troubles when I first made it as I has the adjustments off on the latches, ever since never an issue, and I work the heck out of my machines!

 

[BX23S-1]

Please forgive my "tractor" ignorance. I got my first tractor just over a year ago at my tender age of 66 and I do not have the SSQA but the pin on bucket. A choice made based on the limited FEL capacity of the BX1880 (plus it was cheaper).
But what I just learned about the overcenter mechanism of the SSQA latches scare the hell out me. I am familiar with plenty of overcenter mechanisms from my years working for NASA and I understand that a tractor is not "critical flight hardware" but still, that an attachment remains firmly attached to the FEL during operation seems critical to me too. I have never seen an overcenter mechanism where one of the linkages was not rigid. In every case the linkages are rigid and the spring (if any) was in parallel with a link but not in series like in the SSQA.
When you look at the diagram below, you can see that the spring is (sort of) parallel to the link and not part of the link. The spring pushes to rotate the bellcrank to make the link go to either side of the of the on-center position (horizontal position).
When you look at Position B, the bellcrank stop has rotated to the the fixed stop and the linkage is overcenter, past the horizontal position. At that point, you can push on the slider (pin) all you want in the direction labeled as "Backdrive Force" and it is not going to budge unless something bends or breaks. In addition, if the pins on the SSQA worked that way, the hand lever could not be moved all the way if the SSQA pin was not properly aligned with the hole that it is supposed to go into.
Am I missing something on why this SSQA attachment scheme appears to be the industry standard but does not follow the conventional design for overcenter mechanisms? My inquiring mind would like to know.

View attachment 52100

For the explanation how the mechanism works see:

Daerospace.com

But your SSQA spring is installed over the wedge pin rod, not the "bell crank". Your picture example isnt how these SSQA`s are designed. Similar concept, but not built the same in relation to where the springs are located.

You can still push those wedge pins up out of their hole even with the handle not moving and locked down. I just tried it with mine, and i can (with enough force) pry the wedge pins upward and the handles stayed put.

Anybody can hit one of these wedge pins just right, and with enough force, that attachment CAN come off, even with locking the handles down. I do understand what everybody`s theory is when they try to tie down the handles, but that`s not going to solve the whole problem. It may help in the short run, but it wont completely fix the problem.

 

[BX23S-1]

The main reason SSQA's work so well is that they allow for variations in materials, attachments, climate, conditions, and debris.
With a spring loaded wedge very little stops it from engaging.

I've run bobcats for years with an SSQA and I've yet to have anything fall off or become unlatched.
My tractor has a home made SSQA and it only gave me troubles when I first made it as I has the adjustments off on the latches, ever since never an issue, and I work the heck out of my machines!

I think where most people are getting into trouble with these SSQA`s is that they arent making sure that the wedge pins are fully seated into the hole. A person could have debris in the hole and the handle will still travel to its home location and stop, but the pin may not be fully home into the hole. I had it happene to me, a rock last year got jammed in the wedge pin hole, i didnt see it before i sent the handles home, but i was smart enough to look to make sure the pins were seated, and the one pin wasn`t. So i took the bucket back off, knocked the little stone out, pins went home properly after that. I`ve even seen people not even hit the holes too, and didnt pay any attention, minute later, bucket came off loader frame.

 

[xrocketengineer]

I think where most people are getting into trouble with these SSQA`s is that they arent making sure that the wedge pins are fully seated into the hole. A person could have debris in the hole and the handle will still travel to its home location and stop, but the pin may not be fully home into the hole. I had it happene to me, a rock last year got jammed in the wedge pin hole, i didnt see it before i sent the handles home, but i was smart enough to look to make sure the pins were seated, and the one pin wasn`t. So i took the bucket back off, knocked the little stone out, pins went home properly after that. I`ve even seen people not even hit the holes too, and didnt pay any attention, minute later, bucket came off loader frame.

That is exactly what I was pointing out. If the SSQA mechanism were built like the diagram I posted, it would not be possible to engage the pin and rotate the handle all the way if there anything preventing the pin from engaging. I addition, once the pin is properly engaged, nothing could push the pin back to disengage unless something broke. So that is my question, why is the SSQA built in such an unconventional way that ends up having those two failure modes? It does not make sense to me.

 

[ruger1980]

The pins are spring loaded to help with the universal fit aspect. Not all attachments are the same and in order to maintain a reasonably tight fit the linkage may require adjustment. The spring loaded pins are self adjusting account for differences in the bracket.

 

[JimmyJazz]

Some men wear both a belt and suspenders at the same time. I have nothing further to say.

 

[BX23S-1]

That is exactly what I was pointing out. If the SSQA mechanism were built like the diagram I posted, it would not be possible to engage the pin and rotate the handle all the way if there anything preventing the pin from engaging. I addition, once the pin is properly engaged, nothing could push the pin back to disengage unless something broke. So that is my question, why is the SSQA built in such an unconventional way that ends up having those two failure modes? It does not make sense to me.

You an i are both on the same page about this. I would feel alot better if there were a way to LOCK the wedge pin in place once it reaches its home position. Locking/securing the handle itself dosent fix the main problem.

I dont know any other method to their madness on the design of why its like it is, other than what @rugar1980 describes. Seems logical anyway. I would think if it were a really big widespread problem, we would see a design change pretty quick. But this system has been around awhile, alot of companies use it. But is it dummie proof? Nope! Not until they design an actual locking mechanism for the wedge pins.

In the mean time, its best to always re-check everything to make sure its right before using the equipment.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

re:
It does not make sense to me.

...it makes a LOT of cents to me though...

To design a 'bulletproof' system would cost big $$$ to design,test and build. SSQA is a 'universal' system so there has to be some 'give and take'. There are probably millions of machines out there with SSQA and 10s of millions attachments made....it's down to being a 'compromise' to make something economical that everyone can use. You could easily replace the arms and springs and pivots and whatever with a custom linear actuator/ wedge unit and there'd be NO way the wedges would EVER come out BUT that comes at a cost, maybe $100 a side, $200 / unit PLUS wiring,switches, etc.(nuther $200) Can it be done sure....I've got plans here on the wall but how many guys WILL fork over another $400 for it ???

 

[BX23S-1]

re:
It does not make sense to me.

...it makes a LOT of cents to me though...

To design a 'bulletproof' system would cost big $$$ to design,test and build. SSQA is a 'universal' system so there has to be some 'give and take'. There are probably millions of machines out there with SSQA and 10s of millions attachments made....it's down to being a 'compromise' to make something economical that everyone can use. You could easily replace the arms and springs and pivots and whatever with a custom linear actuator/ wedge unit and there'd be NO way the wedges would EVER come out BUT that comes at a cost, maybe $100 a side, $200 / unit PLUS wiring,switches, etc.(nuther $200) Can it be done sure....I've got plans here on the wall but how many guys WILL fork over another $400 for it ???

I seriously doubt anybody would buy it. Even i could build a simple lock a hell of a lot cheaper than that. What you`ve got is to complex for a such simple fix.

 

[Kurtee]

I love this discussion. Rehashing a design from the 70s that works and was most likely built out of necessity by some farmer. The original version on the 40 plus year old Bobcat that dad bought new is still functional though has required some new parts. When I replaced the wedge pins I had to build up the point on the bucket where the wedges hit by 1/4 inch to get the wedges tight again. If this design was problematic it would not have been accepted as the standard design for quick attachment of buckets. Bobtach works

 

[mdhughes]

Some men wear both a belt and suspenders at the same time. I have nothing further to say.

I was told never trust a man that doesn't trust his own pants

 

[BX23S-1]

I love this discussion. Rehashing a design from the 70s that works and was most likely built out of necessity by some farmer. The original version on the 40 plus year old Bobcat that dad bought new is still functional though has required some new parts. When I replaced the wedge pins I had to build up the point on the bucket where the wedges hit by 1/4 inch to get the wedges tight again. If this design was problematic it would not have been accepted as the standard design for quick attachment of buckets. Bobtach works

I think it comes down to more of an operator error than a design error. Could it be a better design? Yes.

 

[NHSleddog]

re:
It does not make sense to me.

...it makes a LOT of cents to me though...

To design a 'bulletproof' system would cost big $$$ to design,test and build. SSQA is a 'universal' system so there has to be some 'give and take'. There are probably millions of machines out there with SSQA and 10s of millions attachments made....it's down to being a 'compromise' to make something economical that everyone can use. You could easily replace the arms and springs and pivots and whatever with a custom linear actuator/ wedge unit and there'd be NO way the wedges would EVER come out BUT that comes at a cost, maybe $100 a side, $200 / unit PLUS wiring,switches, etc.(nuther $200) Can it be done sure....I've got plans here on the wall but how many guys WILL fork over another $400 for it ???

I would gladly pay for a SSQA power "kit".

Even the specs to build one would be good.

Between the bucket/grapple/forks/Hydraulic Auger/Snow Pusher/Snow Plow. I use mine a LOT and getting off the tractor twice everytime is a pain.

After the Top & Tilt added and the QH on the back, I never have get off the tractor anymore for 3pt unless there is a PTO connect.

I would like to get the front that efficient.

 

[D2Cat]

I would gladly pay for a SSQA power "kit".

Even the specs to build one would be good.

Between the bucket/grapple/forks/Hydraulic Auger/Snow Pusher/Snow Plow. I use mine a LOT and getting off the tractor twice everytime is a pain.

After the Top & Tilt added and the QH on the back, I never have get off the tractor anymore for 3pt unless there is a PTO connect.

I would like to get the front that efficient.

Sleddog, a guy has to get SOME exercise!