Hi Guys and Girls, I am a researcher at a lubricant additive manufacturer and I am looking into Hydraulic Cylinder Squawk. I was wondering if this is a big problem in the industry, no problem in the industry or whether some people experience it depending on equipment, operating conditions, maintenance level or incorrect fluid etc.... If you have suffered this problem or are suffering this problem I would be keen to know exactly what the problem is and how you are dealing with it (if indeed you are dealing with it). I have come across a few instances of it in my research but to me it is not a big problem but I figured if it exists out there you guys should know. Any thoughts or help you could give me with this phenomenon would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks and very best regards Andrew
Slip-stick chatter is a not uncommon problem, typically this is the answer for systems without wet brake or clutch frictions: https://parts.cat.com/en/catcorp/1u-9891-1u-9891 And for brake issues: https://parts.cat.com/en/catcorp/197-0017-197-0017-product
Hi Lantraxco - thanks for the reply. I am aware of the CAT product and there are a few other 'top treat' products out in the market place that will do the same job. I have 2 questions on that. 1 Adding an FM of this type will invalidate any approvals you have on your hydraulic fluid. Does anybody care about doing this or is fixing the chatter,squawk, stick slip the only thought in mind? 2 Is this problem common enough that users would be interested in buying a hydraulic oil with a fix already in place with a likely premium attached to it, or is this a problem that occurs here and there and users would apply the top treat as and when it is necessary? I guess what I am trying to find out is would users want this property including in a fluid for all their applications irrespective of needing it or are they just happy to fix accordingly. cheers Andrew
1. When you state the FMs (friction modifiers?) will invalidate any approvals on the hydraulic fluid, what are the "approvals" you talk about? (Genuine question, not being a smartarse). When someone buys such a product from a reputable source such as Cat, the implication is that the product purchased is fit for purpose and the thought that it would cause any further problems or be incompatible with the hydraulic fluid would not even cross the mind. 2. I would say the problem is very uncommon in this industry. In over 30 years working 6 days a week as a technician, I can probably count on two hands (and maybe one foot!) the number of times I have had to use what is known in the trade as 'snake oil'. So to answer your question, I don't think people would pay a premium for oil with the additive already included.
Hi Cmark, When we develop hydraulic fluids we generally need to gain approvals from the pump manufacturers (Eaton, Bosch Rexroth, Denison etc...) so adding a friction modifier would invalidate any of these approvals, so if you were to have a problem with the hydraulic pump(s) on your equipment I am not sure the pump manufacturer would entertain any warranty claims knowing this has occurred. The CAT product is a little unknown - I should imagine if you needed to use it in CAT equipment then they may honour any warranties but again I am not sure about the Pump manufacturers. I should also imagine this would also need to be in conjunction with a CAT approved hydraulic fluid and not some other brand. Using the CAT FM product on other pieces of equipment - all bets are off. Your last point is exactly where I am at. Looking at some of the 'related' posts on this forum the noises in your cylinders are, on a lot of occasions, coming from some other source or cause (sticking valves, ungreased pins, too old and worn seals etc..) and not directly from the hydraulic oil in the cylinder needing an FM treat. Your 30 years and 6 times is great info and if others have a similar experience I would love to hear. Many thanks for your information - very much appreciated
Cmark - sorry misread. 6 days a week not six times, probably more like 15 times but the implication is the same Also I said 'the CAT product is a little unknown' I meant the situation with regards to approvals and warranties and not the product itself - it is very well known in that regard.
I agree with Cmark's points. Basically it's likely that the additive may be simply introducing more of some chemical that is already part of the hydraulic oil's additive package. Second, all things being equal, how would any manufacturer know if you had used such a treatment? I suppose it is possible, but I think it's unlikely. In my experience hydraulic manufacturers have a long list of prewritten excuses for denying warranty, this would just be one more. Aside from OEM fluids I doubt anyone would pay extra for a premium fluid with extra friction modifiers, YMMV
Same here, and my experience is with the Cat product as well. Some of the time the additive is called for as SOP on the PM schedule for the machine in question. The other common method is a Service Magazine that effectively says "if you have this problem add X litres of the additive". Cat's stance on hydraulic oils is generally that although they sell Cat-branded oil (that is given a longer life between changes than a commercial hydraulic oil) they also approve any commercial hydraulic oil that meets their standard. IMHO because Cat (in this case) carries the warranty (if one exists) on the pump then no-one at the sharp end of the customer maintenance function would give the proverbial rat's *** about using an FM because basically the manufacturer's documentation instructed them to do exactly that. Like CM and lantraxco I've come across this phenomenon in hydraulic systems very infrequently in over 30 years working in the business. Can't remember how many times exactly but probably single figures. Now if you'd asked about brake squeal in wet braked axles the answer would have been different but the oil used in that compartment would be one meeting TO-4 specification so any comparisons with hydraulic systems would be nebulous at best. TBH based on recent experience of specific machines that needed a FM product to be added to a certain compartment when the oil was changed I would personally prefer to have a commercial hydraulic oil in my bulk tanks and add the FM separately where required. Because the percentage of oil that required an FM would be so small compared to the total consumption that it would be uneconomic have the FM added by the supplier.
Thanks for your thoughts guys. I could probably say that the FMs used as top treats, (1U9891) for example, are not components that would be used in standard hydraulic packs and should anyone wish to take a look it would be easy to identify that this type of chemistry is there, but I take your point, with so many hydraulic options available it may be difficult to prove out one way or another. Wet brake and clutch FMs are different to those used for this purpose and I think there is usually a disclaimer on the packs to say 'not to be used for wet brake and or clutch applications'. Nige - would the bulk tank to be used for several machines be a common practice? I am thinking it is but the hydraulic market is very fragmented so it may not make up the bulk of the end user delivery (in much the way engine oils would be in workshops and dealerships) I think, although there are only 3 of you in this thread, that the message is the same, this is not very common and is not going to be a great selling point for anew hydraulic fluid. The fact that nearly 200 people have viewed the thread and not felt the need to comment also suggests they would have nothing to add. Many thanks!
I work in the open put mining business so the big end of the market. For example on my last job the bulk tanks for lube oils including hydraulic (we actually used 10W TO-4 to prevent someone inadvertently putting hydraulic oil in a wet brake compartment) were 6500 gallons capacity each. The engine oil tank was 10k gallons......
I can't help but think that you've got a lot of interesting points to make on the subject of hydraulic fluids, but I must say that I can't really make head nor tail of your first and third paragraphs. With your profile saying you were from the UK, I suppose I was expecting a native English speaker. If you're not, please accept my apologies. Let's work together to try and understand each other. As for your final point, I would say, yes, the problem is so uncommon as to be virtually unknown to the average operator/mechanic and only of academic interest to the more experienced technicians.
Not sure I'm completely following this discussion but do recall one or maybe two loaders 980 G and maybe a 988H that had a noise in one or another hydraulic cylinder that at first we thought it was pin not getting/taking grease. I do recall on the 980 G that this noise appeared shortly after a reseal of a tilt cylinder. After adding a small amount, maybe 8 ounces?, of the Cat additive noise disappeared in a mater of a couple minutes. Forget the P/N of the product, but it was the same additive Cat said to use in the wet brakes to stop the noise there.
Oh dear!! Yes totally English but obviously not making a lot of sense (my wife would probably agree) First paragraph - The friction modifiers that are sold for this problem are different chemistry types to that normally used in hydraulic fluids. It would be possible by chemical analysis to be able to see, quite easily, if one of these top treats had been added to a hydraulic fluid. I was making the assumption that the OEM approved fluid would be used whilst the machine was in the warranty period but that assumption is possibly wrong and hence there are probably hundreds of hydraulic fluids being used. If this was the case it may be more difficult to identify an FM top treat because the origin of the basic hydraulic fluid would be less clear. Having said that though there are not that many hydraulic additive packages to choose from and most of the fluids in the market place would be based on 2 or 3 packages at the most. I hope that makes more sense? Third paragraph - hmmm I think I can see your point here. I was wondering if the majority of end users would have a fleet of vehicles that would need lubricating with hydraulic fluid and hence the use of a bulk tank (be it large or small) was common. If this is the case and the cylinder noise problem is so small then it would make sense to have a normal hydraulic fluid in the tank and then top treat problem vehicles as and when they appear. I think the hydraulic fluid market is quite fragmented and possibly a large percentage of end users may only have one piece of machinery to lubricate and hence a squawk modified fluid might be OK, but these users would need to have the need for it in order for them to want to buy it ( I hope that makes sense). There would be no point in catering for the latter if is the former that are driving the market and the sales. If the problem is so small then I can't really see these 'one man bands' needing the modified fluids either and hence the whole thing really doesn't make sense. The engine oil analogy was more about Truck fleets and the fact that the majority of maintenance would be carried out at a workshop with a bulk tank of engine oil that would cater for a large range of trucks and not a special for one truck that was then going to be applied to all of the others. I hope that all makes a little more sense and I apologise for my inability to communicate.
And you have to remember there's a large portion of the market that will simply say "what squawk?" and keep running with no action at all. It's totally amazing how owners and especially operators become tone deaf when they're working.
Turn up the volume on the radio is the field fix.
When the laborer with the Ipod and ear buds couldn't hear the backup alarm.... *sigh* :angel