At what point, I'm assuming is tied to weight, does a manufacturer decide to invert the boom rams and why? See pics below for examples.
I think we need a real engineer from Cat to answer this - or else we are gonna get a whole lotta speculatin' in this thread....
I don't know but I like the shiny side up.:beatsme
I think it has more to do with the location of the hoses. They are easier to plumb up if they are upside down... That is why most of the Liebherr machines are arranged like this.
Its got a lot to do with protecting the chrome too. Hoes with the traditional configuration put the rods at the top to help keep them away from debris as the bucket crowds toward the body. I've never seen a 345 in a face shovel before, sweet!
The big one for it are the Germans. See Leibherr and original Atlas machines. The new Terex Atlas Machines have them the shiny side up. Maybe the Cat 5000 series inherited the idea with the technology. :beatsme
That 345 is a neat setup. I wonder how small cat or a aftermarket company will make a shovel
So should a bucket ram be tother way up? :stirthepot
Thats what i've also heard!, I think their was a thread on here somewhere suggesting this!
05cummins wrote
Ok k now i want the 328D
I was always of the understanding that the reason was to do with Break Out force from the cylinders. Depending on the Plumbing.............there is usually more surface area exposed to the Piston Head on the Barrel side just as there is reduced surface are on the Piston on the Rod End due to the Diameter of the Rod???? That is how it was explained to me by some one who I always trusted as being all knowing! Any other theories.................?
the piston vrs rod thing is what i thought for the most power but the piston is getting the oil nomater what way up the ram is up, isnt it???
It's to facilitate the hydraulic hoses. The larger the hose diameter, the larger the bending radius on them and the more difficult they become to accomidate. Putting the chrome on the bottom does make it more vurnerable to damage but this is an acceptable compromise on the big quarry machines. This would not work on a 3 tonne machine in the rental market but I suppose the operator of a big face shovel is going to be trained and competent enough to look after his machine and avoid chrome damage. It makes no difference at all to the force the cyclinder will develop. This is a function of the piston diameter and the hydraulic pressure only.
This is the original thread on this subject look here ,all will be revealed
I've had a bit too many to drink to explain the main reason (its alot more complicated than you think) but I'll try and get on in the morning before I start night shift :drinkup Theres a few reasons, but like I said, the main one is complicated!
I am curious Chris. Dont take too long to reply. I was pretty sure easier fitting of the hoses is the main reason.
That only applies when comparing the force and speed of a hydraulic cylinder pushing or pulling. A cylinder will always have more force pushing and more speed pulling because of the surface area (and volume) that is taken up by the rod. I would put my faith in the hose routing/bend radius being the deciding factor.