So what I'm hearing is that loaders are matched more to the prospective buyers eyeballs, rather than the capacity of the tractor to adequately handle them.
That does make sense now that I think about it, as similarly sized tractors from yesteryear featured much smaller buckets on their loaders. I'm used to adding weight for traction and stability, NOT as a teeter-totter off the back axle because the front axle is too marginal to get the job done. And instructing the owner to add three point weight, rather than just beef up the axle, appears shoddy at first, but then again we have become a society that takes everything literally.
"The manual states the bucket will carry 1500 lbs, and I'm not going to be satisfied with 1499!"
Never mind that the max weight was calculated on paper, under absolute perfect conditions.
I'm not in a production environment, so I don't think under utilizing the weight capacity of the loader will bother me any more than tier 4 emissions will. It's either that, or an older machine that's built heavier, and I'm over that.
Guess I'll just have to use a little horse sense, and pay attention to how I load the bucket. I'm not prepared to use my hitch as a hat rack at this stage, I need to have both front and back of whatever tractor I choose in play.
I do think following the manual is safest, especially if one is not used to a tractor. They will hurt you, be careful!
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.