Toughest Material To Move With FEL

[pat32rf]

I find that digging in rocky ground, or just trying to get stones in athe bucket can be frustrating with no toothbar. Thats why I built a stone bucket......also works for rooting out saplings or carrying brush.

 

[rekees4300]

I always keep a couple small piles of gravel (1-2 tons) at the top of our road for general road repair and winter use to get better traction when icy. Unfortunately, during our last snow, I had used all the washed stone and decided to use material out of the road bond pile (stone & crushed material). Was I in for a surprise...

The freeze/thaw/freeze conditions had transformed that gravel pile into nothing short of a cement dome that I could't penetrate with a toothbar on my loader. Literally stopped my machine dead in it's tracks! Had to turn the unit around and chip away with the backhoe, then break up with shovel. Took about 2 hrs to do a 30 minute job.

Covering the stone pile with a tarp to keep it somewhat dry will lessen the freezing. Only problem is that the tarp must be removed before the stone can be accessed. That can involve manually shoving the snow/ice off first.

 

[NuBota]

I read this topic differently - I have the hardest time with light material, i.e. mulch, compost, etc. A free standing pile of such things will "move" on you when trying to get a full bucket. Granted some of it is FEL technique - but I have a much easier time moving dirt and rock piles. I moved four dump trucks of fill down a 15 degree hill and 100ft back into the woods - had BH or RB and filled tires in the back - took heaped buckets. Many many trips with the BX but I was amazed how well it handled. I initially worried when I saw the "squish" on the front tires, but it held up fine.

As far as stress, I rely on the hydraulics to give out on too heavy a load before the axle/frame becomes at risk.

All that said, I only have 200 hrs logged, and am not the most proficient operator, so could be all wet here....

 

[magicheater]

I read this topic differently - I have the hardest time with light material, i.e. mulch, compost, etc. A free standing pile of such things will "move" on you when trying to get a full bucket.

A lot of truth in your statement and I can relate.

 

[JDGreenGrass]

Yup, tire squish......That is what sold me on the ballast box.

I will never again use the FEL without ballast. It "feels" like the tractor's performance increases 10 fold. :thumbsup:


And, I hate the looks of tire squish.!!

 

[rjkobbeman]

It is my OPINION (FWIW) that front axles SHOULD be able to carry across reasonably rough ground whatever the loader can lift, without undue wear or premature failure.
QUOTE]

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

However, if you take a look at the weight rating of R1s, you will see it is very easy to overload those tires. I think that is where weight behind the rear axle really helps.

I was looking at a Kubota M7040 the other day. It had R1s on it and the front tire rating was 1800 lbs. That is 3600 pounds for both tires. That tractor is approximately 5k lbs. without the loader. I would guess the loader is close to 2k lbs. Not sure how much of that weight is on the front, but that does not leave much for the bucket.

 

[nwbearcat]

Read the tractor's manual about ballasting your machine.
Tractor manufacturers sell ballast boxes for a reason, and they've been around for many decades.

Making do with what you have. Tobacco has been around for along time, but that doesn't make it good for you

One reason is, of course, to improve rear wheel traction when necessary.
Another is to improve stability and another is to reduce the load on the front axle by acting as a counterweight.

Counter weight yes..reducing load on the FRONT axle no, add weight to the rear yes.

Otherwise, when using the loader to it's capacity (the relief valve in the system will let go before the system is excessively taxed), there is a substantial load on that front axle, even when worked within it's capacity. As you wrote in your post "somewhere there is a fulcrum"...that's the rear axle.

Explain how this is possible for the fulcrum to LOOSE contact with the ground when the loader is loaded? This is what is happening when you put a load in your loader right? If we agree that the fulcrum is the rear axle, how could loading the bucket possible remove weight from the pivot point? The most stress is on the front, and even if you put a counter weight on the rear, the most stress continues to be on the front axle, you've just got a buddy on the back of your teeter totter to help keep your tail on the ground. Here's an experiment you can try at home. You'll need 2-5 gallon buckets of water, and 2 bathroom scales. Place both scales in a position where you can place 1 foot on each. Do so and record the weights for each. Now pick up 1 bucket in 1 hand and hold out to the side, for this example we'll say that's your left hand. Note the change in weights and record. Now pick up the other bucket in the other hand, and hold out to the opposite side, in this experiment, your right. Note the change in weights. While I haven't personally done this, I believe the hypothesis will prove true...you're not reducing any weight on your left (the loader) by carrying some weight with your right (the rear of the tractor), but you're going to keep your machine more balanced. I'll give you balance and stability, but will disagree that you're reducing any weight on the front axle by carrying a counter balance. The loader is effectively a big lever, with the tipping point on the front axle, and hooked under the mid point of the tractor. Another test...go scoop a big bucket of dirt or rock with your loader, note the amount of squat in the front tires and the steering effort required with that load. Now go hook on your ballast box and get a similar bucket, does the impact to the front tires or the steering effort change? I'd bet not

Before you respond hastily, give that some thought or do some research. You might learn something.

Didn't know you timed my response...but yes, I've been observing for a while, just signed up for a user id recently, and have logged more than a couple hours on a tractor

And here's one for you...that FEL should be removed when not using it. The intent is to reduce wear on the front axle, pivots and such.
Deere recommends ballast (both front and rear, depending on the task at hand). Deere also recommends removing ballast when not necessary to extend drive train life. Since many of us do use that extra weight of the loader for front ballast (bush hogging, for example), one should remove that extra weight when not using it. As an example, my loader is off from Spring until Fall unless I have a specific need for it. I'll also drop the bucket off to reduce weight (buckets are heavy!!) when I have the loader on (if I know I'm going to be needing the loader in the near future).
Of course, not all loaders are removable or quick attach.

But you said that the fulcrum is the rear axle...why would leaving the loader on when you have a weight on the back of the tractor result in any wear to the front axle or pivots?.

As far as cracked castings...I've never read of or heard of someone breaking a casting using rear ballast (there was a relatively recent thread (Deere forum) which discussed an owner breaking the upper link attaching point, but that wasn't due to ballasting). I have read (on all the dedicated tractor forums on TBN) of folks breaking their tractors using 3ph backhoes (easy to overstress with a backhoe that isn't tied to the frame like the front end loaders are).

I guess you haven't been too many places where people really use tractors...I've seen cracked frame rails on 4440 JD's, busted front axles on about any color...loaders when used hard, and used alot take their toll eventually. I know the mid hp Ford SOS's had somewhat of a tendancy to spit if used alot

 

[RoyJackson]

I initially worried when I saw the "squish" on the front tires, but it held up fine....

When you see that "squish" (tire sidewalls deforming under the weight), it's time to add some pressure to those front tires (at least while you're operating with the loader).
You can run those tires right off the rims like that.

 

[RoyJackson]

I guess you haven't been too many places where people really use tractors...I've seen cracked frame rails on 4440 JD's, busted front axles on about any color...loaders when used hard, and used alot take their toll eventually. I know the mid hp Ford SOS's had somewhat of a tendancy to spit if used alot

Not much use responding to your post...do what ever you want.
But do some research on the web about ballasting your tractor.

 

[Redneck in training]

I have ordered 12yds. of Loam to fill in some holes and low spots in my yard, get some new grass growing. I am wondering how the 770 will perform getting into the pile.?? I'll have my ballast box on for sure as the Loam will be quite heavy, I assume. I find that the BB improves production greatly.

So, what material is the toughest to get a bucket load of.?? Rock.?? 3" Gravel.?? Loam.?? You tell me.......

I had trouble keeping air in the bucket.

Speaking about rear ballast. In addition to increased stability I understand that the rear weight is required to lessen stress on the front drive train. If the FEL bucket is full the front wheels have a lot of traction while rear wheels have less or no traction. Therefore all the power of the engine is transferred to ground trough the front axle. Front axles of some tractors are designed to take the full power but many tractors have front axle designed to take only partial power. Without rear ballast the front axle or the shaft of such tractors could fail prematurely. If properly designed the weakest point is outside of the trany or axle so it is easy to change. There are quite few posts of failed (twisted off) front axle drive shaft on TBN.

 

[Egon]

I had trouble with air.

Carrying around a bucket of cold air is easy but for hot air you gotta keep the bucket in the full dump position! Done right that hot air even loads itself!:thumbsup: he-he

If a fellow is real curious about the reaction of the front/rear tires with/without ballast and a full loader draw a diagram with distances and arbitrary weights at the loader, front tire and rear ballast points. Then figure out the reaction at the rear tire position with/without ballast. [ Pick an arbitrary pivot point in front of or behind the tractor and use the distances from that point for you calculations. The vertical loads must come out to zero in the end; ie the weights are negative and the tire loads are positive ]

Might answer a few questions the simple way rather than talking loud to express an opinion of dubious veracity!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[nwbearcat]

Not much use responding to your post...do what ever you want.
But do some research on the web about ballasting your tractor.

I've got 3 sets of wheel weights already on my tractor, I prefer iron to CaCL, at least I can see the rust if it occurs that way. But I still disagree that adding rear ballast will reduce weight on the front axle. I have weight on my rear axle to offset the weight of the loader, but I run a higher risk of overloading my front. In no way can this added weight lower the amount of weight my front axle carries during loader operation that I can see. Not until you lift the load pretty high into the air does alot of weight shift to the rear axle...if my view of geometry isn't failing me, and at that point, it is the loader that is transfering weight to the rear, not the ballast box. Maybe someone can draw a picture that explains how it is possible. Does rear weight help? Absolutely, it does several things, it adds stability to keep the rear wheels down on the ground, and by doing that, it lets the rear wheels pull to move the tractor rather than asking the front axle in the case of a FWA. In my case I only have a 2wd tractor, so rear weight lets me move with a load.

 

[rd_macgregor]

Before I got a tooth bar, I found the hardest things to load/move with a plain FEL bucket were (1) mixed manure/hay/straw, (2) hard-packed rocky ground/dirt, (3) brush/branches/trimmings, (4) anything frozen.
For the last of these, I now not only have a tooth bar, but also a grapple rake.
BOB

 

[Josh61513]

nwbearcat,

I often find it helpful when analyzing a system to think of things in the extreme. Imagine a small 2,000 lb. tractor with a FEL without anything in the bucket. We'll assume the weight is split 50/50 between the front and rear axles (1,000 lbs. carried on each axle).

Now fill the bucket with a dense material (ie concrete) to the point where the rear tires just being to come off the ground. Now the front axle is carrying all of the weight of the tractor (2,000 lbs.) plus the weight of the dense material in the bucket. This is easy to follow and makes sense, right?

Now take that same fully loaded tractor and add a ballast box to the 3-point hitch, spaced 5' behind the rear axle. Now add a huge (say 5-10,000 lb.) weight to the ballast box until the front axle of the tractor comes off of the ground. Now does the concept make sense? It's complicated because it is a 2-fulcrum system in which one or both fulcrum points can react part of the load.

Now as the weight in the ballast box is slowly reduced, pound by pound, the load carried by the front axle begins to increase from zero. At some point the manufacturer determines some amount of weight to be best for overall durability of the system, this is the idea of a counterweight.

Now I will say that tractor manufactures typically recommend some amount weight to be added to the rear of the tractor, but they don't specify how far behind the rear axle this weight should be. The distance the weight is from the rear axle has a huge effect on how beneficial this ballast actually is.

Also, you are correct that adding ballast can increase the stress induced into the tractor frame. The added loads (loader bucket and ballast) are both outside of the reaction points where the load is carried to the ground (front and rear axles). This creates a large bending load near the center of the tractor/frame.

Hope this helps,

Josh

 

[TomWhite]

Water!:laughing:

or feathers. They just keep being blown out.

 

[Iplayfarmer]

The toughest material to move with a FEL, no matter what you're moving, is that last bucket full.

 

[Reg]

I've got 3 sets of wheel weights already on my tractor, I prefer iron to CaCL, at least I can see the rust if it occurs that way. But I still disagree that adding rear ballast will reduce weight on the front axle. I have weight on my rear axle to offset the weight of the loader, but I run a higher risk of overloading my front. In no way can this added weight lower the amount of weight my front axle carries during loader operation that I can see. Not until you lift the load pretty high into the air does alot of weight shift to the rear axle...if my view of geometry isn't failing me, and at that point, it is the loader that is transfering weight to the rear, not the ballast box. Maybe someone can draw a picture that explains how it is possible. Does rear weight help? Absolutely, it does several things, it adds stability to keep the rear wheels down on the ground, and by doing that, it lets the rear wheels pull to move the tractor rather than asking the front axle in the case of a FWA. In my case I only have a 2wd tractor, so rear weight lets me move with a load.

Yes, I can draw that for you.
Picture #1 is a teeter-totter with the front axle as the pivot point, the loaded bucket in front and whatever ballast you want at the back; fat guy in the seat, loaded tires, rototiller, whatever.
This is the "It won't do front wheel stands, but Oh dear, I think the front axle can't take it" diagram.

Picture #2 is very similar but the REAR axle is the pivot point and for this purpose the fat guy in the seat, wheel weights or filled tires don't count because they are in essence AT the pivot and have no turning moment about it.
HOWEVER anything behind that pivot DOES counter balance anything in front of it (balance beams are just LIKE that, by their very nature), so Yeah, it unloads the front axle.

q.e.d. or somesuch

 

[Reg]

It is my OPINION (FWIW) that front axles SHOULD be able to carry across reasonably rough ground whatever the loader can lift, without undue wear or premature failure.
QUOTE]

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

However, if you take a look at the weight rating of R1s, you will see it is very easy to overload those tires. I think that is where weight behind the rear axle really helps.

I was looking at a Kubota M7040 the other day. It had R1s on it and the front tire rating was 1800 lbs. That is 3600 pounds for both tires. That tractor is approximately 5k lbs. without the loader. I would guess the loader is close to 2k lbs. Not sure how much of that weight is on the front, but that does not leave much for the bucket.

I think we're about to dive off on yet another tangent.
SOMEwhere it has to be acknowledged that R1s and fully loaded FEL buckets are NOT a good mix.

I've been wrong before, but methinks R4s are more suited for loader work.
In fact as "industrial" tires I would guess that to be their purpose.
I think of R1s as "agricultural tires".
ymmv, etc.

Anyway, not wanting to argue about it, but if you have the chance to check out same/similar M7040 with R4s on it - I would be curious to know what their load rating is.
I will be suitably embarrassed if it is less than or equal to (-:

 

[Reg]

R1 and R4 sample load ratings;
These are the OEM sizes for the front of the Kukje/Branson 38, 42, 47 HP Cat 1 tractors.
FWIW, etc.

8-16 R1 "Ag" tires 6 ply, max inflation pressure 28 psi load rating 1360
ref; Titanｮ Tire catalog
12-16.5 R4 "Industrial" tires 6 ply (lightest listed) max inflation pressure 40 psi load rating 4220
ref; Titanｮ Tire catalog

So, a factor of a little over 3
I admit to being a little surprised - I wonder if those tractors can take 8,000 lbs on the front axle (-:

I do SEE the rationale for rear ballast if R1s are on the front and the loader is being used to it's max., but I think that a more reasonable approach would be to put R4s on if the tractor is to be used for medium/heavy loader work.
My rule would be ONLY light loads if R1s are on the front.
The loaders can lift about 2500, so with that ahead of the axle and a whole lot of other weight behind the front axle it would be very easy to overload the R1 tires.
Those tractors are 4,000 lbs, their loaders are 1300, add a max capacity load; If it just/almost gets it off the ground as the back tires start to lift - 7800 all balanced on the front axle, it could happen~
Oh, I forgot the fat guy on the seat - NOW you've got the full 8,000 with a (very) few hundred for margin (-:

 

[magicheater]

Before I got a tooth bar, I found the hardest things to load/move with a plain FEL bucket were (1) mixed manure/hay/straw, (2) hard-packed rocky ground/dirt, (3) brush/branches/trimmings, (4) anything frozen.
For the last of these, I now not only have a tooth bar, but also a grapple rake.
BOB

I just have my Loader Buddy! You forgot to mention rocks!