What should my rear ballast weigh ?

[Duffster]

Boy this thread really took off. I had quite a few pages to read to get caught back up this morning.

Duffster: IMO your ramblings are meaningless unless you can give a little more verifiable detail as to which tractor you have etc. Some larger 100+ HP farm tractors may indeed be able to not overload the front axle without ballast. But we are talking CUT's and SCUT's here and there is a big difference. SCUT's are built light so they can mow and tread lightly across lawns. Working a FEL to the max DOES require rear ballast not only for saftey but for the longetivity of the front axle.


I did dig out my L3400 manual and I was dissappointed to find that there wasnt a rating for the front axle anywhere. It is not listed online either. I think JD is the only one that lists that spec online. So who knows if its 2500lbs or 6000lbs???? But 2600lb tractor + 900lb FEL + 260lb bucket + 500lb fluid + 300 lb blade = 4560lb tractor weight. And at that weight, I can still lift the rears. That means I have all 4560lb on just the front axle PLUS whatever weight is in the bucket ~1000lbs:confused2: I try not to do this because I cant help but think that it cant be too good. Plus the 7x16 AGs up front say Max load 1100lbs:confused2:

But What I did find in my manual may be of interest to those who disagree with putting weight on the 3PH. This is word for word

"For tractor stability and operators saftey, rear ballast should be added to the rear of the tractor in the form of 3-piont counter weight and rear ballast. The amount of rear ballast will depend on the application.

Meaningless? Really? Who are you to make this assertion?

If you must know I am referring to a MF 399.

I don't disagree with using counterweight, just don't agree with the statement that you have to use counterweight. The excerpt form your manual seems to agree with me.

With the figures you have given is it even possible to counterweight your tractor enough to keep the front axle under the (tire) rating?

 

[rjkobbeman]

Boy this thread really took off. I had quite a few pages to read to get caught back up this morning.

Duffster: IMO your ramblings are meaningless unless you can give a little more verifiable detail as to which tractor you have etc. Some larger 100+ HP farm tractors may indeed be able to not overload the front axle without ballast. But we are talking CUT's and SCUT's here and there is a big difference. SCUT's are built light so they can mow and tread lightly across lawns. Working a FEL to the max DOES require rear ballast not only for saftey but for the longetivity of the front axle.


I did dig out my L3400 manual and I was dissappointed to find that there wasnt a rating for the front axle anywhere. It is not listed online either. I think JD is the only one that lists that spec online. So who knows if its 2500lbs or 6000lbs???? But 2600lb tractor + 900lb FEL + 260lb bucket + 500lb fluid + 300 lb blade = 4560lb tractor weight. And at that weight, I can still lift the rears. That means I have all 4560lb on just the front axle PLUS whatever weight is in the bucket ~1000lbs:confused2: I try not to do this because I cant help but think that it cant be too good. Plus the 7x16 AGs up front say Max load 1100lbs:confused2:

But What I did find in my manual may be of interest to those who disagree with putting weight on the 3PH. This is word for word

"For tractor stability and operators saftey, rear ballast should be added to the rear of the tractor in the form of 3-piont counter weight and rear ballast. The amount of rear ballast will depend on the application.

With AG (R1) tires and their weight rating, that is your real problem.

I would have loved to have the R1 traction, however when I bought my tractor there were two main reasons I went with R4s: weight rating and durability in my locust tree filled land.

I am pro wheel weights and ballast box... and refuse to use loaded tires. But one thing is for sure, which ever loading option you choose if you STILL manage to get your rear end in the air, you have that much more weight on the front end.

 

[LD1]

Meaningless? Really? Who are you to make this assertion?

If you must know I am referring to a MF 399.

I don't disagree with using counterweight, just don't agree with the statement that you have to use counterweight. The excerpt form your manual seems to agree with me.

With the figures you have given is it even possible to counterweight your tractor enough to keep the front axle under the (tire) rating?

Meaningless in the context of this thread. This guy is talking about a JD 2520 SCUT. You come on here saying you dont need counter weight and then start playing games with one phrase quotes like
"are you sure about that"
"who says you need to"
ETC.

You have a 100HP 8000+/- lb tractor. BIG difference. Maybe you dont need counter weight. Maybe you do but just don't know that you are overloading you front axle. Who knows and I dont care. If you or I overload our front axles or tires, who cares. But I am not about to tell a newbie to do it. I am going to give him the best advice I can to keep him safe and his tractor in one piece.

And my manuel DOESN'T agree with you. Unless you count "should" as meaning "don't really have to".

You should use counterweight (3PH) AND ballast(tires). And the amount of ballast(tire) can vary depending on the task.

That means to use a 3PH weight and a maybe on the tire ballast, NOT the other way around as you suggest.

 

[Duffster]

I am sorry if I crumpled anyones feathers. I will just keep my thoughts to myself.

Maybe you could stand to learn a few things about ballast from these posts yourself.

So many people have the wrong idea about using tire weight for FEL ballast.
To properly ballast your FEL,the weight has to be BEHIND the rear axle.
The purpose is twofold,to keep the rear end on the ground AND take weight OFF the front axle.

Greg

Meaningless in the context of this thread. This guy is talking about a JD 2520 SCUT.

I believe glc was referring to Deerlope who has a M5040, utility tractor.

 

[sailorman]

OP here. I 've learned a lot in this thread and not just about ballast. I realized from the beginning that tractors have different characteristics, requirements, and limitations. That 's why I included info about my specific tractor in op. Some posters realized my questions applied to my tractor, some posters did not.

So I got informational bonuses : 1) info about my tractor 2) info about other tractors 3) general info related to ballast 4) mis-information

I 'll continue to read thread as long as it goes on. More on #1, #2, and #3 will always be helpful and #4 will remind me of what not to do.

 

[CharlieS]

While there are some valid points as well as some not so valid made here, one thing most seem to be missing is while applying the lever/fulcrum theory, adding too much weight its possible to overload a back axle also, though not as likely. Ultimately its the operators responsibility to know what the loading limits are of the equipment and weight of material being handled and a tractor cannot be weighted ideally for all scenerios without constantly making weighting changes. On smaller tractors particularly loader buckets can be overfilled (weightwise) exceeding spec axle or tire weight limits, however there is normally some safety factor built in to these ratings also. Its just that exceeding them continually causes premature wear or breakage.
While ballasted tires/wheel weights may not remove weight from a front axle as the lever/fulcrum theory prescribes, ballasted tires provide the most stable footprint having the weight as low as possible while providing little actual weight gain on the rear axle.
Even wheel weights add to the "sprung" weight as they are being supported by the inflated tire as does a 3 pt weighted ballast.
Even with large ag tractors its sometimes necessary to use more than one ballast method, generally fluid in the tires as well as wheel weights simply because the physical limits of either method alone are not adiquate.
Its also quite possible under certain conditions to over ballast (though not as likely) the rear of some tractors causing a light front end, thus the importance of knowing how to ballast and why, and knowing how to also calculate wheel slippage.
Just because one has a half yard bucket on his or her tractor, doesnt mean it can be safely filled with all materials hence the importance of the operator knowing the weights of such materials in relation to tractor/axle/loader capacity.

 

[LD1]

While there are some valid points as well as some not so valid made here, one thing most seem to be missing is while applying the lever/fulcrum theory, adding too much weight its possible to overload a back axle also, though not as likely. Ultimately its the operators responsibility to know what the loading limits are of the equipment and weight of material being handled and a tractor cannot be weighted ideally for all scenerios without constantly making weighting changes. On smaller tractors particularly loader buckets can be overfilled (weightwise) exceeding spec axle or tire weight limits, however there is normally some safety factor built in to these ratings also. Its just that exceeding them continually causes premature wear or breakage.
While ballasted tires/wheel weights may not remove weight from a front axle as the lever/fulcrum theory prescribes, ballasted tires provide the most stable footprint having the weight as low as possible while providing little actual weight gain on the rear axle.
Even wheel weights add to the "sprung" weight as they are being supported by the inflated tire as does a 3 pt weighted ballast.
Even with large ag tractors its sometimes necessary to use more than one ballast method, generally fluid in the tires as well as wheel weights simply because the physical limits of either method alone are not adiquate.
Its also quite possible under certain conditions to over ballast (though not as likely) the rear of some tractors causing a light front end, thus the importance of knowing how to ballast and why, and knowing how to also calculate wheel slippage.
Just because one has a half yard bucket on his or her tractor, doesnt mean it can be safely filled with all materials hence the importance of the operator knowing the weights of such materials in relation to tractor/axle/loader capacity.

Very well put but I would like to add one thing to what you said.

Adding weight to the wheels/tires indeed does not add weight to the rear axle, BUT... If that is insufficent ballast, and the loader has the power to raise the rears, that added weith IS carried by the front axle and can likely overload it.

That is why on smaller CUT and SCUT's it is just as important to ballast with the 3PH. A 500lb Implement or counterweight is not likely to overload and CUT or SCUT's rear axle. But 500lbs of wheel weights and/or fluid with no 3PH weight might be enough to stabilize the tractor and load in the bucket, but it is likely to overload the tractors front axle.

As Duffster has pointed out, this probabally does not apply to larger AG tractors as they are built a lot heavier.

 

[CharlieS]

Very well put but I would like to add one thing to what you said.

Adding weight to the wheels/tires indeed does not add weight to the rear axle, BUT... If that is insufficent ballast, and the loader has the power to raise the rears, that added weith IS carried by the front axle and can likely overload it.

That is why on smaller CUT and SCUT's it is just as important to ballast with the 3PH. A 500lb Implement or counterweight is not likely to overload and CUT or SCUT's rear axle. But 500lbs of wheel weights and/or fluid with no 3PH weight might be enough to stabilize the tractor and load in the bucket, but it is likely to overload the tractors front axle.

As Duffster has pointed out, this probabally does not apply to larger AG tractors as they are built a lot heavier.

Agreed.
I'm guessing though, the majority of small tractors when using the loader to its potential are going to overweight the front end much of the time. Moreso than midframe or large frame equipment, which goes back to weight and wheelbase and the lever/fulcrum arguement.
And while this may be controversial, the only way to settle that would be to have a scale accessable all the time. There's really no single answer for the proper type of ballast or which is most effective. Which raises another question of which method is effective to solve what issue? No matter what method is chosen, 3 pt mounted, weights or loading the tires, all are effective in keeping the rears on the ground.
I feel like the proper permenant/semipermenant (weights or fluid) ballast is whats proper for the most oft used application of the equipment, and applying common sense for the other jobs necessary, even though conditions may not be ideal.
As for adding rear (wheel) weights, that does add weight to the rear axle but in a different manner than fluid. the weights are supported by the wheel but is more of an integral part of the tractor. Fluid is ground supported and helps lower the center of gravity, but in all cases (including 3 pt mounted ballast) the drivetrain is moving more weight and mass, thus overweighting can create more wear on the drivetrain in the same amount of time as no weighting would do. Shock load is more likely to cause drive train damage as well as there being excessive tire wear. So besides thinking in terms of adaqate weighting, weighting for proper wheel slip is just as important, and the two are not necessarily the same.
As i said, its still the ultimate responsibility of the operator to use the equipment properly and that includes net weight in the bucket not only for overloading prevention but operating conditions as well.

 

[LD1]

Agreed.
I'm guessing though, the majority of small tractors when using the loader to its potential are going to overweight the front end much of the time. Moreso than midframe or large frame equipment, which goes back to weight and wheelbase and the lever/fulcrum arguement.
And while this may be controversial, the only way to settle that would be to have a scale accessable all the time. There's really no single answer for the proper type of ballast or which is most effective. Which raises another question of which method is effective to solve what issue? No matter what method is chosen, 3 pt mounted, weights or loading the tires, all are effective in keeping the rears on the ground.
I feel like the proper permenant/semipermenant (weights or fluid) ballast is whats proper for the most oft used application of the equipment, and applying common sense for the other jobs necessary, even though conditions may not be ideal.
As for adding rear (wheel) weights, that does add weight to the rear axle but in a different manner than fluid. the weights are supported by the wheel but is more of an integral part of the tractor. Fluid is ground supported and helps lower the center of gravity, but in all cases (including 3 pt mounted ballast) the drivetrain is moving more weight and mass, thus overweighting can create more wear on the drivetrain in the same amount of time as no weighting would do. Shock load is more likely to cause drive train damage as well as there being excessive tire wear. So besides thinking in terms of adaqate weighting, weighting for proper wheel slip is just as important, and the two are not necessarily the same.
As i said, its still the ultimate responsibility of the operator to use the equipment properly and that includes net weight in the bucket not only for overloading prevention but operating conditions as well.

I think we see Eye to Eye on this one.

Bottom line is, Enough ballast to keep the rear on the ground and stay safe is a must.

Weight in/on the wheel is easier on the rear axle and 3PH but harder on the front end.

Weight on the 3PH pts added stress on the 3PH and rear axle but lightens the load on the front axle.

I guess you canthave your cake and eat it too.

 

[CharlieS]

Now i'm wondering how many people actually know or calculate the loads they are lifting/moving with loaders?
On our medium frame new holland for example, is an approximate .6 cubic yard bucket, level full of either soil or gravel has a net load weight of around 1700 lbs, based on a cubic foot average weight of 105 lbs/cubic foot.
This is on a tractor/loader combination weight of just under 6000 lbs, so with this setup it would be pretty hard to lift the rears.