1401D hubs turned in...ill advised?

[r1-er]

I've got a 1401D that I use to bush hog the back 40 with. The terrain is really steep and scary. I haven't turned it over yet (knock on wood), but I'm constantly thinking of ways to make it safer. While doing some brake repair, I thought of this...turning the hubs in and mounting the wheels on the inside of the hubs. I got about 6" wider track width this way, but am concerned that when I load it up with the bush hog that I might break the rear end.

Anybody else ever try this? :

 

[normde2001]

I'm not familiar with YM1401 hubs, or what you mean by turning them in, but usually the wheels are just switched side to side for a wider stance, (rear only).

 

[r1-er]

I'm not familiar with YM1401 hubs, or what you mean by turning them in, but usually the wheels are just switched side to side for a wider stance, (rear only).

I switched them from side to side, but also turned the hubs around on the shafts so the wheel bolts to the inside of the flange. The offset in the pin hole in the hub allows an even wider track than just switching the wheels from side to side.

 

[California]

I have my YM186D set up that way, and for the same reason: maximum width for side slopes.

I asked a dealer who used to import Yanmars and he said he had never heard of a problem doing this.

 

[r1-er]

I have my YM186D set up that way, and for the same reason: maximum width for side slopes.

I asked a dealer who used to import Yanmars and he said he had never heard of a problem doing this.

AWESOME!!! Thanks for the confirmation. I was really hoping somebody else had tested this first.

Do you ever have anything on the back heavy enough to get the front end off the ground? When I'm spraying or bush hogging, the front end is very light and this must be maximum load on the rear end.

I can't see the end of the axle very well...do you have the pin set in the outside hole or the inside hole? I've currently got it in the inside hole so the end of the axle is slightly outside the hub...looks like yours might be in the outside hole for maximum width?

P.S. do you run the fronts turned around or normal? I've got mine turned out right now, but with the rears spaced out, steering seems to be even heavier than normal...might just be mental though.

 

[California]

Yes, my rear wheels are set to maximum, with the bolts (pins) through the outermost hole.

I have never turned the fronts out on anything. The principle here is that the front rim is centered between the inner and outer wheel bearing, and turning the front wheels out doubles the stress on the outer wheel bearing which is a safety hazard -especially on side slopes.

I have four 60 lb weights on the front bumper and it's still real light with an implement on the back.

Photo - front weights.

 

[r1-er]

Yes, my rear wheels are set to maximum, with the bolts (pins) through the outermost hole.

I have never turned the fronts out on anything. The principle here is that the front rim is centered between the inner and outer wheel bearing, and turning the front wheels out doubles the stress on the outer wheel bearing which is a safety hazard -especially on side slopes.

I have four 60 lb weights on the front bumper and it's still real light with an implement on the back.

Photo - front weights.

That thing looks like a BEAST!!! With the weights, you must have a lot more stress on the axle than mine should ever see with the couple lead blocks I've got on it.

Looks like you've made some good tire upgrades as well. I'll ask you about that when my back tires give out.

Thanks for the great info...I'm going to go swap the front wheels to their original orientation. The previous owner did it, so I don't know how much it affected the turning effort...seems really heavy right now though.

Thanks again,

Dennis.

 

[clemsonfor]

it ought to help with the sterring as the added width messes with sterring geometry id imagine. I think i heard someone on here say that dished out they fight you while turning??

 

[California]

That sounds reasonable. On any vehicle the combination of caster (kingpin inclined back), camber (top of kingpin inclined outward) and toe-in, is calculated to put the point where the tire touches the ground in a specific place relative to the kingpin. Move that patch outward, and it may want to steer toward anything that snags the tire.

 

[r1-er]

That sounds reasonable. On any vehicle the combination of caster (kingpin inclined back), camber (top of kingpin inclined outward) and toe-in, is calculated to put the point where the tire touches the ground in a specific place relative to the kingpin. Move that patch outward, and it may want to steer toward anything that snags the tire.

Yup. I've had the steering wheel jerk itself out of my hands when it hits a hole or a log. Going downhill is a nightmare because the additional weight makes it almost impossible to turn especially without a load on the rear.

I'll report back on the steering effort after I change it back.

 

[California]

re steering geometry, something else occurred to me.

In 4wd with the front axle pulling hard, front tires that are outboard of what the designer intended, way out beyond the kingpins, might tug or dodge if the traction is uneven.

 

[JL Sargent]

We've had the front wheels turned out on our 2310D for a couple of months now. Yes, it will catch against a log or in a hole and fight you some. But the wider stance is much more stable on hilly mountainous terrain. I have not noticed any additional problems when in 4wd. Some of the mowing I do requires 4wd to get it done. So it is a trade off. So far we have not changed the wheels back. Some of these Yanmar tractors sit quite high compared to other similar HP machines. For instance the 2310D has much more ground clearance than our Ford 3910 42HP tractor. They both are running Ag. tires.

 

[California]

A few times I've gotten into such a steep location that I've gotten off and rocked the tractor to see if it was near the tipping point. There was always plenty of space between the front axle and the stop where that axle would resist tipping.

I think a rear wheel would have to be off the ground before the front axle reached its stop.

Without springs or shocks, I don't see how the front axle can resist tipping forces, at least until it is too late and you are on your way over.

 

[r1-er]

On an unrelated but interesting side note:

I did something yesterday that I thought was not possible. I just got done working on the brakes and took her out for a test drive with no attachments. I was coming down a hill in 4wd and pushed in the clutch and hit both brakes at the same time (I wasn't going fast...2k in 1st high). It didn't occur to me that hitting the brakes would lock up the fronts in 4wd until then. I actually did a "stoppie" (motorcycling terminology for lifting the rear wheels off the ground and up on the front wheels with the brakes).

It wasn't intentional, and it wasn't like it was a couple feet in the air, but I never even thought that was a possibility.:thumbsup:

Anyway, that tractor never fails to surprise me. I didn't get to the wheels today, but will post up when I do.

 

[JL Sargent]

I think a rear wheel would have to be off the ground before the front axle reached its stop.

Think of it this way. Your mowing up and down plus traversing the sides of a steep driveway with turns and ditches. The driveway is 1/2 mile long and elevation increases 300ft across that distance. My front stops are like old friends. I'm in them all the time.

 

[oldgrayfellow]

Hill stability device idea:

Mount a steel I-beam crosswise under the frame of the tractor. Hang low-profile but heavy weights from the I-beam via a heavy bracket mounted on steel wheels that ride along the I-beam, (like a miniature gantry crane). The bracket also holds a reversible gearmotor running a sprocket that rides over a section of heavy motorcycle chain also fixed to the I-beam. (In effect, a homemade rack & pinion device). Fit a simple control lever to run the reversible motor, to move the weight side-to-side. When you come to a dangerous side slope, you can shift the weight way over toward the upslope side.
(Could even rig up an automatic system with mercury switches if you wanted to get fancy).

Who wants to build it?

 

[r1-er]

Hill stability device idea:

Mount a steel I-beam crosswise under the frame of the tractor. Hang low-profile but heavy weights from the I-beam via a heavy bracket mounted on steel wheels that ride along the I-beam, (like a miniature gantry crane). The bracket also holds a reversible gearmotor running a sprocket that rides over a section of heavy motorcycle chain also fixed to the I-beam. (In effect, a homemade rack & pinion device). Fit a simple control lever to run the reversible motor, to move the weight side-to-side. When you come to a dangerous side slope, you can shift the weight way over toward the upslope side.
(Could even rig up an automatic system with mercury switches if you wanted to get fancy).

Who wants to build it?

If you build it, they will come...good idea, but the ground clearance may suffer.

 

[r1-er]

Ok, I put the front wheels back on the normal way and I have the rear hubs turned around, in the second hole in the axle which puts the outside of the hub almost flush with the end of the axle and the rear rims are turned around for maximum width mounted to the inside of the hub flange. I probably moved each rear wheel out about 6" so I've increased the rear width probably 1 ft..

I went out and bush hogged the areas I normally had many close calls on...I did it a lot faster than I could in the past and it was much more comfortable to drive. Turning the front wheels back to original made a HUGE improvement on steering...much less effort than with the wheels turned out and, with the rear wheels spaced out, the fronts didn't seem to matter at all when on a steep hill side.

I cut across slopes I was scared to turn around on before without any drama at all.

The tractor handles hills way better than before and putting the front wheels back, although it looks funny having them so narrow when the rear is so wide, made steering effort low enough that I mowed for about 4 hours tonight and I'm not even tired.

I love my tractor again...Thanks everyone for their input and California for confirming that my hair brained scheme had already been realized.

 

[California]

For the real fanatics: I have thought about taking the hubs to a machine shop to have the other face machined smooth, so the wheels could be mounted outboard of the (reversed) hubs. This would give another couple of inches of rear width.

(You probably have to look at the hub photos in post #1 and 4 above for this to make sense).

This would leave the wheel supported entirely on the lug bolts, instead of having the hole in the center of the wheel fitting snugly on that shoulder machined on the correct side of the hub.

Has anyone ever mounted the rear wheels that way?

 

[r1-er]

For the real fanatics: I have thought about taking the hubs to a machine shop to have the other face machined smooth, so the wheels could be mounted outboard of the (reversed) hubs. This would give another couple of inches of rear width.

(You probably have to look at the hub photos in post #1 and 4 above for this to make sense).

This would leave the wheel supported entirely on the lug bolts, instead of having the hole in the center of the wheel fitting snugly on that shoulder machined on the correct side of the hub.

Has anyone ever mounted the rear wheels that way?

If you're having them turn it anyway, have them leave a .040" shoulder to the diameter of the normal shoulder. Shouldn't weaken the hub enough to matter...after all compare the rim thickness to the hub thickness. The rim should break first. I'd be leary of cutting the weld off the outside of the Hub anyway...might make what's left of the weld crack.

I'm just wondering how much more cantilevering the rear axle can handle especially with a heavy load on the back...

You'd have to flip the picture over for it to apply directly.