Filled my rears. WOW

[ovrszd]

Brian, out of curiosity, I'll run the pressure test on my fronts which are not filled. Curious to see the percentage of pressure increase.

I say do what makes you feel good. Adding weight obviously adds traction in every situation. The point is whether it's necessary or not. I see no or minimal gain in FEL work to fill the fronts. With the FEL removed, I see a gain. I too remove my FEL often. I add suitcase weights for front ballast then if needed. Within a couple minutes I can get the gain of added traction when the FEL is removed, and not carry that unnecessary weight when the FEL is installed.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Brian, out of curiosity, I'll run the pressure test on my fronts which are not filled. Curious to see the percentage of pressure increase.

I say do what makes you feel good. Adding weight obviously adds traction in every situation. The point is whether it's necessary or not. I see no or minimal gain in FEL work to fill the fronts. With the FEL removed, I see a gain. I too remove my FEL often. I add suitcase weights for front ballast then if needed. Within a couple minutes I can get the gain of added traction when the FEL is removed, and not carry that unnecessary weight when the FEL is installed.

So how much weight to you add up front? :confused3: I had to double what the recommended amount was and it still was not enough. Same with the rears, I have 3 times the recommended wheel weights. I had to get my tractor as heavy as it is (10.000lbs without the 2,000lb loader) to be able to get the full capability out of it. Part of my problem is that I had to go with R-4s due to our property being about 90% burned off back in 2003 and the remains would have destroyed R1s.

 

[ovrszd]

I've got 1500lbs of fluid plus 300lb of cast weights on the rears. That's with cast iron centers which adds another 700lb over stamped steel. I add 1000lb of suitcase weights to the front when needed. I've not weighed my tractor without FEL. It weighs 10,300 with FEL.

 

[Wyobuckaroo]

I did a DIY job of filling my 33" turf tires.... Like said, made a BIG difference in how it handled in snow, loader work, and with field work type implements that I use... The extra weight doesn't seem to harm grass, gravel, etc....

However... I don't think filling smaller front tires, those that would not hold 5 gallon each, would be worth the effort and cost...

If your fronts are the size of the ones on the tractor in the picture on post #20, then it most likely would be a good choice...
My 2 cents worth on the subject....

Good luck...

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Did the pressure test on the front tires of my smaller tractor, larger tractor is not here. Tires are filled to just over the rim and currently have 37psi in them and the tires are rated for 50psi. Put the bucket under an object that could not be lifted, so equivalent to maximum load. There was a zero increase in tire pressure, stayed at 37psi.

So does that mean that the tire PSI stays at what it is set at and does not change under a load? :confused3: Sort of looks that way.

At first I would have and did think that the psi would have gone up, but then on the other hand as long as the tire is allowed to flex and the inside volume stays the same, the psi should in fact stay the same. The tire would have to roll over a rock or something that actually pushes the face of the tire inward and actually change the shape of the exterior of the tire so that the interior of the tire has actually become smaller and then increases the psi.

So for me for the most part, the sole benefit is the added weight for the added traction, which for me and my conditions for what I use my tractors for is enough of a reason to have the fronts loaded.

This may or may not hold true for others with other equipment and different types of conditions, just what it is for me.

 

[LazyHRanch]

Did the pressure test on the front tires of my smaller tractor, larger tractor is not here. Tires are filled to just over the rim and currently have 37psi in them and the tires are rated for 50psi. Put the bucket under an object that could not be lifted, so equivalent to maximum load. There was a zero increase in tire pressure, stayed at 37psi.

So does that mean that the tire PSI stays at what it is set at and does not change under a load? :confused3: Sort of looks that way.

At first I would have and did think that the psi would have gone up, but then on the other hand as long as the tire is allowed to flex and the inside volume stays the same, the psi should in fact stay the same. The tire would have to roll over a rock or something that actually pushes the face of the tire inward and actually change the shape of the exterior of the tire so that the interior of the tire has actually become smaller and then increases the psi.

So for me for the most part, the sole benefit is the added weight for the added traction, which for me and my conditions for what I use my tractors for is enough of a reason to have the fronts loaded.

This may or may not hold true for others with other equipment and different types of conditions, just what it is for me.

I am going to try and put in my little bit of knowledge on this which is not much. So PSI stands for pounds per square inch. That means at 37psi the tire will support 37 lbs for every square inch that touches the ground or hard surface. The air pressure in the tire will only increase if air is added to the tire. That is why an under inflated tire will blow the sidewall off the rim. Too much of the tires surface area tries to make contact with a stable surface like the ground and the sidewall will not allow enough flex. So a tire with 10psi carrying a corner load of 1000 lbs will need 100 square inches of surface area or a 10 inch wide by 10 inch deep patch of ground to contact. If that same tire was inflated to 100 psi it would only need 10 square inches of contact surface or 10 inches wide by 1 inch deep. So deflating your tires to a lower pressure allows more contact surface between the tire and the ground resulting in more grip. As long as you do not overload the tire resulting in the sidewall giving out. If you can measure a tires contact surface area and the PSI inside the tire you can weigh a tractor or vehicle without a scale.

I know we are way off topic but I hope that helps.

 

[ovrszd]

Brian, I'm surprised too. Your theory about the tire squishing can't quite be accurate though. I'll just use my tractor for this example. When I pick up a load with the FEL the tire squats at the ground contact patch. To do that one of two things must happen. The air pressure must rise. Or all the rest of the tire must expand to offset the loss of volume at the ground. Haven't had a chance to test yet. I'll report back when I do

LazyH, very interesting concept. And to that I'll add this. Air pressure is not what carries the load. Air volume does. That's why smaller front tires require higher pressures than larger rear tires. An example of this is Brian running 37psi in his fronts. Mine are considerably larger than his and I run considerably less pressure, 20psi.

The most extreme example of my pressure versus volume theory is a "floater" truck or Big A or whatever they are called in your area. They run huge balloon AG tires. They run single digit air pressure and carrying the machine and as much as 10K lbs of materials. In the Big A's case it does it on 3 tires. Huge volume in those huge tires requires very low pressure.

Let me finally add, if I air up my fronts to 37psi like Brian's, they won't squat with a load either.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Brian, I'm surprised too. Your theory about the tire squishing can't quite be accurate though. I'll just use my tractor for this example. When I pick up a load with the FEL the tire squats at the ground contact patch. To do that one of two things must happen. The air pressure must rise. Or all the rest of the tire must expand to offset the loss of volume at the ground. Haven't had a chance to test yet. I'll report back when I do

LazyH, very interesting concept. And to that I'll add this. Air pressure is not what carries the load. Air volume does. That's why smaller front tires require higher pressures than larger rear tires. An example of this is Brian running 37psi in his fronts. Mine are considerably larger than his and I run considerably less pressure, 20psi.

The most extreme example of my pressure versus volume theory is a "floater" truck or Big A or whatever they are called in your area. They run huge balloon AG tires. They run single digit air pressure and carrying the machine and as much as 10K lbs of materials. In the Big A's case it does it on 3 tires. Huge volume in those huge tires requires very low pressure.

Let me finally add, if I air up my fronts to 37psi like Brian's, they won't squat with a load either.

The tire squats, (sidewall bulges) but the interior volume does not change. You need to have the interior volume change (face of the tire gets pushed inwards more than the sidewall bulges)before the pressure is going to change. (I think :confused3: )

37psi in an R1 tire. That would be one of the huge differences between the std R1s and R4s and why R4s are typically considered to be able to carry a load better safely, more plys, stiffer sidewalls. :thumbsup:

 

[lilranch2001]

If I remember correctly my Bobcat owners manual stated not to fill the front tires

 

[LazyHRanch]

Brian, I'm surprised too. Your theory about the tire squishing can't quite be accurate though. I'll just use my tractor for this example. When I pick up a load with the FEL the tire squats at the ground contact patch. To do that one of two things must happen. The air pressure must rise. Or all the rest of the tire must expand to offset the loss of volume at the ground. Haven't had a chance to test yet. I'll report back when I do

LazyH, very interesting concept. And to that I'll add this. Air pressure is not what carries the load. Air volume does. That's why smaller front tires require higher pressures than larger rear tires. An example of this is Brian running 37psi in his fronts. Mine are considerably larger than his and I run considerably less pressure, 20psi.

The most extreme example of my pressure versus volume theory is a "floater" truck or Big A or whatever they are called in your area. They run huge balloon AG tires. They run single digit air pressure and carrying the machine and as much as 10K lbs of materials. In the Big A's case it does it on 3 tires. Huge volume in those huge tires requires very low pressure.

Let me finally add, if I air up my fronts to 37psi like Brian's, they won't squat with a load either.

I agree and hopefully I can explain more about what I am trying to say below.

The volume and pressure of the air inside the tire do not increase or decrease as weight is added or taken off the tire. You can not create matter out in nothing. The high pressure in a tire will hold more weight and you will not see the tire squat because it does not need as much surface area for the additional weight. The tire also does not stretch in other places when more weight is added. The additional weight compresses the bottom of the tire.

I really feel like I have helped high jack this post.

The reason I was reading was I am consider loading my rears because i read that will help when driving on/at an angel. By lowering the center of gravity of the tractor. I also have concerns around compaction due to my tractor mainly being used for mowing. One thing that I liked about the tractor I purchased was that it was a lighter machine.

If I do lower the center of gravity with loading the rears and I start to get some compaction is there an easy way to fix it with an core aerator or something that will not kill all the grass like disking the yard?

 

[ovrszd]

Yeah, we've drifted a bit. But it's still good discussion with educating points being made.

Not sure which of your tractors you are talking about concerning filled tires and mowing?? I mow with a JD2210. I filled the rears for stability while mowing road banks. I'm sure it's harder on the turf since I've added weight. But the stability gain was worth it in my case. I consider tire fluid to be the most effective weight. It's location and the fact that it does not load the chassis is the reason. Wheel weights come in second in my opinion. Only reason they are rated 2nd is because it takes so many to equal the weight of fluid and they are very expensive per pound.

 

[b73]

I don't mind the hijack. It's interesting and informative.
My fronts are pretty large so it would add decent weight.
As far as compaction,the tractor was 5000lbs before filling any tires.Not convinced the extra weight will make much difference in my situation. I have noticed grass dying in one of my heavily traveled paths,mostly before filling rears.
Still undecided on filling fronts. Don't have time for a while anyway.

 

[94BULLITT]

One thing that is rarely discussed is that when you add fluid to your tires you are increasing your rotating mass. You are going to put less power to the ground with fluid in your tires or wheel weights.

 

[mikehaugen]

One thing that is rarely discussed is that when you add fluid to your tires you are increasing your rotating mass. You are going to put less power to the ground with fluid in your tires or wheel weights.

I don't know... is this for sure? It is a fluid and could theoretically stay in the same place as the tire rotates. I'm not sure that it could be considered "rotating" mass. I could be wrong. I am also not sure it would decrease your power to ground, sure it would accelerate slower, but once at speed would it really decrease power? If so it would really only be an issue in the most constant power hungry applications like pulling a plow or something correct? In any case it sure makes it more useable power if you weren't getting traction beforehand. Not trying to argue, maybe I am missing something.

As far as fronts go, I could see it being advantageous even with fel when the bucket is on the ground like while digging. It also may help steering if you are plowing snow with bucket on the ground.

 

[MinnesotaEric]

One thing that is rarely discussed is that when you add fluid to your tires you are increasing your rotating mass. You are going to put less power to the ground with fluid in your tires or wheel weights.

Not really. The only loss is through friction, a thing that low viscosity fluid does not have much of. You do have to move the extra mass around which can effect economy, but given the low acceleration rates of tractors, I think parasitic loss of economy due to extra mass is also marginal.

Anybody have some numbers to push aside our conjecture in favor of hard evidence?

 

[ovrszd]

Would be hard to come up with numbers.

I agree that a tractor with loaded tires, fluid or weights, moves a bit more sluggishly. But doesn't a tractor with the FEL on versus off do the same thing??

When I remove my FEL my tractor acts like a HotRod, hops around like a rabbit.

I think the only constant with fluid would be the friction of the fluid against the tire as it rotates. I agree that would be minimal.

Weights on the other hand would be rotational mass and would require constant power to maintain rotation. I've experienced this with Jeeps and large tires/wheels. Noticeable difference in 6ply tires and steel wheels versus 4ply tires and aluminum wheels.

 

[94BULLITT]

I see what you guys are saying. Since the fluid is loose inside the tire the tractor does not have to turn it like a wheel weight so the power loses with fluid in the tires would be minimal.

When I remove my FEL my tractor acts like a HotRod, hops around like a rabbit.

I have not really noticed a difference in the performance with the loader off. If I drove down the road I may since I would be 1300lbs+ lighter. I do like how agile the L4240 is with the loader off. It will turn on a dime on give you 2 cents back.

 

[ovrszd]

Yeah Roger. I always remove my FEL when brush cutting. So much more manueverable.

 

[Mud Mechanik]

Another point that has not been mentioned is that loading front tires has to be harder on steering components. I filled my fronts for weight only and have been very careful to not turn steering wheel unless tractor is moving, this proves to be difficult when stacking rolls of hay in tight quarters.

 

[94BULLITT]

Yeah Roger. I always remove my FEL when brush cutting. So much more manueverable.

I really don't do any brush cutting but if I did and the felid was not overgrown real bad the loader would come off. If it was bad I would leave the loader on with the grapple.

Another point that has not been mentioned is that loading front tires has to be harder on steering components. I filled my fronts for weight only and have been very careful to not turn steering wheel unless tractor is moving, this proves to be difficult when stacking rolls of hay in tight quarters.

Do you think the weight from filling the tires is worse than the weight that would be on them with full load on the FEL?