Loaded tires with backhoe attached...

[Talionstallion21]

Who unloads their tires when they put their backhoe on? Was reading my bx25d manual and it said to unload rears when attaching and using the hoe. Do all of you do that? Is it really bad if you don't? My dealer is 50 minutes away and I don't have a trailer so it would be spendy for them to come here twice a year. What say you?

 

[GPintheMitten]

I don't unload the rears on my B2620 for backhoe operation. Frankly just don't want the hassle and expense. I don't know the repercussions though, so I'll be interested in others opinions.

 

[cartod]

What are the repercussions?

 

[Thomas]

May want extra set unloaded rear tires considering dealer pickup delivery plus service charge for the future.

 

[Baby Grand]

Any chance there's a misprint or maybe a 翻訳 problem?
Maybe they mean to lift the rears off the ground, rather than emptying the tires of ballast?
That's standard operating procedure to get the support on the wide set, rigid stabilizer pads and off of the narrow, flexible tires. Maybe the stabilizers can't lift the rears with the added weight of the ballast?

If given the option, I'd want ballast in the rears with the hoe on, for increased lateral stability.
Even with the rears in the air, it's weight that lowers the CG, making slewing with an extended boom & heavy load less likely to cause the tractor to tip.

I'm curious about the reasoning, if that's really what is recommended.

-Jim

 

[Talionstallion21]

Page 55 of my owners manual says "while bt602 backhoe is installed on the tractor liquid ballast in the rear tires should be removed".

 

[like2wheel]

Yeah, I've seen this discussed here before, but I don't recall anybody coming up with a good explanation.

 

[GolfAddict]

Yes, it has come up on occasion, and I've never seen a good explanation either. I can say that, even though my BX24 has the same in the manual, I've ignored it as it just doesn't make sense to me. At almost 1000 hours, it's never caused any issues.

I have to say, I don't use the BH that often, just a few times a year. But when I do it is for hours at a time.

 

[sandyc]

Not sure why the loaded tires should not be used with a bh . Maybe it has to do with the stabs having to lift the tires? My 2620 has no problems lifting the tires that are filled with calcium. Oh well, no problems so far.

Sent from my iPhone using TractorByNet

 

[RoyJackson]

The Deere 448 backhoe manual doesn't state anything (that I could find) about removing any liquid ballast from the rear tires. It also indicates (and shows in pictures) the rear tires should be just off the ground and the rear supported by the stabilizers, when operating the backhoe.

It's possible the backhoe, along with ballast in the rear tires, may overload the rear axle. If any of you find out why Kubota states "no ballast", I'd like to know just out of curiosity.

 

[Grandad4]

If any of you find out why Kubota states "no ballast", I'd like to know just out of curiosity.

I've heard two plausible explanations:
1. Tire ballast + backhoe weight creates the potential for a more severe roll-over that could not be stopped by the ROPS. A liability issue for the manufacturer. This came from the dealer that sold me my tractor and backhoe. Concept makes sense to me, as does the likelihood overcautious corporate attorneys had something to do with it.
2. The possibility of damaging the backhoe if it were used to lift the back end of a tire-ballasted tractor for repositioning. That's something commonly done with full-sized TLB's, I don't do it with my setup, even without ballast in the tires. You can say the same things about this concept: There's a certain amount of sense to it, and it probably came from some lawyer.
Are either of these officially from the manufacturer? Who knows!

 

[Talionstallion21]

I'll ask my dealer tomorrow. My salesman suggested the loaded tires and that I leave the backhoe on with the blower mounted on the front, so it didn't seem to phase him. My stabilizer arms lift the back end off the ground fine with the loaded tires.
Talionstallion

 

[Tractor Seabee]

It is strange Kubota says that as the amount of weight you can add to the small tires is negligible. That's why I did not load to start with; also my dealer recommended against loading due to cost and downstream hassle factors.

Ron

 

[AStanton]

When my BX-25 doubled as my snow removal machine, I ran loaded tires with the backhoe. I'm here to say that I encountered no discernible problems. In fact I took 4-5mile road trips around town and the tractor never missed a beat. I eventually purchased another set for running unloaded. But like I said, I never had a problem with the loaded ones and the hoe. Here's a pic of me working in the snow.

 

[Talionstallion21]

I asked my dealer today and he said they always recommend loaded tires with the backhoe on the BX's and to disregard the owners manual in this instance. He didn't know why the manual says to unload the tires with the backhoe. I'll leave em loaded unless someone gives a good reason otherwise.
Talionstallion

 

[rmk700]

Could be.... the manual states remove liquid for CYA purposes. Maybe a blown tire with liquid scattered all over the place could result in a law suit of some sort.

 

[mike69440]

The Deere 448 backhoe manual doesn't state anything (that I could find) about removing any liquid ballast from the rear tires. It also indicates (and shows in pictures) the rear tires should be just off the ground and the rear supported by the stabilizers, when operating the backhoe.

It's possible the backhoe, along with ballast in the rear tires, may overload the rear axle. If any of you find out why Kubota states "no ballast", I'd like to know just out of curiosity.

Kubota is full of it.
Nearly 2000 hours on My L39 ballasted to over 8,000 lbs, and would not think of running with less weight due to stability.

 

[tractchores]

I have loaded tires and a be on a b2920. No issues here, the stabilizers or the bh can lift the machine easily.

 

[mike69440]

I've heard two plausible explanations:
1. Tire ballast + backhoe weight creates the potential for a more severe roll-over that could not be stopped by the ROPS. A liability issue for the manufacturer. This came from the dealer that sold me my tractor and backhoe. Concept makes sense to me, as does the likelihood overcautious corporate attorneys had something to do with it.
2. The possibility of damaging the backhoe if it were used to lift the back end of a tire-ballasted tractor for repositioning. That's something commonly done with full-sized TLB's, I don't do it with my setup, even without ballast in the tires. You can say the same things about this concept: There's a certain amount of sense to it, and it probably came from some lawyer.
Are either of these officially from the manufacturer? Who knows!

1.) Quite true, Lawyers do have payments on vacation homes an luxury cars.
2.) Gee, I've lifted myself out of some very difficult emergency situations, as well as during everyday situations like getting the machine over a footing wall or across a ditch. I just try not to get too cocky.

 

[TomSeller]

The ROPS concern makes some sense on a liability basis as to why Kubota put that language in there.

From a practical standpoint I have not heard of someone rolling a tractor while using the backhoe but I am sure it exists with unfortunate positioning as mentioned above. The backhoe boom in the up position does make a tractor more top heavy than when lowered but it also realistically "helps" the ROPS if the tractor does roll by taking some of the impact. A tall boom in the up position actually may help the tractor from going upside down as well.