You need balast or you will trash your front axle!!!! really?

[gladehound]

Well there are people who still believe the earth is flat. Better known as the Flat Earth Society.

duh - how else would the earth be!

 

[tcartwri]

Well, there you go. If he don't get it after seeing this, he is never going to get it.

And what's your opinion on the lever arm length ( 3 point ) that he needed to achieve his result....

 

[Agvg]

Well, its a complex question to answer, small tractors with an very light duty front axle will of course have more use of it in most lifting applications than a 300hp Fendt with super HD axel. But the answer is yes you reduce the wear.
Im quite sure you will se very different wear on two tractors one with a suitable ballast and one with filled tires after 5000h of loader use.

 

[4570Man]

Well, its a complex question to answer, small tractors with an very light duty front axle will of course have more use of it in most lifting applications than a 300hp Fendt with super HD axel. But the answer is yes you reduce the wear. Im quite sure you will se very different wear on two tractors one with a suitable ballast and one with filled tires after 5000h of loader use.

I would be extremely surprised if either tractor makes it to 5,000 hours with solely loader use without major overhaul. Tractors simply aren't made for this kind of abuse. If you need 5000 hours of loader service than you should have bought a wheel loader.

 

[4570Man]

duh - how else would the earth be!

A cube????

 

[gladehound]

For those with a quick attach loader, removing the bucket/ forks etc when not in use would do as much for the front axle as a 3pt weight box that is 3x to 4x heavier than the attachment removed from the FEL. Might make me pay a little more attention to having an attachment on when I don't need it. Sure would like my front axle to last as long as I have my tractor, while if I'm lucky could be 45 more years.

We have a JD model A in the family an no problem with the tricycle front end after 80 years or so. But no loader and it hasn't run a lot in the last 30 years.

 

[k0ua]

And what's your opinion on the lever arm length ( 3 point ) that he needed to achieve his result....

Well, what he is saying is that as long a 4 wheels are on the ground, NO amount of 3pt weight added will remove weight from the front axle until somehow it magically pops up from the ground, and that it never does get light, just constant heavy, heavy, heavy, whoops off the ground... Which makes no sense at all. What he doesn't understand is that every ounce he puts on the 3pt removes a proportional weight from the front axle based upon the lever arm of the front loader and the lever arm of the 3pt. Obviously the longer the lever arm of the 3pt is, the more effective it will be.

 

[k0ua]

For those with a quick attach loader, removing the bucket/ forks etc when not in use would do as much for the front axle as a 3pt weight box that is 3x to 4x heavier than the attachment removed from the FEL. Might make me pay a little more attention to having an attachment on when I don't need it. Sure would like my front axle to last as long as I have my tractor, while if I'm lucky could be 45 more years.

We have a JD model A in the family an no problem with the tricycle front end after 80 years or so. But no loader and it hasn't run a lot in the last 30 years.

There have been a couple of guys thru the years complain about excessive wear on their front ends, that they attributed to never running any ballast, but I cannot remember who they were. But it makes sense to me, that the more weight you put on the much more complex and smaller front axle components the better chance that those smaller and more complex components stand a chance of wear or even breakage. Of course engineers make every attempt within their budgets to make their front ends as strong as they can make them.

And we have all at one time or another put all of our tractors weight on just the front axle, including any ballast and the associated load in the FEL. I have never broken one, but there is always the first time.

 

[jenkinsph]

I don't think there is a problem with most of the newer tractors today as all of them seem to have heavy duty front axles. But I can easily remember when the Deere 4020 equipped with a fel could have axle problems. Some of the farmers back in the day would put a front axle from a 5020 on as a replacement. As fels have become a "must have" I don't see it as an issue today.

If you ballast your tractor for the loads anticipated it will perform better and be safer to operate.

 

[gladehound]

I don't think there is a problem with most of the newer tractors today as all of them seem to have heavy duty front axles. But I can easily remember when the Deere 4020 equipped with a fel could have axle problems. Some of the farmers back in the day would put a front axle from a 5020 on as a replacement. As fels have become a "must have" I don't see it as an issue today.

If you ballast your tractor for the loads anticipated it will perform better and be safer to operate.

The axles on CUTs do seem to be getting beefier. I remember when a JD4100 had an front axle with a published max axle weigh that was completely used up by adding a FEL. Lifting anything would exceed the axles max weight rating. The shop down the road replaced several axles on those.

You would think buyers would know by looking at them. They were tiny!

 

[LD1]

Looks like I missed a good discussion today.

As to gladehounds reason for posting....

Could are correct. There isn't a lot of difference made. But when someone asks about ballast, lightening the front end is the only reason ballast is used. It's just one piece of the puzzle. There are many reasons for ballast.

Kinda like when I bought my Kubota. There wasn't a single reason I did so. Rather there were many. Location, price, dealer, features, etc. So it would be like someone saying, well tractor y was cheaper, you should have bought that. Again, there was more than just a single factor.

So yes. 3ph weight does lighten the load. Even if only 10% difference. Might not make a huge difference in wear and tear, but 10% is still 10%. And for the record, I am not one of the ones who claim "you will trash your axle if you don't use counterweight".

Axlehub: I don't think I can explain things any better than already done. You are wrong and your logic is flawed. People giving you examples up to the point of raising an axle don't change things. Adding weight to one end a pound at a time until the other raises in the air.......do you think it goes from having 1000# on the ground to in the air all in an instant just by adding a few more pounds to the other end? I hope you get this worked out.

As to the earth being flat/round, whatever. Some places are flat, some pyramid shaped, some bowl shaped, heck there's even vertical earth in some places

 

[aczlan]

I can give one example (the numbers that say "around" might be off by a couple of thousand pounds but the ratio is accurate).
We have a LS P7010 at work. It has a front axle weight limit of around 8000#.
In the winter, we run a 14' Horst snowwing (SB3200W914, HLA Snow | 3200W SnowWing 1,820#) on the front (can be a 9' pusher box, a 9' plow, expand to a 14' straight blade or anythign inbetween (the ends pivot 180 degrees from straight forward to straight back)).
With loaded rear tires and wheelweights (no 3 point ballast, as speced by the selling dealer) we had around 10,000# on the front axle with the loader raised and in the winter of 2014/2015 we broke the right front spindle twice.
We put a 2000# counterweight on the 3 point hitch (about 5' out from the rear axle centerline) and it reduced the weight on the front axle to around 7000#.
So far, the front axle has been fine, but we have only had to push snow on 3-5 days.

Aaron Z

 

[LD1]

Would be curious to know the dimensions of that weight and wheelbase and all.

For 2000# on the 3ph to remove 3000# from the front, one would think the weight would have to be 1.5x the wheelbase behind the rear axle.

If you say it was only about 5' back the wheelbase would have to be just 40".

I know you were guessing/assuming on numbers, and scales don't lie. But either that weight was alot heavier, or alot further back

 

[npalen]

I'm surprised in no one mentioning the effect of tire pressure on all of the above.

 

[aczlan]

Would be curious to know the dimensions of that weight and wheelbase and all.
For 2000# on the 3ph to remove 3000# from the front, one would think the weight would have to be 1.5x the wheelbase behind the rear axle.
If you say it was only about 5' back the wheelbase would have to be just 40".
I know you were guessing/assuming on numbers, and scales don't lie. But either that weight was alot heavier, or alot further back

It was a ~2' by 3' by 2.5' ish chunk of concrete with chunks of steel and granite rocks in it which weighs 2000# per our truck scale. It is mounted on a set of 3 point forks.
It might have been more than 5' back, but I don't think the center was more than 7' back.
I will see if I can get more specifics tomorrow.
The wheelbase is 86.6" per TractorData.com LS P7010 tractor information

Aaron Z

 

[SPYDERLK]

We had a big discussion on this last summer? With oversized and he did not believe it aboutballast until he did a real test on the scales. Now he is a believer.

No. Its wrong because we a re not talking a static condition. Enuf has been said about the greater front loading possible with rear ballast that it should have been called to your attention as obvious. If you use your loader lightly, counterweight will reduce front load. If you use your loader to capacity pushing and lifting, then rear ballast and counterweight will enable much more weight on the front axle -- up to the combined weight of the entire tractor, its ballast and counterweight, and the load supported on the loader. The tractor will move but not travel in this condition because the rear wheels are skimming and you cant steer. If you use the loader a little lighter duty youre able to steer and travel as needed with about 90% of all combined weight on the front axle.

 

[4570Man]

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is the greater pushing ability with ballast. My backhoe and loaded tires weigh over 3,000 pounds. This much weight makes my tractor push much harder making it more like to damage the loader.

 

[TomSeller]

Ballast? Put on a backhoe, cradle a big rock, extend the dipper and lower the boom. Just watch out turning around

 

[4570Man]

Ballast? Put on a backhoe, cradle a big rock, extend the dipper and lower the boom. Just watch out turning around

When I needed to move a bunch of logs I did that except the boom was in the closet position. That is too much ballast and causes the tractor to bounce. If I extend the boom out it will lift the front wheels off the ground. I'd say that relives the stress from the front axel.

 

[4570Man]

And what's your opinion on the lever arm length ( 3 point ) that he needed to achieve his result....

It would have to be pretty long or a whole lot of weight, but you don't want to achieve my results. With such little weight over the front you can't steer without the split brakes.