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

[CalG]

From the operating manual for the Hurlimann

Maximum Loads Admissable on Tractor:

Front max 1000 kg
Rear max 1400 kg
Total 2100 kg

Must be the new math... ;-)

 

[RaydaKub]

You are absolutely correct that having a loader further back on a machine moves more weight to the rear compared to the front of a machine. You are absolutely incorrect that the hinge point has anything to do with it. It is completely dependent on where the weight is, not where the hinge point is.

Skid steers are designed how they are mostly to keep them compact. Also to keep the front wheels close to the load and minimize the leverage arm created by the portion of the loader/bucket that is forward of the front axle. Wheel loaders typically lift more weight than similar size skid steers and they don't have the pivot point in the back.

Let's just ask this question. If I accept the premise that mounting in between the axles would load both the front and rear axles, then if I move the attachment point behind the rear axle, as is done in for a skid steer, that should move the entire load to rear axle. It shouldn't matter how much I lift in a skid steer bucket, it would always carry the load on the rear axle. This, as we know, is an absurd statement. So one can only surmise that the premise is false.

 

[cayote1]

Let's just ask this question. If I accept the premise that mounting in between the axles would load both the front and rear axles, then if I move the attachment point behind the rear axle, as is done in for a skid steer, that should move the entire load to rear axle. It shouldn't matter how much I lift in a skid steer bucket, it would always carry the load on the rear axle. This, as we know, is an absurd statement. So one can only surmise that the premise is false.

There's engineering and physics principles here that I am now where near an expert at. The designers and engineers who designed and built these tractors are the experts. Has anyone gone to the Kubota/JD/New Holland/etc. company to ask the questions? I haven't read my shop manual all of the way through yet. But I will. Let's pose this inquiry question of front axle stress/FEL weight and ballast to the comnpanies who built our tractors aye?

 

[CalG]

There's engineering and physics principles here that I am now where near an expert at. The designers and engineers who designed and built these tractors are the experts. Has anyone gone to the Kubota/JD/New Holland/etc. company to ask the questions? I haven't read my shop manual all of the way through yet. But I will. Let's pose this inquiry question of front axle stress/FEL weight and ballast to the comnpanies who built our tractors aye?

"Science , To the innocent, is no different than magic"

The "designers and engineers " will use the same principles as have been expressed in this thread. It's not rocket science! It's high school "physics".
Not everyone took the class, but they should have. ;-)

Pick up any "statics" text instructional literature. No need to embarrass one's self by calling in the experts.

But the engineers tasked with design of the front axle could supply the load value used in the consideration of all the design elements of the front axle for any of the popular models. They might even have a value for the margin of safety.
And then what? Load and acceleration computations to display a plot of If and Then statements that would defy comprehension, and validate common sense?

Bottom line, What question would you ask?

 

[sd455dan]

"Science , To the innocent, is no different than magic"

The "designers and engineers " will use the same principles as have been expressed in this thread. It's not rocket science! It's high school "physics".
Not everyone took the class, but they should have. ;-)

Pick up any "statics" text instructional literature. No need to embarrass one's self by calling in the experts.

But the engineers tasked with design of the front axle could supply the load value used in the consideration of all the design elements of the front axle for any of the popular models. They might even have a value for the margin of safety.
And then what? Load and acceleration computations to display a plot of If and Then statements that would defy comprehension, and validate common sense?

Bottom line, What question would you ask?

OH OH Now we are into at least one of Arthur C. Clarke's 3 laws:

Clarke's first law
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
Clarke's second law
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Clarke's third law
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

[RaydaKub]

There's engineering and physics principles here that I am now where near an expert at. The designers and engineers who designed and built these tractors are the experts. Has anyone gone to the Kubota/JD/New Holland/etc. company to ask the questions? I haven't read my shop manual all of the way through yet. But I will. Let's pose this inquiry question of front axle stress/FEL weight and ballast to the comnpanies who built our tractors aye?

I did, and have the same tractor as you. Without reading again, I'm fairly certain they never mentioned how weight was distributed when you mount the FEL. However,they did recommend ballast on the 3ph. And after reading my earlier comment, I never *did* actually ask a question. :laughing:

 

[gladehound]

Let's just ask this question. If I accept the premise that mounting in between the axles would load both the front and rear axles, then if I move the attachment point behind the rear axle, as is done in for a skid steer, that should move the entire load to rear axle. It shouldn't matter how much I lift in a skid steer bucket, it would always carry the load on the rear axle. This, as we know, is an absurd statement. So one can only surmise that the premise is false.

Did you forget that the loader frame itself has weight or did you mean to quote the other guy??? :confused3: You are saying the same thing that I am saying.

 

[gladehound]

There's engineering and physics principles here that I am now where near an expert at. The designers and engineers who designed and built these tractors are the experts. Has anyone gone to the Kubota/JD/New Holland/etc. company to ask the questions? I haven't read my shop manual all of the way through yet. But I will. Let's pose this inquiry question of front axle stress/FEL weight and ballast to the comnpanies who built our tractors aye?

I guarantee that there are people on TBN who are smarter than the vast majority of engineers at Kubota / JD / New Holland etc. There are smart and dumb people in every profession. Just because one is an engineer by trade does not mean that they have a good grasp of basic physics. I guess I've known too many engineers. Don't get me wrong, some are brilliant.

 

[RaydaKub]

Did you forget that the loader frame itself has weight or did you mean to quote the other guy??? :confused3: You are saying the same thing that I am saying.

I was attempting to bolster your statement by explaining the point in another way.

 

[jenkinsph]

From the operating manual for the Hurlimann

Maximum Loads Admissable on Tractor:

Front max 1000 kg
Rear max 1400 kg
Total 2100 kg

Must be the new math... ;-)

I don't think that is unusual, the 2100kg load can be a result of other factors such as brakes and ability to stop, engine power, steep grades and many others.

 

[Luke'sScreenName]

I'm afraid this thread is testimony to the poor education system in the U.S. for at least the last 50yrs. (in both basic physics AND descriptive writing) :confused3:

(and I fully admit I have trouble writing clearly enough in this format to prevent SOMEONE from misinterpreting me)

 

[k0ua]

I'm afraid this thread is testimony to the poor education system in the U.S. for at least the last 50yrs. (in both basic physics AND descriptive writing) :confused3:

(and I fully admit I have trouble writing clearly enough in this format to prevent SOMEONE from misinterpreting me)

+1....:thumbsup:

 

[gladehound]

I'm afraid this thread is testimony to the poor education system in the U.S. for at least the last 50yrs. (in both basic physics AND descriptive writing) :confused3:

(and I fully admit I have trouble writing clearly enough in this format to prevent SOMEONE from misinterpreting me)

Agree. I definitely have writing issues. That part of my brain doesn't work.

 

[ovrszd]

Not being "educated" I must apply logic.

The FEL mount on a tractor is midship for the same reason it's at the rear of a SS. If you want the bucket located relatively close to the front of the tractor, rather than 6 feet farther forward, and you want to retain the ability to lift the bucket to an acceptable height, the mount point must be moved rearward on the tractor.

I contend that is the primary reason for location of any loader mount. The resulting influences are because of physics or mathematics or whatever "educated" term you wish to apply.

 

[gladehound]

I was attempting to bolster your statement by explaining the point in another way.

Ah... in that case :thumbsup:

 

[jenkinsph]

I'm afraid this thread is testimony to the poor education system in the U.S. for at least the last 50yrs. (in both basic physics AND descriptive writing) :confused3:

(and I fully admit I have trouble writing clearly enough in this format to prevent SOMEONE from misinterpreting me)

You are not alone, whether others admit it or not. I remember working out similar problems in structures class in college but that was forty years ago. While I have a vague idea of how to sum up the forces and reactions I don't know enough to teach it to others in a clear and concise manner. The engineer that commented earlier in this thread is correct, you have to solve the problem with a sum of the moments about the axles both clockwise and counter clockwise to get the answers. He was promptly jumped on and has not commented further, I don't blame him.

I was hoping that someone would eventually post an example with the necessary equations to resolve a sample problem but that hasn't materialized yet or I missed it.

 

[LD1]

From the operating manual for the Hurlimann

Maximum Loads Admissable on Tractor:

Front max 1000 kg
Rear max 1400 kg
Total 2100 kg

Must be the new math... ;-)

I don't think that is unusual, the 2100kg load can be a result of other factors such as brakes and ability to stop, engine power, steep grades and many others.

Not any different than a pickup truck.

Look at your door sticker. It will have GAWR for both front and rear. And then a total GVWR. If you sum up the GAWR's, it will be more than the GVWR.

My dodge 3500 has a front axle rating of 5200 and a rear of 9350......and a total GVWR of only 12,200.

 

[Jay4200]

"You need rear ballast or you will trash your front axle"

Highly unlikely. You'll blow the tires off the rims WAY before you damage any axle component. I've done it literally 100 times (before I finally put in tubes).

 

[LD1]

I tried tubes in mine......hate them. Too many thorns and flats. A thorn guard sealer (like slime) works alot better on a tubless tire as there is thicker material for the sealer to adhere to and work.

One of these days, I am gonna get the fronts foam filled.

 

[DK35vince]

Highly unlikely. You'll blow the tires off the rims WAY before you damage any axle component. I've done it literally 100 times (before I finally put in tubes).

I guess if you have a low tire or you run to low of pressure in the tires that might be true.