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

[tkevan]

Man, this thread made my head hurt.

The pictures should have stopped any discussion over to ballast or not for changing the loading percentages. As for actual weight on the front axle, and therefore actual damaging force, that's a little tougher for the stated reasons, additional OA weight, additional FEL loading, amount of counterbalance, ect. Moral, ballast with the weight the manufacturer recomends, attempt to lift no more than the manufacturer recommends. They pay engineers alot to determine how to keep us from breaking our tractors.

BTW, that Kubota broke because it's not a tractor, it's a lawnmower with a FEL, :laughing:

 

[AxleHub]

Tkevan,

You posted .. .. "They pay engineers alot to determine how to keep us from breaking our tractors."

Even more likely is: They pay engineers alot to determine how to keep us from using our warranty claim proces s

 

[zzvyb6]

I just know all yous honors graduates of 2nd grade guzintas class have omitted the manifestation of the weight of hydrolic fluid added to the lift sillinders when you is kickin the bucket up. That puts more wait on the front axel and could fail yore ballust box when it hits your role bar. Not to mention the heat of that fluid melting the seals in them sillinders.

1 guzinta 2 2 times
2 guzinta 4 2 times to.
3 guzinta 6 2 times as well.

So, you only need a caculator for large values of 2 ! Ain't that so? That's why there a 2 loader arms, 2 3pt hitch arms and only 1 bucket, 1 upper link and 1 seat ! Just think, a MMM can fail BOTH the front and rear axel ! So you need ballast at both ends of yore tracter.

Me myself, I drain the radiotor fluid out to get xtra bukkit capacity in my Deutz.

 

[rd_macgregor]

I just know all yous honors graduates of 2nd grade guzintas class have omitted the manifestation of the weight of hydrolic fluid added to the lift sillinders when you is kickin the bucket up. That puts more wait on the front axel and could fail yore ballust box when it hits your role bar. Not to mention the heat of that fluid melting the seals in them sillinders.

1 guzinta 2 2 times
2 guzinta 4 2 times to.
3 guzinta 6 2 times as well.

So, you only need a caculator for large values of 2 ! Ain't that so? That's why there a 2 loader arms, 2 3pt hitch arms and only 1 bucket, 1 upper link and 1 seat ! Just think, a MMM can fail BOTH the front and rear axel ! So you need ballast at both ends of yore tracter.

Me myself, I drain the radiotor fluid out to get xtra bukkit capacity in my Deutz.

That was exactly my point. You have just stated it much more clearly than I could. Thanks!

 

[BarnieTrk]

Hi Fellas,

Good discussion!

Just to compound this issue even more - and to spur on more discussion - I'm sure in calculating the maximum amount that could be lifted SAFETY by a given tractor & FEL or similar device, we probably also need to consider:

-- WHAT IS THE ACTUAL WEIGHT trying to be lifted. As I for one, do NOT have a way to scale/weigh the actual weight of a given 10-ft, 16-ft long X 16-inch or 26-inch diameter wood log (green or dead/dry), a pallet box (4ft x 4ft) of field stone, wet dirt versus dry dirt, etc. Knowing the actual weight is key to knowing whether or not a given load can be safety moved.

-- WHERE IS THE LOAD located on my tractor - is the load in the bucket, is it at the end of a pair of 4ft pallet forks, is it on the end of a single spear (round bale attachment), or extended out by a grapple, etc. The leverage extended by the placement of a given loads center of gravity is also a factor in knowing if it can be moved safety.

-- WHERE IS THE LOAD BEING MOVED TO, are you simply moving it across a flat barnyard, will you take it up hill, down hill, over rough, bumpy, and/or bouncy ground, etc. Moving a given load 35-ft within a building versus moving the same load up or down a rough hillside or down a 100-ft long, rough driveway would also be a deciding factor in this decision.


Please continue with this spirited discussion!

BarnieTrk :2cents:

 

[gladehound]

Hi Fellas,

Good discussion!

Just to compound this issue even more - and to spur on more discussion - I'm sure in calculating the maximum amount that could be lifted SAFETY by a given tractor & FEL or similar device, we probably also need to consider:

-- WHAT IS THE ACTUAL WEIGHT trying to be lifted. As I for one, do NOT have a way to scale/weigh the actual weight of a given 10-ft, 16-ft long X 16-inch or 26-inch diameter wood log (green or dead/dry), a pallet box (4ft x 4ft) of field stone, wet dirt versus dry dirt, etc. Knowing the actual weight is key to knowing whether or not a given load can be safety moved.

-- WHERE IS THE LOAD located on my tractor - is the load in the bucket, is it at the end of a pair of 4ft pallet forks, is it on the end of a single spear (round bale attachment), or extended out by a grapple, etc. The leverage extended by the placement of a given loads center of gravity is also a factor in knowing if it can be moved safety.

-- WHERE IS THE LOAD BEING MOVED TO, are you simply moving it across a flat barnyard, will you take it up hill, down hill, over rough, bumpy, and/or bouncy ground, etc. Moving a given load 35-ft within a building versus moving the same load up or down a rough hillside or down a 100-ft long, rough driveway would also be a deciding factor in this decision.


Please continue with this spirited discussion!

BarnieTrk :2cents:

The only reason we have to think this way is because many of these CUTs have under built front ends and frames compared to what they hydraulics are capable of. My previous example of the JD4100 with the ~1,100 max gross front axle weight in front proves that. Others aren't as bad.

I've had 10,000 pounds on my axle once but have no idea what it is rated for or what the safety factor is. However, 90+% of my loader work uses < 50% of my loader capacity. + I only put on 100 hrs a year and only half that is loader work. So I would doubt front axle wear will ever be a factor for me.

If anything, this whole discussion just supports what many suggest to new buyers and that is to get 1 or 2 tractor sizes bigger than they think they need. There is a difference in wear rate on a tractor that can do the work but is at it's design limits and one that is at half it's design limits.

When I had a 20hp tractor, I took it to it's limit every time I operated it. Now with a 45 hp tractor I find the limit a few times a year.

 

[ovrszd]

If anything, this whole discussion just supports what many suggest to new buyers and that is to get 1 or 2 tractor sizes bigger than they think they need. There is a difference in wear rate on a tractor that can do the work but is at it's design limits and one that is at half it's design limits.

When I had a 20hp tractor, I took it to it's limit every time I operated it. Now with a 45 hp tractor I find the limit a few times a year.

Very true. I overloaded my 44hp tractor to the point I got paranoid about it and sold it before it gave me any problems. Replaced it with 95hp tractor. I reach it's limit more than a few times a year but not nearly as often as before.

 

[Industrial Toys]

People make a good point. There are tractors and there are tractors. Saving your front axle on a weakly built tractor may be a moot point. It is a disposable consumer offering like so much else these days. If it isn't the axle, it will be something else. In my way of thinking, this basic tractor design should never have had a FEL anyway. And before the popularity of FWD it made even less sense. Study the evolution of the tractor and all this becomes quite clear.

 

[5030]

Besides...Balast is spelled with 2 'L's' not one.... Ballast....lol

 

[CalG]

I would like to make a distinction between "Ballast" and "counter weight".

Though the latter can serve as the former, Ballast is not sufficient to serve as counter weight.

 

[tkevan]

Very true. I overloaded my 44hp tractor to the point I got paranoid about it and sold it before it gave me any problems. Replaced it with 95hp tractor. I reach it's limit more than a few times a year but not nearly as often as before.

One needs to be careful when using HP to define capacity. At 7200lbs with FEL and no additional weight added (no counterweight, no tire loading or wheel weights, no suitcase) my tractor is a 42 Hp. Built significantly heavier than competing models.

 

[SPYDERLK]

"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?

One question wouldnt do it, but answers to the following would help a lot:

...In relation to weight borne at specific wheel center distance, what is the working strength, proof strength, and breaking strength of the casting assembly?

In relation to thrust applied at specific wheel center, are those strengths the same?

...What wheel torque can be provided by the drive elements without failure; what component fails? How critical is turn angle?

..,,,,,Knowing these, and with a little analysis, a seat of the pants judgement could be applied to conditions validly.

 

[zzvyb6]

Here ya go... This is 4th year Guzintas....

 

[ovrszd]

One needs to be careful when using HP to define capacity. At 7200lbs with FEL and no additional weight added (no counterweight, no tire loading or wheel weights, no suitcase) my tractor is a 42 Hp. Built significantly heavier than competing models.

That is very true. I used HP because I was responding to a comment that also used HP. Just trying to talk the language of the poster.

Kubota tends to be light for their HP. In my case I went from a 5000lb tractor to a 10,000lb tractor.

In contrast my 1984 Ford, 47HP, bare tractor weighs 5500lbs.

 

[farm boy00]

View attachment 458257View attachment 458258View attachment 458259
That failure was from side/forward/backward thrust. Probably from hitting something. Maybe a latent defect compounded it. ... Certainly not a counterweight issue.

Did you have the loader on craigslist a while ago.
I saw a loader for sale off a kabota and the front end was on jackstands and had no tire on it is why I ask

 

[SPYDERLK]

Did you have the loader on craigslist a while ago.
I saw a loader for sale off a kabota and the front end was on jackstands and had no tire on it is why I ask

...No. ... Probably a bearing failure on that Kubot. They seem to be prone to those. A cage failure.

 

[gladehound]

That is very true. I used HP because I was responding to a comment that also used HP. Just trying to talk the language of the poster.

Kubota tends to be light for their HP. In my case I went from a 5000lb tractor to a 10,000lb tractor.

In contrast my 1984 Ford, 47HP, bare tractor weighs 5500lbs.

I apologize for using hp to describe tractor size because it annoys me as well. I really didn't need to use hp at all. My point was simply that one may be better off to go bigger (whatever that means for the application) and have margin than smaller (near minimum required to complete task).

The 4025 is a beast - a tribute to the days of heavy lower hp tractors.

 

[tkevan]

Here ya go... This is 4th year Guzintas....

Bit more than I learned in my freshman physics class.