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

[gladehound]

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

That was interesting. Now if I only knew how close to yield strength I'm getting on my front axle components in my applications... :confused3:

 

[ovrszd]

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.

No apology required.

When my 30 year old Ford was built no one considered CUT tractors. Almost all tractors were built as AG tractors and you just adjusted up and down as necessary.

Now, as typical with us Americans, everyone wants more HP. So different models/brands are offered with higher HP and lower weight. For example, my Kubota M9540, bare tractor, weighs 5512lbs. It's a Utility class tractor. Definitely requires added rear ballast weight to be productivity to it's potential.

Notice the 2012 95HP Utility Kubota weighs the same as the 1984 47HP AG Ford.

 

[zzvyb6]

Just put a fish scale and a come-a-long on your spindle and apply load until it goes plastic (permanent deformation). That will be your yield moment. Do the same thing to the other side for confirmation. That will also keep your tractor looking and driving symmetric. Could be a problem for the cast iron components, though...

 

[cayote1]

I'm going to assert this: You will be taking chances if you start using ballast. When you pick up a load on your FEL and your rig starts to tip forward (without ballast), your picking up too much. If you start using counter weights and you increase those weights you do run risks of front end damage.
I'm sure the kubota people know owners are going to attempt this. So let's ask the Manufacturers what they think. They all know the physics and metallurgy going into the build.
I'll try to contact Kubota. If anyone else can contact their manufacturers, we should all be able to reach agreement on this subject.
-Lar-

 

[gladehound]

Just put a fish scale and a come-a-long on your spindle and apply load until it goes plastic (permanent deformation). That will be your yield moment. Do the same thing to the other side for confirmation. That will also keep your tractor looking and driving symmetric. Could be a problem for the cast iron components, though...

Darn, don't have a fish scale. I'll tell you what! you do it on your tractor, and let me know how it works out :laughing:

 

[k0ua]

I'm going to assert this: You will be taking chances if you start using ballast. When you pick up a load on your FEL and your rig starts to tip forward (without ballast), your picking up too much. If you start using counter weights and you increase those weights you do run risks of front end damage.
I'm sure the kubota people know owners are going to attempt this. So let's ask the Manufacturers what they think. They all know the physics and metallurgy going into the build.
I'll try to contact Kubota. If anyone else can contact their manufacturers, we should all be able to reach agreement on this subject.
-Lar-

The manufactures all recommend 3 pt ballast. My manual recommends 1047 lbs. Operating your loader without ballast is unsafe and foolhardy. Newbies, take note* DO NOT DO THIS.

 

[ovrszd]

The manufactures all recommend 3 pt ballast. My manual recommends 1047 lbs. Operating your loader without ballast is unsafe and foolhardy. Newbies, take note* DO NOT DO THIS.

Is that your Safety Disclaimer James????

 

[k0ua]

Is that your Safety Disclaimer James????

Yes, it is. Most newbies learn the hard way about 3pt ballast, sometimes with turned over tractors. I am just trying to give some new guy the benefit of my experience. Since new loader operators all like to drive around with their loader bucket up in the air, if You Tube is any gauge of operating skill of newbies, which only compounds the likely hood of a turn over. And we all know that keeping the shiny side of the tractor upright is a good everyday goal of tractor operation.

 

[ovrszd]

Yes, it is. Most newbies learn the hard way about 3pt ballast, sometimes with turned over tractors. I am just trying to give some new guy the benefit of my experience. Since new loader operators all like to drive around with their loader bucket up in the air, if You Tube is any gauge of operating skill of newbies, which only compounds the likely hood of a turn over. And we all know that keeping the shiny side of the tractor upright is a good everyday goal of tractor operation.

Well said and with ample brevity.

 

[k0ua]

Well said and with ample brevity.

You know me well.:laughing:

 

[Luke'sScreenName]

I think that it is worth bringing up again gladehound's original point.

3pt ballast (counterweight) probably does not take a significant amount or stress off the front axle in most cases.

That is not the same as saying ballast is a bad idea.

In some cases 3pth ballast may actually lead to MORE front axle stress (ability to lift larger loads or increased lateral inertia)

Glade, please correct me if I have misrepresented your thoughts.

 

[ovrszd]

I think that it is worth bringing up again gladehound's original point.

3pt ballast (counterweight) probably does not take a significant amount or stress off the front axle in most cases.

That is not the same as saying ballast is a bad idea.

In some cases 3pth ballast may actually lead to MORE front axle stress (ability to lift larger loads or increased lateral inertia)

Glade, please correct me if I have misrepresented your thoughts.

Only thing I would add is "ballast" and "counterweight" are not the same thing. Ballast is weight added at the rear tires, weights, fluid, duals, etc. Counterweight is weight added behind the rear axle.

Ballast does nothing to relieve weight from the front axle. It's purpose is to add weight directly to the rear tires.

Counterweight's primary purpose is removing weight from the front axle. It's secondary purpose is adding weight to the rear tires. Until you get to those "some cases" you referred to above.

 

[Luke'sScreenName]

In my mind counterweight just describes the locaton of the ballast. But that's just semantics.

I use counterweight to keep the rear tire on the ground because it's easily removable and my loaded tires aren't enough and wheel weights are a PITA to put on and take off.
Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen anyone prove to me that 1000-2000lbs on a 3pth takes a significant amount of weight off the front axle. Some weight? Absolutely. A "significant" amount of weight? I don't think so.
Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[k0ua]

In my mind counterweight just describes the locaton of the ballast. But that's just semantics.

I use counterweight to keep the rear tire on the ground because it's easily removable and my loaded tires aren't enough and wheel weights are a PITA to put on and take off.
Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen anyone prove to me that 1000-2000lbs on a 3pth takes a significant amount of weight off the front axle. Some weight? Absolutely. A "significant" amount of weight? I don't think so.
Maybe I'm wrong.

Well, the words some and significant have no meaning. They are relative terms not absolute. Soooo.. No point in going further. If I proved to you that placing 1000 lbs on the 3pt took 1000 lbs off of the front axle (easily possible if placed at the correct distance behind the lift balls), that might be some or that might be significant. That is a losing proposition.

 

[murphy1244]

That was good James, I like it. So profound?.

 

[k0ua]

That was good James, I like it. So profound?.

Yah, gotta get up pretty early in the morning to pull one over on me.:laughing:

 

[gladehound]

In my mind counterweight just describes the locaton of the ballast. But that's just semantics.

I use counterweight to keep the rear tire on the ground because it's easily removable and my loaded tires aren't enough and wheel weights are a PITA to put on and take off.
Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen anyone prove to me that 1000-2000lbs on a 3pth takes a significant amount of weight off the front axle. Some weight? Absolutely. A "significant" amount of weight? I don't think so.
Maybe I'm wrong.

For heavy loader work you're right and that was the point of my first post. A 2000 3pt weight box only takes 1,000 pounds or 15-20% off my front axle during a heavy lift. (assumes weight box CG is 3ft behind rear axle and wheel base is 6 ft; assumes)

However, If I don't, I'm sure someone else will jump in and remind us that without the loader on and without front weights, it's not uncommon to be able to lift a rear implement with the 3pt hitch that is heavy enough to bring the front end off the ground. In this case, you removed 100% of the weight from the front axle. But this second example has nothing to do with the situation I was asking about. I only state it because if I don't someone else will.

Every other static scenario would be somewhere in between these two.

 

[gladehound]

I think that it is worth bringing up again gladehound's original point.

3pt ballast (counterweight) probably does not take a significant amount or stress off the front axle in most cases.

That is not the same as saying ballast is a bad idea.

In some cases 3pth ballast may actually lead to MORE front axle stress (ability to lift larger loads or increased lateral inertia)

Glade, please correct me if I have misrepresented your thoughts.

:thumbsup: Why didn't I just state it that way in the first place! :confused3:

 

[gladehound]

Well, the words some and significant have no meaning. They are relative terms not absolute. Soooo.. No point in going further. If I proved to you that placing 1000 lbs on the 3pt took 1000 lbs off of the front axle (easily possible if placed at the correct distance behind the lift balls), that might be some or that might be significant. That is a losing proposition.

I might as well add in that if your 3pt was configured as a perfect parallelogram you could remove all the weight from the front axle no matter how much weight you were lifting with the loader as long as our counter weight was far enough back (and nothing breaks). That is unless of course you have a self leveling loader

 

[Snowback]

Every other static scenario would be somewhere in between these two.

There it is. You have the 100% correct conclusion. Use appropriate counterbalance behind rear axle and far enough out to return your front axle to somewhere approximating its normal unloaded operating range on average during work periods. Still able to steer, and not adding the full additional 1,000-2,000+ pounds of force directly on the axle stress points that can come from a full bucket, full forks, or full grapple.

When using the loader you are loaded about half the time, and unloaded the other half. Too much counter balance/ballast/weight would have you doing wheelies back to the gravel pile between loads! Can we get to 300 replies here?