Branson Front Wheel Axle Failures

[LincTex]

There is another carnage method - if you use the front loader as a dozer or digger instead of as a loader, you can load the bucket up heavy and then lift the loader some (but remaining in the pile) and then drive forward and you are again putting huge loads on the front axle and nothing on the rear axle. The rear end is light, front traction is exceptional, all the work is being done by relative tiny front axles.

Branson uses a good solid front axle, not any more prone to breakage than any of the better known brands. But it is not a $100k commercial skip loader with massive planetary front axles. Those are my thoughts, and I hope I have not offended anyone.

VERY interesting, thank you for contributing that!

It explains very well some other scenarios I have seen in the past.

 

[Ford850]

DavesTractor - Great post.
One thing about loaded rear tires though. I agree they do keep the rear axle in the game to take some stress off the front axles when moving. But by loading the rear tires and having no 3pt hitch ballast, they allow us to load much more in the FEL applying that much more force on the front axles. This has been a good thread overall, and some very good info we can all use as a reminder.

 

[DavesTractor]

DavesTractor - Great post.
One thing about loaded rear tires though. I agree they do keep the rear axle in the game to take some stress off the front axles when moving. But by loading the rear tires and having no 3pt hitch ballast, they allow us to load much more in the FEL applying that much more force on the front axles. This has been a good thread overall, and some very good info we can all use as a reminder.

Good point, I guess you can solve one problem and then create another one.

But if we at least understand the ways in which we can easily break our machines, we can tread lightly when in those sort of situations.

 

[Branson Bob]

From the standpoint of a fulcrum and lever, tire ballast in and of itself will not reduce load on the front end because it adds weight evenly on both the front and rear half of the axle.

Only extra weight rear of the rear axle which causes the rear axle to become the fulcrum, can alleviate weight on the front axles.

However tire ballast should improve traction to the point where the MFWD/MFWA will not be needed as much and as Dave pointed out, over-reliance on the front wheels for drive and traction is a major stressor on the front axles.

 

[DavesTractor]

From the standpoint of a fulcrum and lever, tire ballast in and of itself will not reduce load on the front end because it adds weight evenly on both the front and rear half of the axle.

Only extra weight rear of the rear axle which causes the rear axle to become the fulcrum, can alleviate weight on the front axles.

However tire ballast should improve traction to the point where the MFWD/MFWA will not be needed as much and as Dave pointed out, over-reliance on the front wheels for drive and traction is a major stressor on the front axles.

Exactly, and I am glad you pointed that out. To "lighten" the front axle load would require as much weight as possible as far rearward as possible from the rear axle. I think some failures may be attributed to a way overloaded front axle, but most that I have seen were from not having the rear axle doing it's normal job of providing the lion's share of motivation.

BTW, the newest Branson tractors in the 20/25 series have a front bucket that is drilled for bucket teeth. Having the teeth installed reduces needed tractive effort when pushing into a pile by about 25%. Worthwhile for many folks, but I just worry a little that people will start using the bucket as a digger. In some soils you can get away with that just fine, and in some you can't.

Anyway, to the TBN crowd, your nearest dealer ought to stock these bolt on teeth.

 

[ericm979]

I was wondering what those holes were for.

Would a 700lb ballast box be enough weight for pushing over small trees and pulling up 3-4" brush?

 

[Ford850]

Good point, I guess you can solve one problem and then create another one.

But if we at least understand the ways in which we can easily break our machines, we can tread lightly when in those sort of situations.

Exactly! :thumbsup:

 

[DavesTractor]

I was wondering what those holes were for.

Would a 700lb ballast box be enough weight for pushing over small trees and pulling up 3-4" brush?

Pushing over small trees and brush with a compact tractor makes us consider a couple of things. Mostly, what type of tree and what type of soil. A 4" valley oak will have a 2-3" tap root that goes down who knows how far and really has to be cut. Yet I can easily push over (with my Takeuchi track loader) a 16" diameter 50 year old Pistachio tree in the same soil. I think most brush and small shallow rooted trees will be easy work for you. I would for sure give it a try. Pushing straight on to the tree won't induce a ton of extra front axle stress, it will allow tire spin as the "fuse".

How you get in trouble while pushing over trees is when you raise the loader up to 6-7 feet and stick it under a big branch where it forms out of the trunk. Then you lift as you drive forward and you are transferring incredible force and you get fantastic front axle traction.....and you break parts. Or you might push over a tree, but do that several times and you will break or bend something. This can also induce huge pressure spikes between the hydraulic cylinders and control valve, but that's an entirely different discussion.

Eric, with loaded rear tires and a 700 lb ballast you are well equipped to get the most out of your tractor. And after talking to you, you are far and away sharper than the average bear, you will consider your usage and get a lot of work out of that tractor. A careful operator can get more done without breakage than a wild child "get 'er done" type of user.

 

[Industrial Toys]

I think people don't realize that every time they may abuse their tractor/loader, it may not outright break then and there, but they break it just a little. So they figure, no harm done, and may even be impressed at what they can do, but they are wrong. It will catch up to them.

That axle shaft probably didn't break from one incident. It most likely failed over time.

 

[Branson Bob]

I think people don't realize that every time they may abuse their tractor/loader, it may not outright break then and there, but they break it just a little. So they figure, no harm done, and may even be impressed at what they can do, but they are wrong. It will catch up to them.

That axle shaft probably didn't break from one incident. It most likely failed over time.

Exactly.

"Metal fatigue is a weakening of metal due to stress, resulting in an accumulation of small cracks over time."

 

[CliffNeudorf]

There have been really great comments in this thread but I remain concerned about safety. I have gained a lot of insight from you folks. I gather that Daves Tractor as a dealer has seen a number of Branson axle failures as well as similar failures with other manufacturers. It seems that there are three axle failure groupings; 1) failures attributed to the operators operation of the equipment, 2) failures attributed to overload of the front axle and 3) other failures due to faulty parts as supplied by the manufacturer. Whatever the source the failures result in the same thing, the wheel departing the tractor. Usually the failure has a benign economic impact it seems but it could easily result in rollover and injury to the operator or serious injury or worse to the occupants of oncoming vehicles if the wheel departs when operating on a public road.

For item 1) failures Kukje should provide clearer guidance on operation of the tractor with FEL in the operators manual. What Dave and others have said is quite sensible and should be replicated in the Operators manual. Kukje should also provide clear instructions for item 2) failures in the operators manual stating how to establish the correct aft loading of the tractor to ensure that the loading of the front axles remains within limits when operating a FEL with a bucket or attachments on it. To my knowledge this information just is not available to date, to anybody. This lack of operational information is also a safety issue in my opinion. Perhaps the dealers reading this thread could help lobby Kukje and Branson to get this information published. Also Kukje needs to correct the existing published information where Kukje says: "This tractor is not designed for road driving. Please use a truck to move this machine on the public roads." and then the operators manual goes on to advise how to safely operate on the road.

 

[CADplans]

There have been really great comments in this thread but I remain concerned about safety.

In my opinion,, there is only one answer,,, the right machine, with a lot of axle.
If you are gonna do a lot of work,,, get a lot of machine.

I purchased this, with a loader,, it was 15 years old at the time,,, I have used it an additional 20 years.

It is only 60HP,, and has never been used with ballast, on purpose,

The loader gets LOTS of use.

Zero axle failures,, (it seldom needs 4WD),, It cost me $5,000, I paid the asking price.

 

[DavesTractor]

Cliff,

We have seen some failures because we sell a ton of Branson tractors. A dealer that sells a couple dozen a year, depending on what sort of abuse a tractor was put through, may go years and years without seeing an axle failure. I have no data, only seat of the pants opinions, but I think you will find a similar failure rate on axles and axle shafts across brands. I do not wish to get a brand war going, but if you take a common tractor - pick a volume tractor from a known quality brand like NH or JD or Kubota and google for front axle problems and you will find many. The fact is that the manufacturers give us enough power and capacity to break a tractor if we are not operating correctly. To do otherwise would be to give us a very anemic tractor that lifts about nothing.

I won't argue against the fact that the manual is not a course on tractor operation or a skills course. Maybe more can or should be said about that. There is always room for improvement. But the usages for which a tractor is purchased, the terrain, the operator's needs, the operator's skills, the attachments used - this can vary a great deal. It would be hard to cover all the bases. As to the conflict about using a truck to move the tractor and then advising how to drive a tractor on the road, seems they should resolve that or clarify.

TBN is a great place to learn. Safety is important, and perhaps this thread will help others and you will have provided a service.

 

[DavesTractor]

In my opinion,, there is only one answer,,, the right machine, with a lot of axle.
If you are gonna do a lot of work,,, get a lot of machine.

I purchased this, with a loader,, it was 15 years old at the time,,, I have used it an additional 20 years.

It is only 60HP,, and has never been used with ballast, on purpose,

The loader gets LOTS of use.

Zero axle failures,, (it seldom needs 4WD),, It cost me $5,000, I paid the asking price.

That is the coolest tractor. Look at that massive axle! If you want your $5000 back, I think we can arrange for that!

 

[CADplans]

That is the coolest tractor. Look at that massive axle!

If you want your $5000 back, I think we can arrange for that!

You will have to arrange that,, at a later date,, with my heirs,,, :laughing:

I have four 4WD tractors,, the IH would be the last to go,,,,

 

[CliffNeudorf]

I think people don't realize that every time they may abuse their tractor/loader, it may not outright break then and there, but they break it just a little. So they figure, no harm done, and may even be impressed at what they can do, but they are wrong. It will catch up to them.

That axle shaft probably didn't break from one incident. It most likely failed over time.

With Industrial Toys comment and others like it in this thread, it seems to me that there is a second unaddressed safety issue. That is the reselling of used tractors that may have already experienced fatigue cracks or stress risors such that the health of a front axle spindle is compromised but not evident to the eye. I see no published instructions from Kukje/Branson informing the dealer or the purchaser of used tractors concerning how to ensure that unhealthy axles are not unwittingly being passed on to unsuspecting customers. I would appreciate opinions on this, particularly from you dealers if you are inclined to comment. I am wondering if special inspections need to be developed to determine the axle's health prior to resale.

 

[aczlan]

With Industrial Toys comment and others like it in this thread, it seems to me that there is a second unaddressed safety issue. That is the reselling of used tractors that may have already experienced fatigue cracks or stress risors such that the health of a front axle spindle is compromised but not evident to the eye. I see no published instructions from Kukje/Branson informing the dealer or the purchaser of used tractors concerning how to ensure that unhealthy axles are not unwittingly being passed on to unsuspecting customers. I would appreciate opinions on this, particularly from you dealers if you are inclined to comment. I am wondering if special inspections need to be developed to determine the axle's health prior to resale.

There is no way to check unless something is bent or loose in the spindle without taking the front axle apart.


Aaron Z

 

[PapeCAT]

Sorry for the hijack but does that front axle articulate on that IH 584? Looks cool, I've never seen a MFWD in that style.

 

[CADplans]

Sorry for the hijack but does that front axle articulate on that IH 584? Looks cool, I've never seen a MFWD in that style.

It is a steering axle,, just like a 2WD.

 

[rasorbackq]

Here is mine from the spring

I was moving dirt . Drove into pile and continued to drive to get more dirt Rear tires spun some and heard a click no movement. Thought it came out of gear lifted bucket tried to reverse. Rear tires spun front didn't.
Dumped load and tried reverse . started to move and tire fell off.
$500 later