Ballast Weights - How much is too much?

[mattellis2]

I recently put a FEL on my little Branson tractor. The tractor weighs 3700 lbs, and the loader (a newly redesigned OEM model) has a lift capacity of about 2k. I can stick the bucket in a pile of dirt, and lift the back wheels, even with a 500 lb finish mower hanging on the back.

My solution was to build a reinforced concrete 3 point weight. I built a form box, tied my rebar, and poured my concrete a week ago this evening. I have been wet curing it ever since. Tonight, I stripped the forms, hooked it up, and tried it out. I have to say, the tractor is a lot more stable with 1200 lbs hanging off the 3 point. The tractor's 3 point is rated around 2500 lbs. That being said, I heard some creaking and popping of the hitch (I think) when the tractor was in motion, and the counterweight would shift from side to side. I do have sway limiters, but the do allow some movement. The weight also noticeably flattened the rear tires when I lifted it, but the lift itself had no problems picking it up. I need to check the air pressure in the rears too, but didn't get to it before it got dark tonight.

So what do you all think? Too much weight? Build another one? or just use the big one when I REALLY need the ballast? FWIW, I also have a KK tiller that is pretty heavy (650 lbs, maybe) that I could use, but it is a PITA to hook up.

-matt

 

[rekees4300]

This old thread may be useful

http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/owning-operating/30574-rookies-fels-read-tractor-ballast.html

 

[k0ua]

I am no expert, but I would think the 1200 would be fine if your loader can really lift 2000 lbs. I would check the air pressure as you mentioned, and I would also tighten up the turnbuckles/check-chains. if possible.. also one other thing. any chance the wheel lug nuts on your rear wheels could be a little loose causing the creaking sound?
James K0UA

 

[kennyd]

1200lbs is only 1/2 of the rated capacity of your 3PH...you are good to go as long as you can't easily lift the rear tires off the ground in that dirt pile:thumbsup:

 

[Ford tractor]

The relationship between FEL capacity and total amount of ballast that i can recall is 1x to 1.5x with 1.5x being better than 1x.

So if you can lift 2000#, you would want TOTAL ballast to be equal to about 3000#. Some combination of filled tires, wheel weights and rear attachment. The range is due to the potential length of the 3pt attachment effectively moving the weight farther back making it act like a heavier weight closer. It's also better to have weight behind the rear axle and not just filled tires + wheel weights as the back weight will help lighten the load on the front axle.

Remember that when you lift the rear wheels the entire weight of the tractor plus ballast plus a large portion of the bucket load is on the front axle. It's not designed for that load - neither are the tires.

I would keep the cement weight and also fill the tires. That will get you close, but probably won't allow you full stability with a fully loaded bucket. The squeaks & groans may be from un-greased 3pt parts rubbing under the load. Grease up the balls, the pins, sway links, etc. The advice on loose wheel lugs is also very good.

jb

 

[easygo]

I think you should be set with the #1200 of concrete. Check the tire pressure and set the sway control so there is very little play. My tractor has a lift capacity of about #900 and I have about #650 ballast on the 3ph plus loaded tires. I don't have a problem lifting the rear off the ground. The tires should hardly change shape when you lift up the 3ph weight.

 

[CurlyDave]

T
Remember that when you lift the rear wheels the entire weight of the tractor plus ballast plus a large portion of the bucket load is on the front axle. It's not designed for that load - neither are the tires...

jb

I don't think adding rear weight reduces the load on the front axle.

The total weight increases so that some remains on the rear, but the front axle load doesn't decrease.

 

[bp fick]

I don't think adding rear weight reduces the load on the front axle.

The total weight increases so that some remains on the rear, but the front axle load doesn't decrease.

Yeah, that is the debate, isn't it. Obviously, filling tires weights/lowers the CG, but the rear axle is merely the fulcrum. Filling rear tires cannot take weight off the front axle, that's pretty much common knowledge.

But, does adding rear ballast, behind the rear axle fulcrum, lever any weight off the front axle? Some say absolutely. I'd like more information on this myself from engineer types, not just my own or other's idle speculation.

 

[rjkobbeman]

But, does adding rear ballast, behind the rear axle fulcrum, lever any weight off the front axle? Some say absolutely. I'd like more information on this myself from engineer types, not just my own or other's idle speculation.

This is common knowledge as well.

How much weight you put behind the rear axle and how far back behind the rear axle you put that weight will change how much weight to lever off of the front axle. Put enought weight and/or far enough behind, you will do a wheelie. Obviously you don't want to do that, but it is for illustration.

 

[Trails2004]

........I'd like more information on this myself from engineer types, not just my own or other's idle speculation.

Ditto- this also includes, those who stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night

 

[rjkobbeman]

Well, if rear ballast did not take weight off of the front axle then how does putting too much weight in the FEL take weight off of the rear axle?

It's the same thing...

Everyone is on-board with putting weight on the rear end too keep the rear end from coming off of the ground when putting weight in the FEL. But for some reason, the idea of putting weight in a ballast box behind the rear axle (think Rear End Loader) to take weight off of the front axle escapes some.

Pretend the front of the tractor is the rear and the rear of the tractor is the front. Now pretend a ballast box is the FEL.

 

[frogfish]

This is what's referred to as a lever (simple machine), When you put the ballast in the rear, the rear axle is the fulcrum to lift the front, when the load is in the FEL, the front axle is the fulcrum. I think people are getting confused because there are two fulcrum points and depending where the load is and the distance from the fulcrum will determine which end goes up or down.

Bottom line is: if you add weight to the rear, this WILL take weight off the front axles because the rear axle is the fulcrum. Enough weight in the rear and the front will come up. The same is true in the front, enough weight in the FEL the rear axle will come up but the front axle is bearing the weight because it it the fulcrum in this case.

So adding weight in the rear will lessen the load on the front axle.

I'm not an engineer, but I have played on the teeter-totter as a child and it it the same principle.

 

[mattellis2]

heh. turns out that i am one of those nerdy engineer types, and i agree rjkobbeman. you're just summing moments about certain points. wheel weights and loaded tires are not as efficient since when computing their resistive moments, you're summing around the front axle. the ballast weight hanging on the end of the 3 point has a moment arm 3-4' longer than a wheel weights mounted on your lugs, so you get more bang for your buck.

"taking weight of the front axle" is the result of moment applied around the rear axles. the FEL applies a positive moment, and the ballast weight provides a negative moment. these forces cancel one another. if the negative moment applied by the ballast box is larger than the positive moment applied by the FEL, the front end wants to rotate around the rear axle...the wheelie mentioned elsewhere. the key is to keep everything moderately balanced.

-matt

 

[dynasim]

Ballast of that size should not be allowed to sway, for a variety of reasons.

If you set a hammer on your leg, it doesn't hurt. If you take a swing at it, it will. On my NH TC45, the sway limiters will not take impulse(hammer swing) loads.

You could either tighten up your sway limiters, or move the bars in closer such that the arms rub firmly on the friction plates. On our farm, we did the latter. The key is to not let the weight swing.

This is also likely to help with stability on hill sides. It is my experience that it is changes in direction that causes tipping(though I have never tipped a tractor. A truck, but never a tractor). Having ballast that can move side to side can only be bad.

Chris

 

[Baby Grand]

Ballast aft of the rear axle unloads the front axle.
It's physics, not speculation.
To demonstrate - try taking your FEL off and maxing out your 3PH - your front axle will become completely unloaded and your front wheels will lift off the ground. Now let's have no more of this nonsense. Harrumph!
-Jim

 

[bp fick]

Well, if rear ballast did not take weight off of the front axle then how does putting too much weight in the FEL take weight off of the rear axle?

It's the same thing...

Everyone is on-board with putting weight on the rear end too keep the rear end from coming off of the ground when putting weight in the FEL. But for some reason, the idea of putting weight in a ballast box behind the rear axle (think Rear End Loader) to take weight off of the front axle escapes some.

Pretend the front of the tractor is the rear and the rear of the tractor is the front. Now pretend a ballast box is the FEL.

This is what's referred to as a lever (simple machine), When you put the ballast in the rear, the rear axle is the fulcrum to lift the front, when the load is in the FEL, the front axle is the fulcrum. I think people are getting confused because there are two fulcrum points and depending where the load is and the distance from the fulcrum will determine which end goes up or down.

Bottom line is: if you add weight to the rear, this WILL take weight off the front axles because the rear axle is the fulcrum. Enough weight in the rear and the front will come up. The same is true in the front, enough weight in the FEL the rear axle will come up but the front axle is bearing the weight because it it the fulcrum in this case.

So adding weight in the rear will lessen the load on the front axle.

I'm not an engineer, but I have played on the teeter-totter as a child and it it the same principle.

heh. turns out that i am one of those nerdy engineer types, and i agree rjkobbeman. you're just summing moments about certain points. wheel weights and loaded tires are not as efficient since when computing their resistive moments, you're summing around the front axle. the ballast weight hanging on the end of the 3 point has a moment arm 3-4' longer than a wheel weights mounted on your lugs, so you get more bang for your buck.

"taking weight of the front axle" is the result of moment applied around the rear axles. the FEL applies a positive moment, and the ballast weight provides a negative moment. these forces cancel one another. if the negative moment applied by the ballast box is larger than the positive moment applied by the FEL, the front end wants to rotate around the rear axle...the wheelie mentioned elsewhere. the key is to keep everything moderately balanced.

-matt

Three well written summations of the teeter totter principle. Thank you all gentlemen. Wheel weighting does not take weight off the front axle, but rear ballast does.

 

[Ford tractor]

I don't think adding rear weight reduces the load on the front axle.

The total weight increases so that some remains on the rear, but the front axle load doesn't decrease.

I would give a detailed answer, but there seems to be a lot of experts that have already done a better job than I could have.

 

[jenkinsph]

I agree that using a 1250 lb weight on the rear hitch will reduce the weight on the front axle.

If you were to consider the weight is centered 5' behind the rear axle and considered this to be a counterclockwise force of 5' x 1250 lbs= 6250 ft lbs and the tractor has a 6' wheel base as mine does this would provide 6250/6'=1041.6 lbs of lift to the front axle.

I also agree not to allow sway and movement of the hitch, this will wear and tear and beat the tractor up.