BX25: Fill rear tires or not?

[Tompet]

Fluid in the tires is not a replacement for a ballast on the back.

What 94bullitt said.

 

[radioman]

When I bought my BX25 2 years ago I asked the dealer about filling the tires. He stated as long as the tractor was in warranty he would not do it and if I had it done elsewhere it would void the drive train and engine warranty. He said the reason is on the 25 the tire side walls were too weak to withstand the extra pressure especially with the BH or a heavy implement attached. I discussed with my local Schwab tire dealer and thay do it all the time on SCUTS. They have a Yanmar dealer down the block and they fill their SCUTS before selling. They have tires similar to the BX. I am on the fence. I need to lower my COG as I am now working on hilly terrain a lot. Wheel weights sound like a PIA and suitcase weights are very expensive and you never see them used. I may just resort to making hang on concrete weights of various weights. I would make brackets so they hang as low as possible. I will be watching this thread to solidify what action I will take.

Ron

Another classic case of misinformed understanding of forces. Tell me - why does the kubota manual says NOTHING about having filled rears when using the 3 pt to the max like a bush hog lifted up or any implement? Wouldn't this exert the EXACT same forces but more perhaps on the sidewall tires?

Come on guys -- like I said before, something is not kosher with that statement on the manual.

 

[Gary Fowler]

When I bought my BX25 2 years ago I asked the dealer about filling the tires. He stated as long as the tractor was in warranty he would not do it and if I had it done elsewhere it would void the drive train and engine warranty. He said the reason is on the 25 the tire side walls were too weak to withstand the extra pressure especially with the BH or a heavy implement attached. I discussed with my local Schwab tire dealer and thay do it all the time on SCUTS. They have a Yanmar dealer down the block and they fill their SCUTS before selling. They have tires similar to the BX. I am on the fence. I need to lower my COG as I am now working on hilly terrain a lot. Wheel weights sound like a PIA and suitcase weights are very expensive and you never see them used. I may just resort to making hang on concrete weights of various weights. I would make brackets so they hang as low as possible. I will be watching this thread to solidify what action I will take.

Ron

Pound for pound, water ballast puts less strain on the power train than wheel weights. As for more power to turn a wheel with water than wheel weights, think of it this way, how much power does it take for water to run down hill.(think how much friction does water have on the tire) For sure there is some friction of the water to the tire to overcome but that would almost be impossible to measure it would be so small. The water would put more weight lower to the ground also. As for not filling the tires with a backhoe, I can only think of one reason and that would be the extra weight put on the tires and stabilizers trying to lift it, HOWEVER, the BX tires are so small that it wouldnt be adding any appreciable amount of weight for the hydraulics.

 

[avc8130]

Another classic case of misinformed understanding of forces. Tell me - why does the kubota manual says NOTHING about having filled rears when using the 3 pt to the max like a bush hog lifted up or any implement? Wouldn't this exert the EXACT same forces but more perhaps on the sidewall tires?

Come on guys -- like I said before, something is not kosher with that statement on the manual.

Unless their concern is the weight hanging off the axle when the stabilizers pick the rear of the machine off the ground...

 

[RaydaKub]

Unless their concern is the weight hanging off the axle when the stabilizers pick the rear of the machine off the ground...

But if that's the case, then wheel weights should also be of concern, yet they are not. And why are wheel weights ok to use, filled tires are ok to use (in most cases), but not the combination. If the concern is lifting, then it shouldn't matter what type of weight it is. Or are they assuming nobody would ever load a BX wheel with more than 75lbs? I know somebody here had his BX weighted with 200lbs per wheel. That's more than my 100lbs of fill and 50lbs on the hub. (Now, mine isn't a BH model, but I would think the rear axles would be pretty much the same).

 

[radioman]

. As for not filling the tires with a backhoe, I can only think of one reason and that would be the extra weight put on the tires and stabilizers trying to lift it, HOWEVER, the BX tires are so small that it wouldnt be adding any appreciable amount of weight for the hydraulics.

Thank you. My point exactly.

 

[Artisan]

W/O the BH on, the BX25 is desperate for as much weight as it can get.
W/ the BH on there is no need at all for rear wheel weights unless one wants
a lower COG.
I too am kinda bumfuddleducked as to why exactly they say no rear wheel
weights when BH is loaded but when I hit 2 years I will load the rear AND put
on weights for when the BH is not attached, but run weights 24/7. I see o issue's.
I "hope" it is just a tire issue. Here is a novel idea, how about a letter asking why
to Kubota Inc?

 

[avc8130]

Maybe it puts the weight over what the ROPS is designed to support in the event of a rollover?

Kubota is a pretty smart company, employing smart engineers (and lawyers). There must be SOME reason to spend the effort to print the line in the manual.

 

[radioman]

I "hope" it is just a tire issue. Here is a novel idea, how about a letter asking why
to Kubota Inc?

Feel free to do so my friend

 

[EE_Bota]

I have offered this theory before, and nobody saluted. I will offer it again, but I don't expect any salutes this time either.

Air is compressible and fluids essentially are not. If you hit a bump of the proper shape under the right circumstances, perhaps that could be problematic if the tire is filled. Problematic to what? The tire, the axle, the bearings, who really knows. Fill the tires, put on the backhoe, and hit the right speed bump at the right speed, and send in the video and we will all have our opinion I reckon.

When I was looking at possible backhoe additions to my BX2200, the backhoes were well beyond what the lift could handle, which is ONE of the reasons they were sub-frame mounted.

My BX2200 has no backhoe, I decided to buy an additional tractor. But my BX would be nothing without filled tires. Were it me, I would fill the tires, but I would be a truly slow mover with the backhoe on.

 

[94BULLITT]

I have offered this theory before, and nobody saluted. I will offer it again, but I don't expect any salutes this time either.

Air is compressible and fluids essentially are not. If you hit a bump of the proper shape under the right circumstances, perhaps that could be problematic if the tire is filled. Problematic to what? The tire, the axle, the bearings, who really knows. Fill the tires, put on the backhoe, and hit the right speed bump at the right speed, and send in the video and we will all have our opinion I reckon.

When I was looking at possible backhoe additions to my BX2200, the backhoes were well beyond what the lift could handle, which is ONE of the reasons they were sub-frame mounted.

My BX2200 has no backhoe, I decided to buy an additional tractor. But my BX would be nothing without filled tires. Were it me, I would fill the tires, but I would be a truly slow mover with the backhoe on.

The tires are not filled all the way so there is a cushion. They get filled to 75%.

 

[EE_Bota]

The tires are not filled all the way so there is a cushion. They get filled to 75%.

I know, I think someone pointed that out last time too. But if I had to fall backwards onto an air mattress 100% full of air vs one 25% air 75% water, I'm concerned I may detect a difference. And the sides of a tire are far less likely to bulge outward in a manner that could be described as stretching since tires don't really stretch much. They deform to a different shape, but there are cords and belts everywhere to try to avoid substantial stretching.

Another example...imagine an hydraulic cylinder full of air vs one with 75% fluid 25% air. Now after thinking about that a bit, do the same for a bladder commonly used in air suspensions. We see them on transfer trucks all the time. If we fill that bladder 75 % full of water and only 25% air vs the normal condition of all air, what does that do to our air ride suspension?

I may certainly be wrong, and maybe that's why no one is saluting. But I truly believe that physics is on my side.

I could try the gas law PV=nRT, but there will be 2 cases and 4 states, and I don't know what numbers to plug in. I typically only go to that amount of work when I need actual magnitudes for my answer, not when a thought experiment will be sufficient.

 

[JOHNTHOMAS]

EE-BOTA.....I salute you!:thumbsup: :cool2: :thumbsup: .....

 

[EE_Bota]

EE-BOTA.....I salute you!:thumbsup: :cool2: :thumbsup: .....

Hey! Thank-you JOHNTHOMAS. I wouldn't even care if it were a pity salute at this point. I'll just take it and smile.

 

[radioman]

gee ee bota --- you are making my head spin! No not really- I think I comprehend what you are saying and it got some merit. for some reason the waterbed analogy is sticking in my head and I am thinking that if I plopped into the water bed compared to an air mattress - you have a point there. The only hole in your theory is that the BX has a top speed of 8 mph at WOT in rabbit. 8 mph? a bump in a semi fluid like tire? I gotta mull on that one a bit and think if there "might" bee any damage, but I hardly can fathom one.

 

[EE_Bota]

gee ee bota --- you are making my head spin! No not really- I think I comprehend what you are saying and it got some merit. for some reason the waterbed analogy is sticking in my head and I am thinking that if I plopped into the water bed compared to an air mattress - you have a point there. The only hole in your theory is that the BX has a top speed of 8 mph at WOT in rabbit. 8 mph? a bump in a semi fluid like tire? I gotta mull on that one a bit and think if there "might" bee any damage, but I hardly can fathom one.

Yeah, I see what your are saying. I first came up with the theory when I saw the first debate on here about filling front tires. There is no way that is enough weight to matter. I was using my FEL, and doing just fine, and I hit a rock with one of the front tires and the tire sort of collapsed and absorbed that without making my filled FEL move upward in proportion to the insult (even considering the axle pivot.) I thought it would make a much harder tire were it filled, and something might have to give, and if I were lucky, it would be the tire itself.

 

[My Hoe]

Interesting thread. Subscribed.