Decision Made!

[DaveM]

Hi All,

On Sat. we ordered a B2710, 402 FEL w/ 60" bucket and R4 tires loaded with windshield washer fluid. It should be delivered in 2 or 3 days!! I reconsidered my mower options and am strongly leaning to a 60" rear mount deck (another thread for sure!). With all the snow we're STILL getting I have weeks to research this implement. Other implements are on the horizon but it'll be great to get the heart and soul of it all, home and in the garage!

I really want to thank everyone for their advice and opinions. I put myself through a crash course in compact tractors the past 4 weeks and this forum was, is and will be a fantastic resource!

Hopefully I'll resume normal sleeping next weekend /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif.

Dave

 

[Bird]

Congratulations, Dave. I think you'll enjoy that tractor. I'm using a Bush Hog RDTH60 (60" rear discharge, 3-point) mower myself and am very happy with it. And for my purposes, I think it's the right size, but I do believe the tractor could handle the 72" with no problems at all.

Bird

 

[TWINKLE_TOES]

Dave,

For some reason I'm not surprised./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif I sensed you leaning that way, thought you might fall over before made up your mind. Congratulations, can't wait for your trade study on "Rear Vs Mid Vs 54" Vs 60" Vs 72" Vs ?".

 

[apcaruso]

Congratulations! I started reading your posts late after you had already ruled out the bx and 7500 and thus didn't comment; I'm the proud owner of a b7500hsd /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif but would have gone with the 2710/2910 if I had more space.

I noticed you mentioned that your tires will be loaded with windshield wiper fluid. Do you know what the freezing point is of this solution, its relative weight to CaCL2 (saturated) and its corrosive properties to rims/tires relative to CaCl2?

AC

 

[Wheeldog]

Good job, DaveM! Nobody can say you didn't do your homework.

I'd be happy to share my experiences with my 5' 3ph finish mower, but I don't have any yet. Just waiting until we get rid of the last of the snow and start growing some grass.

- Rob

 

[DaveM]

Thanks everyone! Hope the ride was better for you than me and if nothing else you got a few yucks!

After rereading the archives re: belly/rear/60"/72" mowers I might not start another thread after all. There's lots of good info in there!

AC- I went with the washer fluid because of my sales person's recommendation. I was pretty sure I didn't want to go with sodium (?) due to corrosive concerns. Probably not an issue with new rims and solution filled high enough that oxygen would not contact the rims. I still didn't like the idea. Wasn't crazy about the toxicity of antifreeze around our pets and the wild life we have in abundance around here. Although I wouldn't recommend drinking washer fluid (cheap buzz?) the rep said this stuff is not toxic or at least not lethal. Also claimed that it is not corrosive at all and is good to aprx. -25F. As for the weight. I don't know and I doubt they know or weigh the tires after filling. If it's not dilluted with water I suppose one could weigh a 1 gallon jug of fluid to get some idea. I'll ask for more details when I take delivery. Can anyone shed more light on these questions? I think the use of washer fluid is a fairly new thing for my dealer.

Dave

 

[Joeinindy]

Congrats!! I'm sure you will be very pleased with your new Kubota.

 

[DaveM]

Re: Decision Made!/Washer Fluid Data

I spoke to my dealer last night and can add a little more info to the washer fluid query. The fluid weighs 6.5 lbs./gal. Each of my wheels will take aprx. 30 gal., roughly adds 200 lbs. to each wheel. I think he said calcium solution weighs about 7.5 lbs./gal. They also add water bed conditioner to each wheel to reduce the chance of of mold/fungus growth. Lastly, they charge $80 to use washer fluid in lieu of antifreeze or calcium. Fairly cheap piece of mind, IMHO.

Dave

PS- I'm waiting on a call this morning. I might get the tractor today!!

 

[Mikemas]

Re: Decision Made!/Washer Fluid Data

Dave,
Perhaps I can give some input on the tire ballast. I had my local industrial tire service add calcium to the rear tires (R4) on my B2710 shortly after I purchased it in June, 2000. The calcium definitely gives you the most weight per gallon. There were several different mix ratios available based on freeze point and what specific weight gain is desired. Mine weighed 11 lbs/gal mixed. The calcium is nothing more than heavy, dry flakes in a bag, that are dissolved in water to make a very dense, but corrosive solution. I had heavy duty tubes installed to protect the rims. I would recommend tubes with ANY liquid ballast, whether it is water, antifreeze, or calcium. There is always oxygen present inside a wheel, which will most likely result in some type of reaction. My total cost was $150.00 for the calcium, heavy duty tubes, and a special "wet" gauge for checking pressure. A bargain for adding 240 lbs. per wheel.

Mike

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Re: Decision Made!/tire ballast

Hi Dave,

Just plain fresh-water weighs a little over 8 lbs. per gallon (very close to 8.34).

You mention 6.5 for wiper-fluid/7.5 for calcium. What is the point of using these (lighter)densities instead of water?

If the corrosive effects of calcium are a concern, then the corrosive effects (rust) of water would be less-so, and it's non-toxic. Using a tube would give equal protection from the water, ...and it 's a HECK of a lot less-expensive. Compared to the calcium-mix quoted in another response (11 lbs.), water would give 73% of the weight for what, ... .001% of the cost?! /w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif

An example:

Michelin gives the capacity of the tires on my 4700 (XM-27 radials) as 91 gals.
A 3/4 fill would be 68.25 gals.
Using 8 lbs./gal for the water-density, that's 546 lbs. per-tire.
Total added-weight for both rear tires,... 1092 lbs.

Cost of fill-media(water),... LESS THAN 50 CENTS!!

Now I would call THAT "cheap piece-of-mind". /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Am I missing something here?

Larry

 

[Boondox]

Re: Decision Made!/tire ballast

Larry -- Water freezes. Also, looks like someone got their weights wrong. (Not sure who, so don't take offense.) If you take 100# of water and dissolve something weighing 30# into it, the solute will weigh more than the water.

Pete in Northern Vermont

 

[RobS]

Re: Decision Made!/tire ballast

The only problem Larry, is for those of us in the colder climates. Plain water will freeze and who knows what that would do to the tires/wheels/tractor.

Someone (sorry I forget who) mentioned "rim guard" recently for tire fill. Anyone have the stats on that stuff?

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Re: Decision Made!/tire ballast

Boondox,

WATER FREEZES /w3tcompact/icons/blush.gif !!

Duh! (like I said,... was I MISSING something here?!)

So THAT'S the "point" of using the other mixes. No offense taken,... Thanks, I needed that! /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Re. "someone" having their weights wrong: If you put 30# of cork into 100# of water, the (let's pretend it's a "solute") will certainly weigh more than the water alone, but the unit-of-volume weight will be LESS. So the density of the "something" has to be GREATER THAN the water density, in order to get more for our trouble when we're talking about a "tirefull".

I know you know-this, I'm just having fun with you for catchin' me with that "freezing" oversight /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif . Musta' slipped back into "Miami"-mode(born and raised.) If I was still there, I'd go with the water-fill. BAD idea for most other places, though, I admit.

I'm still quite-confident , about the water-density figure. Can't be responsible for the other weights, ... didn't post 'em.

This site is a lot of fun,.. just wish "blunders" were'nt so darn public! /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Larry

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Re: Decision Made!/tire ballast

Rob, see my response to Boondox.

What are you guys, wimps? /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif
So it might be a little "bumpy" in your tires freeze,... they'll still be HEAVY!!

Re. "Rimguard": I have the specs (but not handy),... I called and spoke with the mfr., and then went with the (impressive, I thought) info to my local "Big"-tire dealer.

They were not overly impressed, because the stuff is full-volume, and would have to be "tank-stored/transported" to the "fill" site. Now they can just take the calcium "concentrate", in a pick-up truck with-a-pump, and use on-site water to mix/fill. No "tank-truck" or trailer to deal with/store.

Also, there seems to be a bit of a problem pumping the stuff through the pumps that are ordinarily used for cal-fill.

Once the "Rimguard" is in, though, it sounds like the way-to-go. -- non-toxic, won't freeze, non-corrosive, and about 10#/gal.

I still haven't decided what I'm gonna do about tire ballast.
The Michelin techs, reccomend weights rather than fill,... but the JD manual says use weights AND fill for FEL work.

Ballast "aft" like on the 3-pt (say a 1000+# box-scraper) adds even MORE weight to the rear than the ballast-wt., because of the weight that is "levered' off of the front axle, which is GOOD when the loader is full, and BAD when it is empty.

I'm still working with figures/weights, trying to decide what I'm gonna do.
I don't want weight when not-desirable (wet-mowing), and I won't mess with bolt-on/remove wheel weights. and CAN'T change filled-tire weight.

Hmnn! /w3tcompact/icons/mad.gif

Larry

 

[RobS]

Re: Decision Made!/tire ballast

Yeah Larry, don't you just hate those public blunders. I've had my share /w3tcompact/icons/blush.gif And yes, call me a wimp if I don't want to ride on solid tires /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

The other problem I've run into with relying on the box scraper for ballast is that it provides no weight when it's dragging on the ground. I've had traction problems (R-1s) pulling my scraper where wheel weights and/or loaded tires would have helped.

One thing you can definitely say about these tractors: There's no shortage of things to spend your money on once you own one /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Re: Decision Made!/tire ballast

Good point Rob, about the traction when the scraper is dragging. I'm counting on the overall weight of my rig being enough, for my soil conditions,
If I learn otherwise,I'll have to take another look at things /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif .

Larry

 

[DFB]

Re: Decision Made!/tire ballast

Hey guys,

In the ultimate quest for traction don't forget the effect tire inflation pressures have on both power management and soil compaction. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

<font color=blue>Overinflated tractor tires are a common cause of poor tractive efficiency and compaction

Reducing tire inflation pressure to the minimum level required for a specific load will reduce wheel slippage,

Tires maintained at minimum tire inflation pressures transmit power to the soil through the largest area.

Increasing the contact area of tires reduces the pressure exerted by the tire on the ground.

The pressure exerted by a tire on the soil surface near the lugs is roughly 2 pounds per square inch greater than the tire inflation pressure.</font color=blue>

Of course the tire manufacturers recommendations should be followed to match tire inflation pressure to the load on the tire.

GOOD LUCK

DFB

 

[apcaruso]

Re: Decision Made!/tire ballast

DFB,

I'll have to admit that I did not realize this. It makes sense to me regarding soil compaction, however, I would have thought that higher pressure would increase the rigity of the tread and thus increase its ability to "bite" into the soil. Also, for tires with a tight tread pattern, ie turfs, the higher pressure would keep the tread pattern open better to increase the tires ability to clean itself. I remember the debate over this regarding proper auto tire pressure when driving in the snow, and I think the consensus has now swung to higher pressure is better in this situation, since the tread tends to cave in at lower pressure.

BTW, great board! /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

AC

 

[DFB]

Re: Decision Made!/tire ballast

AC,

Lower pressures makes sense to me for field work in soft soil. Looking for the largest possible contact patch to spread the load out and increase contact friction especially when using bar type tires. I'm not to familiar with ATV's but don't they run low pressures in their tires too and the tread is lot like turfs. Automotive tire tread patterns are much different than tractors and so is the application. I couldn't say that what applies to one scenario is useful for the other. After the Firestone tire problems they recommended higher pressures in auto type tires for highway use to keep the heat buildup from contact friction down. It certainly is interesting.

DFB