Tires Fill Tires or Add Weight?

[ctpres]

I use my tractor some on sandy yard and am not real excited about filling tires and leaving tire tracks/ruts. I like idea ofremovable weight on rear. Is there any reason filled tires are better?

 

[art]

The trend on ag tires is for solid weight not filling tires as it's been found that the liquid doesn't allow the tire to flex causing a loss of traction over comparable solid weights. This also causes premature tire wear from slippage.
Some insist on loading the tires for the weight when using their tractors predominitly for loader work. It is far more benificial to add the weight onto the three point so it would use the rear axle as a pivot point to reduce the load on the front axle. This way the steering components as well as the drive will last longer.
It seems that approximately 1/3rd less of cast weights can be used to accomplish the same as the liquid filled tires.

 

[LBrown59]

I use my tractor some on sandy yard and am not real excited about filling tires and leaving tire tracks/ruts. I like idea ofremovable weight on rear. Is there any reason filled tires are better?

I don't want weight I can't easily remove.
Filled tires don't meet that requirement.
== L B ==

 

[Farmwithjunk]

The trend on ag tires is for solid weight not filling tires as it's been found that the liquid doesn't allow the tire to flex causing a loss of traction over comparable solid weights. This also causes premature tire wear from slippage.
Some insist on loading the tires for the weight when using their tractors predominitly for loader work. It is far more benificial to add the weight onto the three point so it would use the rear axle as a pivot point to reduce the load on the front axle. This way the steering components as well as the drive will last longer.
It seems that approximately 1/3rd less of cast weights can be used to accomplish the same as the liquid filled tires.

From all I've read, the tire flex issues with fluid is limited to radial tires. Bias ply tires provide same traction with fluid or cast, when ballasted to an equal given weight. No advantage or disadvantage to either. (Info from Iowa State Univ, Ohio State Univ, Titan Tire, Michelin, and Firestone)

Fluid filled tires offer some increase in stability with a lower center of gravity than equal amount of cast weight.

Why would you think 1/3 less weight (of cast wheel weights) would accomplish same as fluid? Less weight carried on the 3-point hitch would accomplish the same as weight carried on the axle in regards to loader work.

Be it cast or fluid, weight is weight. No matter what form, carried on the axle, cast or fluid would provide the SAME amount of ballast. Cast ballast carried on the hitch would limit use of the hitch for implements.

In the case of larger AG tractors, cast iron wheel weights are generally heavy and awkward for one person to handle. Fluid can be easily pumped in or out of a tire by one person. Smaller tractors with smaller weights, it may well be easier to handle the cast weights.

That's why we have options for ballast. No ONE is ideal for every situation. No one type has a distinct across the board advantage or disadvantage .

All things being equal, I'd just as soon not have to deal with handling ANY type of ballast. I can't say I have a "favorite" one way or the other. My personal recommendation is to go with what works the best in YOUR situation. That's why you'll find fluid in the rear tires on most of my tractors and cast weights on a couple.

 

[lhfarm]

When I purchased my tractor, I specified filled tires. My old tractor had filled ag tires. The salesman, an older gentleman, insisted that I go with wheel weights. He went so far as to give me the weights for what I would have paid for fuild. He believed the long-term problems - mostly rim rot - just weren't worth any advantages filled tires might have. I've not regreted that decision.

Here is a great tip on handling the weights for easy installation or removal TC-40D Adding tractor weights

 

[N80]

I've got filled tires. Main reason, cost. Water and radiator fluid cost almost nothing compared to wheel weights.

If someone were to give me weights, I'd certainly reconsider. But I'd probably use BOTH.

Rim rot is not an issue if you use tubes and/or the right type of fluid.

Ballast on the 3pt is fine but I want that in addition to weight on/in the wheels and I also don't like tying up the 3 pt with ballast or the wrong implement for my needs.

And as mentioned, depending on the size of the tractor, wheel weights can be too much to manage for one person while managing fluid is really quite simple. For my tractor, filling one rear adds 400 pounds to that side. I could not remove or install 400 pounds of wheel weights myself unless they came in 3-4 segments. Even that could be tough.

So in my mind, the primary benefit is cost.

 

[Soundguy]

Tubes and good maintenance practices can help mitigate some of the problems associated with corosive liquid ballasts.

FWJ has it right. what ever works best in your situation is a 'good' choice.

Soundguy

When I purchased my tractor, I specified filled tires. My old tractor had filled ag tires. The salesman, an older gentleman, insisted that I go with wheel weights. He went so far as to give me the weights for what I would have paid for fuild. He believed the long-term problems - mostly rim rot - just weren't worth any advantages filled tires might have. I've not regreted that decision.

Here is a great tip on handling the weights for easy installation or removal TC-40D Adding tractor weights

 

[daTeacha]

I have about 130 lb on each rear wheel of a DX-29. When using the loader, I also have about 900 lb. on the 3 point. The tractor seems to work just fine with implements on the rear with no additional weight on the rear wheels. Sometimes I take the loader off, but not often, so the fronts are often doing a lot of pulling for me.

I do not use filled tires since a lot of my work is in the woods and a puncture would be a lot less fun with the tire filled.

 

[3RRL]

I have both filled tires (all 4) and wheels weights on the rears. Like Soundguy said, farmwithjunk has it right, meaning you will ultimately need to make up your own mind. I just wanted to let you know my experience for your information.

One thing about tire tracks is that you are going to leave them no matter what. I'm not sure how much worse (if at all) the tire tracks would be with filled or weights (or both), if you use the right "footprint" made by your tire. You can achieve this by proper inflation for specific working conditions. It is manageable. Just depends what you want.

Here's what I found. Even with the wheel weights, my 55hp tractor still felt "springy". When I loaded the tires with fluid, there was an immediate feeling of added rigidity and stability. So much in fact that is one of those things you can really feel, an improvement with very noticeable results. The filled tires helped getting the added weight right to the ground rather than being suspended by the axle like wheel weights. It is my personal belief that filled tires differ from wheel weights in that way. That weight is right on the ground. Much of it is below the axle. So the stability increased a lot. I'm not even sure how much of that weight the axle really sees with filled tires? My guess would be not as much as with wheel weights, although like I said, I don't know.

Another thing is traction. It is almost impossible, regardless of what size tractor you have, to get enough traction. I still spin the wheels light years before the tractor engine bogs down. Traction is a key ingredient to getting the most work out of your tractor. I have tubed tires so the rim wear is minimized. I do worry about flats, but I'd rather have years of excellent performance vs years of less than that just because I worry about a flat. I can deal with the flat when (if) it ever happens at all. Added stability and rigidity add up to a safer, more stable condition when working the tractor.

Ballast on the 3pt is different as it is mostly designed to help take weight off the front axle by shifting the load so it is more equally divided between the front an rear axles. such as when doing heavy loader work. Filling the rears or adding weight to them is a little different. That will help in keeping the tractor from tipping over frontwards when picking up a heavy load, but offers very little towards getting the weight off the front axle. That is what rear 3pt ballast does better.
Just my 2 cents...

 

[montanaman]

Why would you think 1/3 less weight (of cast wheel weights) would accomplish same as fluid? Less weight carried on the 3-point hitch would accomplish the same as weight carried on the axle in regards to loader work.

Be it cast or fluid, weight is weight. No matter what form, carried on the axle, cast or fluid would provide the SAME amount of ballast. Cast ballast carried on the hitch would limit use of the hitch for implements.

Because on the three point, the weight is farther back on the tractor and behind the rear axle, the weight provides leverage to in effect lift some weight off of the front axle. If we are talking cast weights on the wheels, then other than additional stability from the lower weight of filled tires, then weight is weight.

If the weight is something that you would ONLY want on while doing loader work, then weight on the three point is hard to beat.

 

[Riddler]

I tend to agree with FWJ. What's "best" can't be decided in the abstract. It sounds like CT wants to add and subtract weight every so often, so ease of doing so appears to be a prime consideration. If it wasn't important to be able to remove weight conveniently once it's added, and CT had tricky slopes to deal with often, he might opt for filled tires over wheel weights in order to achieve additional stablility. CT, by staying focused on YOUR particular needs, you'll likely make the best decision.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

Because on the three point, the weight is farther back on the tractor and behind the rear axle, the weight provides leverage to in effect lift some weight off of the front axle. If we are talking cast weights on the wheels, then other than additional stability from the lower weight of filled tires, then weight is weight.

If the weight is something that you would ONLY want on while doing loader work, then weight on the three point is hard to beat.

You misread my reply. I don't question why weight on the 3-point hitch is "better" than on the axle in regards to ballasting for a loader. I raised the point that it would prohibit use of an implement on the hitch. Go back and re-read my reply with that understood.

I also questioned why cast weight on the axle would be "heavier" than 1/3 MORE weight from fluid in tires.

 

[N80]

I do not use filled tires since a lot of my work is in the woods and a puncture would be a lot less fun with the tire filled.

Why is that? A flat is a flat.

On the 3pt ballast topic, that was my point as well. I do not want to rely on the 3pt as the weight I need for stability when using the loader. My box blade functions very well in this capacity, but what if I want to have a middle buster or two bottom plow on there (very little ballast from those) and still use the loader some? When that occurs I'm glad to have weight in the tires, or on the wheels. And for me it is not unusual to multitask that way so it isn't a trivial issue. I always prefer to have some weight on the 3pt, but when I can't the filled tires are very reassuring.

 

[Z-Michigan]

Why is that? A flat is a flat.

To fix a flat with air in tires, you simply insert a plug, or worst case remove the tire and patch from inside (removing tire may not by DIY depending on tire size and your skills).

With fluid in tires you have to pump out all the remaining fluid, store it or dump it somewhere, dry the flat area, fix the flat, and then re-fill the tire with fluid. More time spent, and most likely requires a professional tire service vs. possibly doing it yourself with just air in tires.

 

[N80]

To fix a flat with air in tires, you simply insert a plug, or worst case remove the tire and patch from inside (removing tire may not by DIY depending on tire size and your skills).

I've removed the fronts from the rim which is pretty much a two man job (might get by with one) and I've removed full size Ag tractor rears from rims and it was a three man job. All of this was with hand tools. So that's a pain no matter how you look at it. The fluid is hardly an issue there. If the fluid is toxic you might have a problem with disposal but only if the tire has to come off the rim. (Moral, skip toxic fluid).

With fluid in tires you have to pump out all the remaining fluid, store it or dump it somewhere, dry the flat area, fix the flat, and then re-fill the tire with fluid. More time spent, and most likely requires a professional tire service vs. possibly doing it yourself with just air in tires.

I can't see that. If the hole is small enough to plug, you can plug it whether its got fluid in it or not. Rotate the hole to the top and plug away. If the hole is too big to plug, fluid disposal will likely not be an issue. Yes, you would have to refill it but I've done it, it is quite simple. Probably not much harder than replacing the wheel weights.

My point is, there might be an extra step or two, its just that that extra step isn't that big a deal. And there are extra steps with wheel weights too. If one of my rears had to go to a professional, the weights would have to come off because the tire/wheel would be too heavy anyway. And if those weights equalled what I get with fluid (400 pounds) its going to be a two man job anyway. There's no free lunch.

I do a lot of work in the woods. I've flattened the fronts a few times (no fluid in them), but never the rears. The point being, ease of flat repair really isn't an issue when deciding on wheel weights vs fluid. If the hole is bad enough it is going to be a huge pain no matter how you slice it.

I still think it all comes down to price and I'll say it again, if I got a free set of wheel weights today, I'd slap 'em right on there and keep the fluid too!

 

[kozak]

I also questioned why cast weight on the axle would be "heavier" than 1/3 MORE weight from fluid in tires.

Farmwithjunk,

I believe Art was referring to "cast weights" on the 3 pt hitch not "cast wheel weights". You will need to go back & read his reply. He of course is correct. The rear axle is the pivot point or fulcrum to any weight on the front end of the tractor. Therefore, the further out you put the same weight behind the pivot point, the more force (or counterweight) you have available to balance the front end. The 3 pt hitch is further back than the axle, therefore you would need less comparable weight for the same downward force as you would need with filled tires.

Vic

 

[N80]

Therefore, the further out you put the same weight behind the pivot point, the more force (or counterweight) you have available to balance the front end.

Vic

That may be true, but there are more reasons to add weight to a tractor than lightening the front end which in many cases is not desirable at all.

 

[wushaw]

I use my tractor some on sandy yard and am not real excited about filling tires and leaving tire tracks/ruts. I like idea ofremovable weight on rear. Is there any reason filled tires are better?

I like filled tires for using a implement like a BB or disk. It is cheaper than wheel weights and I like the idea of most of the weight well below the axle than on the axle.


If you can or want to afford wheel weights to be able to add or remove them as you like then that will probably be your best bet.

I don't have a sandy yard to worry about so I will always have liquid in my tires.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Well, I would like to add my experience to this topic. I have a 7520 Mahindra, it is one of the heavier tractors talked about on this forum. Bare tractor is 7350lbs. Add the loader and it's up around 10,000lbs. I added 4 sets of cast wheel weights to the rear, about 600lbs, I could hardly tell the difference, not that there was not a difference, but definitely not worth the money IMO.
So the next thing was to add fluid. I filled to the top of the rim on the fronts and rears. I'm not 100% sure about the weight that was added with the fluid, but it should be around 2000lbs with all 4 tires filled. My response to the fluid fill, WHY WOULD ANY BODY ADD WEIGHT ANY OTHER WAY? It is literally unbelievable how much better the tractor handles. Way, way more stable, much better traction. The tractor seems to even ride better to me. Other people that have done this have complained about a harsher ride, all I know is that on my tractor it made the ride smoother.

There are many reasons to add weight and just as many not to. If you have circumstances that allow the enhanced performance of a weighted tractor, I suggest that you fluid fill your tires. Price is right, and the added benefit is unbelievable compared to a non weighted machine.

Just my opinion, others may vary.

 

[Soundguy]

Spoken like a guy that's not had to dismount and patch a bunch of wet tractor tires by himself!

( I'm just ribbing you a bit... )

Many people that run wet tires, also run tubes. If you have a flat with a tube.. you have to dismount the tire... that ain't fun. Also.. even on non-tube tires... it's generally harder to fix em if they are wet... Ain't always like a car tire that you can plug sometimes.. better fix is a patch.


Soundguy

Why is that? A flat is a flat.

On the 3pt ballast topic, that was my point as well. I do not want to rely on the 3pt as the weight I need for stability when using the loader. My box blade functions very well in this capacity, but what if I want to have a middle buster or two bottom plow on there (very little ballast from those) and still use the loader some? When that occurs I'm glad to have weight in the tires, or on the wheels. And for me it is not unusual to multitask that way so it isn't a trivial issue. I always prefer to have some weight on the 3pt, but when I can't the filled tires are very reassuring.