Frivolously productive afternoon

[284 International]

A couple weeks ago, my girlfriend succumbed to my recent spate of tractor activity, and learned to drive some of my equipment. She really enjoyed it, and has been wanting to grow a "BIIIIIIIIG garden." After she looked some, she now has a YM2000 to do her gardening with! It's all hers, and I'm really proud of her. I think it's kind of redundant, given my plethora of tractors at the moment, but I am NOT going to argue!

The tractor was apparently used at a nursery to pull carts between their rows of plants and do general service/grading type work. It was VERY narrow. A quick test with my smallest disk harrow yielded acceptable results, but it felt really unstable for a new, inexperienced operator, particularly without any ROPS. I reversed the rims, and set them out to their widest, which worked much better, but the narrow rice tires combined with the geometry of the disk's 3 point attachment tended to hold the rear end up, and it would easily get stuck, slowly churning holes in the ground, especially when combined with delayed application of the differential lock, and tardy lifting of the implement when the tractor started to slip excessively.

While the correct solution would probably be to replace or revise the attachment points of the disk, and, especially, more thoroughly train the operator, that seemed like a rather boring solution to the problem. I scrounged around a bit, and found some Schedule 80 pipe and 1/4 inch plate. The other addition to this tale is that the girlfriend didn't just get a YM2000. She also ended up with this:


It's a Mitsubishi D1800. (It used to have ag tires on it, but we're getting to that part.) Before all this occurred, I was looking for ag tires or R4 tires for my loader-equipped YM240. I happened to find a set of R4 tires, brand new and never mounted, on Kubota rims with a 6 on 6 inch bolt pattern, which won't match my YM240. They do, however, match this Mitsubishi. I had the tire shop swap the R4s for my turf tires on their respective rims, and mounted them up to each tractor. Now I had a spare set of rice tires that were only a tiny bit shorter than those on the girlfriend's YM2000. (Everybody thoroughly confused yet?)

I cut a set of four round plates from the steel plate, and drilled holes to mount to the Mitsubishi pattern wheels in two, and the Yanmar rims in two. Then I cut the tubing, trued it up, and welded them together to get a pair of these:

Sorry for the crummy picture, all I had until this evening was my cell phone for photographs.

After re-reversing the Yanmar wheels to their narrowest setting, I put the spool over the wheel and tightened it up with some longer bolts. Then, I put the Mitsubishi wheels onto the spool, at their widest setting. After it some grunting and a couple trips to the hardware store for fasteners, it looks something like this:


The overall width is just under 64 inches outside to outside. My YM240 (The same tractor) with factory Yanmar turf rims is just under 60 inches. Yanmar originally made this same sort of thing:

(Robbed from California, who cites the optional equipment portion of the operation manual, here:YM 2220D too narrow)

When it's all said and done, the outer duals sit up from the ground about 3/4 of an inch on pavement, so there is no additional stress on the axle shafts or bearings whatsoever on hard surfaces. In soft terrain, when tire slippage is an issue, the major force they add is forward as tractive effort.

I don't see any major risks to the tractor's longevity or durability, or, especially, safety. In soft ground situations where they only deliver torque, the tractor is operating with no more load than it would in high-traction situations. Even in soft soil, the additional bending moment of the wider wheels must be virtually negligible anyway, and, besides, the tractor was originally engineered to handle dual rear wheels.

This setup will only reduce the force the tractor would see compared to that. Safety wise, the tractor is wider. That makes it less tippy. This setup isn't as stable as it would be if the tires on the outside were in contact with the pavement, but it's not as bad as the wheels at their narrow setting alone.
The failure mode of this apparatus compared to the regular tractor without duals would be to lose the outer wheel(s). The spool is bolted to the hub over the original wheel, so whatever happens, the inner wheel will stay put. Breakage of the inside wheel, or the hub would/will occur, but with no greater likelihood than without the duals, since realistically speaking there is no more force than in the original engineering specification, and, in fact, this design actually would be less than designed for.

Even so, a disclaimer: Please, please, please, nobody look at this project and decide that since some stranger on the internet did this to their tractor it must be a good idea for you to do the same. This has not been engineered beyond literally scratching soapstone onto concrete and mulling in my head. I am a competent weldor, and this will not break my tractor. I have no idea about you, or your abilities or tractor's capabilities. I used what I did because that's what I had. That is not how you should do it. If you need some stranger's advice on how to do something that puts yourself and others in jeopardy, you shouldn't try to do this yourself. If the factory didn't think it's something you should do, you ought not do it.

I'm interested to see how much better it works. I ran out of daylight before testing it out, but I had a really productive and fun afternoon, since I also built a three point adapter for a two point tiller I picked up a few days ago. Here is a shot from the front:

I need to turn out the front wheels to make it look a little more balanced. I still can't decide if it looks cool, or stupid with the duals on. The ultimate test of that will come in the morning, when SHE takes a look at what has happened to her baby.... Is anyone interested in a Mitsubishi D1800 on turf tires? It's a nice driving little tractor.

 

[California]

It looks ... productive. And that's the whole point. Great job! :thumbsup:

I wouldn't turn the front wheels out. As-is, the weight is centered between the bearings on each spindle. Reversing them would double the load on the outside bearing, a recipe for failure. Plus it might dodge toward whatever obstacle one wheel encounters, ripping the wheel out of the driver's hands.

 

[284 International]

California, you're right that reversing the front wheels would increase the load on the bearings. On the only two wheel drive tractor I know anything about the front wheels are deliberately reversible. The front axle itself also adjusts in width, to fit row crop spacing as required. In that instance, the additional load on the bearings is designed for. I have no such knowledge of that being true here, though.

Looking at the tractor, even at night, kind of is making me cringe. It's ugly. There, I said it. Flipping the front wheels to make it look better is lipstick on a pig. They're staying put! It's smarter both ways.

 

[Pete Judd]

I love it, I have thought about doing the same thing for my 186D as my property is hilly, and would like the extra stability. The turf tires and wheels on Hoyes site are out of my budget for quite a while, this might be another way to go for me. Thanks for posting.

 

[normde2001]

I know of guys that would kill for those spacers. Yanmar says DO NOT reverse the front wheels.

 

[winston1]

"FRIVOLOUSLY PRODUCTIVE AFTERNOON" If you did all that in an afternoon it must have been a loooooooooooong day. I'm impressed! First dually Yanmar I have seen.

 

[Gary Sweat]

"FRIVOLOUSLY PRODUCTIVE AFTERNOON" If you did all that in an afternoon it must have been a loooooooooooong day. I'm impressed! First dually Yanmar I have seen.

No kidding, if only I had afternoons that productive:thumbsup:

 

[Craig Clayton]

When we look at models before there was the row crop tricycle front end. It had only the 2 narrow front wheels. I do not know much about them but your concerns of tractor flip over did not appear to be as bad as one would think. ( most farm pictures showed front end over back flips )
The narrowness of your front axle or width as to roll sideways would only come into play when the axle touches the upper stop. The angle of leverage then would determine the stability point. So aslong as the axle does not hit the upper stop your front axle is really on a single point.
Craig Clayton

 

[284 International]

Pete, I think this would be cheaper than buying the conversion kit, but I'm not sure it would work better for what you want the tractor to do. My Ranger buddies say "The mission drives the gear." In other words, duals could work for you, if what you need in absolute terms are width and/or drawbar pull, or some other outcome where the need outweigh the costs. Already, even though it's only 4 inches wider than my YM240, the extra width is noticeable when maneuvering close to obstacles.

I know you use your YM186D for mowing. If your task is hilly terrain to mow that is otherwise open, duals similar to this could work. However, I would really suggest looking into other options. The 186 series doesn't list as an option a dual or extended wheel setup. I've got one, and frankly am surprised you are able to handle 5 foot Brush hog type cutter. If conditions are sub-optimal it's even more so. If you can't safely mow it as-is, I would suggest looking into other options, like goats, a different tractor, or an herbicide. Again, the mission drives the gear.

I built these dual spacers because I already had most of the parts. I'm really glad I didn't spend much on them. If my tractor hadn't been designed for them it wouldn't have happened. A setup for your purposes like mine wouldn't add much stability, because of the dissimilar tire sizes. On a tractor not intended for it, duals WILL increase loads and stresses beyond the designer's intent. Maybe it will hold up. Maybe it won't. See here for a guy who broke his Kubota axle doing this :http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/kubota-owning-operating/99871-am-i-first-brake-bx23.html

That guy ran duals on his tractor, which wasn't intended for it. Obviously, had he been in an otherwise risky situation (like mowing hills) the situation likely would have ended in genuine catastrophe. A tractor-type riding mower has a lower roll center than a utility tractor like ours, and also is more responsive to leaning your body weight. In no way do I condone this sort of thing, but check out this guy: http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/kubota-owning-operating/106829-how-steep-too-steep-2.html

I think that hill is better suited to goats-it would be tough to walk on! However, that guy, with that equipment, on that day, mowed it. It looks dangerous, and is. However, running a set of duals that increases axle loads beyond the designed parameters on hilly terrain is worse. At some point, the excess strain will likely break something, and at an unknowable time. At least this guy side-hilling his Deere riding mower can see and anticipate what and when he is at the highest risk.

I'm not trying to shoot down your plans, but I wouldn't do it. Ever. The tractor isn't meant for it, and the intended purpose is beyond the design limitations of the tractor to boot. Guys who handload their .30/06 ammunition to get 300 magnum performance are bringing a bomb up to their heads. Running dual spacers on unsafe terrain on a tractor not intended for it is worse. At least the gun has design factors to channel gases from a ruptured cartridge. The tractor does not, lacking a ROPS. I know you have posted an article about tractor rollover deaths. All I can say is from what you've described, there's no way I would do this type of thing if I were you. Ever.

I hope you are able to figure something out.

 

[284 International]

Craig: I was unclear, sorry. With the wheels in their original position, this tractor started out something like 43 inches wide. It was narrower than the driver's seat was tall. With the wheels reversed, it was acceptably stable. The duals were more for pulling traction than additional stability. I was thinking about reversing the front wheels for aesthetic reasons, not stability ones. I have since decided that the tractor is really ugly looking, and flipping the front wheels won't fix that. Also, as Norm and California pointed out, this tractor isn't designed to work that way. So I'm not going to do that. Plus, the girlfriend hasn't seen it yet. It may not stay this way for long anyway! :laughing:

Norm and Winston: I started at lunch time, and ended at dusk, when I took the pictures. I cheated a little, by having measured and researched and gotten most of the fasteners ahead of time ( I should have ordered them, and waited a week. Bolts have become EXPENSIVE!). I also had the turf tires ready to swap onto the Mitsubishi. It wasn't too bad, but was pretty busy. The worst part was waiting for the spacers to cool enough to paint, then waiting for the paint to dry. So I filled that time by building the three point adapter for the tiller. Like most things, if you know what you're doing and have a plan it isn't very hard. The second one went a LOT quicker.

 

[capt1989]

Dude, I love the way that looks! That is to cool. Kudos to you! Hope your girlfriend like it too.

Capt.

 

[284 International]

The verdict is in. She said "What did you do to my tractor? It looks like a mutant! Will it keep me from getting stuck? I like that if it does!" :laughing: Sounds like a hung jury. We just had some rain yesterday, so the real test will be how it handles tillage work to plant some potatoes in the next few days.

I'm concerned that it's too wide, and the small disk doesn't cover the tracks. My bigger disk likely is too large for this tractor to pull, though it would cover the tracks. It may work well with my 2 bottom plow. I don't know. The experimentation will begin. I hope it's a useful addition to the machine. It might not be. My brother saw it and said, "Why did you do that? Just use the bigger tractor if you can't pull something. It's pretty awesome though. And ugly." He pretty much echoes my own thoughts.

The Shibaura tiller I converted to three point while waiting for the spacer paint to dry works really well. I'm pleased with that little project.

I will give a review of the tractor's performance when it is fully tested, but for now, to anyone who may consider this, it's a straightforward project and simple to do at home with basic equipment. It comes out really ugly, though, and may impede your ability to use some implements in the way you would prefer.

 

[284 International]

Update on how this monstrosity works: All in all, I'm very pleased with how much better it pulls. The dual tires don't give it fully double the pulling power, but it's significantly improved. I ran my two bottom plow (I think it's a 10 inch, though I've never measured) behind it a little bit today, to try it out, and compared it to some of my other machines.

The pair of rear wheels definitely give the tractor more bite, and better flotation. The width makes driving in the furrow virtually impossible though, and doesn't give a nice looking cut. They allow the tractor to work, though, and keep soil compaction to a minimum, but the smaller outside tires don't do much unless the ground is soft and the tractor is sinking in. That isn't bad, necessarily, but around here the ground gets really hard quickly, so I need some more weight on back to help them engage once things start to dry up. I think I'm going to fill at least the inner tires, and see if that helps any.

The other thing I noticed, and am mulling over on ways to fix, is that the plow's attachment points appear to be ASAE standard, or about 27 1/2 inches apart, center to center. This YM2000's lower links interfere a bit with the tread of the tires when they are spread that wide. What are people using to keep that from happening? I can't, with any reasonable effort, change the mounting width of the plow or some of my other attachments, since they are all one piece.

I tried the plow with the 186D, the duallie YM2000, and my regular gas 284. The 284 pulls it as if it were designed to do row crop work (go figure) and is perfectly matched for this type of duty. I was surprised by the 186D. Once ballasted up, it did much better than I expected, and left pretty, tight furrows. It can't quite pull it through Bermuda grass roots when buried in these (ideal) soil conditions, but I think it will do enviable work once I fill the tires and put a little more weight up front. If it were 2wd it would be worthless. It's significantly slower than the YM2000, and vastly slower than the 284. I really like the maneuverability and narrow size of the 186D, though. I think I can make it work on this toy farm.

The YM2000 pulls it well, but is squirrelly to drive in comparison to the 284, mostly due to the wide rear tires and shorter wheelbase. It interfered too much on the tires to mess with it much. I'm disappointed, and need to figure out how to make the lower links span my implements' attachment pins without rubbing on the tires.

 

[California]

Could you rig up a Quick Hitch to move the implements back farther, and allow them to be a little wider than the tractor's arms? I wonder if that QH could be fitted with inward-pointing pins to mate to the tractor. Is it the arms that hit the tires, or the implements?

You are tightening all the slack out of the sway chains, no?


Or maybe move over the longer (?) arms from the 284 to the Yanmar?


What is the horsepower and weight of the 284? Is it substantially larger than the YM240? I don't NEED a larger tractor but something like that would be fun to play with!

 

[jtokc]

You might want to consider offset lower lift arms like these:

Yanmar Tractor Parts: LOWER LIFT ARM (OFFSET)

They are designed to reach back beyond the tires before angling out to attachment width

 

[284 International]

California, the 284 is a size or two up from the YM2000/240. It's a just a little bigger in overall platform. With the duals on, the two are the same width, but the 284 has probably an extra foot of wheelbase. The unballasted weight is around 2300lbs I think, or about where the YM2000 ends up with filled tires and weights on front. It's about 27 PTO hp as I recall.

Mine is a gas engine, which isn't a big deal by itself, but it doesn't run perfectly, so it doesn't the lugging ability that it should. It needs to be kept revved up more than it should, and it bogs if any sudden load is applied, so it doesn't feel as powerful as it really is. The difference can be seen in comparison pulling the same load. My 284 either goes faster or deeper with any given implement. It's a row-crop tractor, optimized for agricultural use. It drives and tracks very straight, has lots of lifting capacity on the 3 point hitch, and a relatively lightly built front end.

The trouble is with the arms hitting the inside cleats of the tires, not the implements. The arms' angle to reach the mounting points on the implements makes them contact the tires. If the chains are adjusted such that the arms don't touch the tires, the arms won't go wide enough to fit the implements. I think the quick hitch requires the same spacing of the arms, though I've considered mounting a different bracket between the two sides, allowing me to couple the quick hitch to the tractor with the arms set narrower.

The offset lower arms may be the ticket; I'll have to get some dimensions from Hoye, and off my tractor, to check that out. Thanks for the link, 1401downer.

 

[jtokc]

If I remember to do it, I can measure from distance before the angle out when I get home--I have a set. They are 24.5" between centers.

I those are too short, they also have a longer set that are 27.75 between centers.

http://www.hoyetractor.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=LA-2775

 

[California]

I think the quick hitch requires the same spacing of the arms

The QH is intended to mount the tractor arms into its slots. But I was thinking of adding implement pins (and spacers) on the QH, pointed inward.
You would still have 27.5" width facing the implement, but considerably less where the arms meet these new pins.

Something like this but with the pins pointed inward. This measures 1 3/8" from the face of the implement to just past the pin's shoulder.

 

[jtokc]

If I remember to do it, I can measure from distance before the angle out when I get home--I have a set. They are 24.5" between centers.

I those are too short, they also have a longer set that are 27.75 between centers.

I measured (the set with 24.5 centers) and the distance from center to the angle out was 19.5"

 

[284 International]

Terrific, 1401, thank you so much! How much offset is there at the angle? I'll go rig up a piece of wire with those dimensions and see if it will work for me. Thanks again.