Liquid Ballast

[skent]

I am planning on adding liquid ballast to my rears (31 X 15.5 - 15). Was planning on using 'used' antifreeze or else RV antifreeze. Would need around 17 gallons each to get 75% fill. I would like to use beet juice, but have not been able to find it around here.

I had thought it would be wise to install inner tubes prior to loading the tires, in order to save the rims and have a second barrier.

Are there any pro's or con's to this? Should I load them with tubes, or keep them tubeless?


Thanks.


Steve

 

[cedarranch]

I have done it both ways and the only advice I can give is this. Tubes are harder (takes longer and more aggrivating) to fill and harder to remove (empty).

 

[MossRoad]

I have calcuim in my tires and it is hard on the metal parts. That's the way it came when I bought it. If I had my choice, I'd tube the tires and run windshield washer fluid or the beet juice.

<font color=green> MossRoad </font color=green>

 

[pcmem]

Steve,

I've got washer fluid, no tubes. Thought about RV antifreeze but washer fluid was cheaper. Used antifreeze should work great if the price is right (free).

Good luck,
Michael

 

[Youare]

When I purchased my new Kubota the dealer told me whenever they sell a tractor with a FEL they always tube and fill the rear tires with calcium. I suggested antifreeze but they said it didn't have the same weight as calcium. I have a 1952 Ford 8N with loaded read tires, about 14 years ago I replaced the rear tires had new tubes installed and filled with calcium. The rims are over 20 years old and still holding air/liquid.

Unless you have the equipment you will have to have the work performed by some one who does, the extra work installing tubes is only a little more labor charge and the price of the tube. If it were me I would have tubes installed.

Randy

 

[skent]

The reason I'm asking is the place where I'm going to get the tubes said its better for the rims if they are in full contact with the solution (filled to cover the top of the rim) with no tube. In this fashion, the metal rims never see air and therefore never rust (?). He recommends Magnisum Chloride as it is less corrosive than Calicum (? again) or RV antifreeze. He never heard of rim guard.

I'm not sure if I believe that or not.

He continued to say if you have the calicum (or other liquid) in tubes, the small nooks and crevices between the filled tube and rim will have air gaps and will lead to condensation, and trapped water between the tube and rim and the fact that its not submerged ALL THE TIME will lead to rust.

I have the equipment for filling and draining tires. (picked it up cheap at an auction)

I have two Case (195X) ag tractors, both with calicum filled rears with tubes. One problem I had was many years ago the SC's left tube had a VERY TINY pinhole leak that was so small it went un-noticed for years eventually rusted out the rim. Quite a job finging a 38" rim for a 50 year old tractor. The other problem is the valve cores only last 2 or 3 years using calicum. I now replace the valve core's on those every year.



I don't want that happening to my Kubota.

Thanks for all the replies.


Steve

 

[MossRoad]

I think the weight difference will be minimal between calcium and windshield washer solution. If you have any doubts, weigh a gallon of each.

<font color=green> MossRoad </font color=green>

 

[fishman]

Skent,

If I were loading my rear tires with used antifreeze, I wouldn't worry about putting tubes in the tires. It's my understanding that antifreeze contains additives that prevent corrosion because it is in contact with metal all the time. The added aggravation of tubes would not be warranted, in my opinion.

That said, it is just my opinion. I'm likely going to load my rear tires with washer fluid or non-toxic antifreeze. If anyone knows of a rim failure due to use of washer fluid or antifreeze and no tube, please speak up!

 

[glennmac]

I have calcium chloride in tubes and would do the same again if I were to do it over. Unlike others, I dont worry about possible corrosion.

However, filling tires is an area where I have changed my mind. I wouldnt do it over again, and am thinking of draining next spring. In my particular soil situation and for my non-agricultural, non-contractor uses, the enhanced traction and stability provided by tire ballast are unnecessary. I would rather have lighter weight for my grass and soft soil areas. The only place I think the tire ballast may have improved things is traction in snow--but I cant really be sure of that because I havent been in snow without filled tires.

I think I have entered a new, down-with-big-heavy-honker-equipment stage of my evolving and ever-erroneous tractor philosophy. Seven mud burials can do that to a man.

 

[beenthere]

I thought there was a difference of around 3 pounds per gallon - between calcium chloride sol. and windshield washer fluid. 11+ pounds vs. 8 pounds. Anyone have those figures?