Mid-Mount Weight Box

[Mechanos]

Playing around with idea of building a mid-mount weight box for my 955. Do you think there would be any real benefits? or am I wasting my brain power?

 

[Runner]

I think it is a GREAT idea. Since I have a rear finish mower, I can't hang weight on the back, so I've been thinking about the same thing.

My idea is to get 2 or 3 pieces of 1 inch thick steel plate, maybe 18 inches by 24 inches or so, and make some brackets that would hang them directly under the machine. Maybe use the MMM bracket mounting points.

This would put the weight down low and right in the middle where it needs to be and out of the way.

Good luck and post pictures if you decide to do it.

 

[smalltown]

I am always surprised by the enginuity and resoursefulness of the posters on here :thumbsup:

Would you be calling it a "pot belly weight" ?

 

[Mechanos]

...This would put the weight down low and right in the middle where it needs to be and out of the way...

Whether or not it the weight is "right where it needs to be" depends on what the weight is intended for. For example.... weight in the middle does nothing for counter-balance with using a FEL. It also adds weight to front axle instead of taking weight off the front axle. For FEL work, a rear counter balance is still needed.

My intention for the middle weight was purely for traction. It would add weight to both the front and rear axles (how much per axle depends on the front to back bias of the weight).

 

[rabidracin]

IMO loading tires is best way to add ballast. You won't loose any ground clearance by mounting in the middle and still have use of 3pt hitch arms by not having any ballast box on the rear.

 

[Mechanos]

IMO loading tires is best way to add ballast. You won't loose any ground clearance by mounting in the middle and still have use of 3pt hitch arms by not having any ballast box on the rear.

I already have loaded tires.

 

[RoyJackson]

A midmount weight box would add to the tractor's stability on slopes and provide protection for the underside on the machine (like a skid plate, especially if you extend it forward).
It'll help with traction (for all four wheels) if you plow snow.

But as you wrote...not much help in loader operations.

 

[Mechanos]

A midmount weight box would add to the tractor's stability on slopes and provide protection for the underside on the machine (like a skid plate, especially if you extend it forward).
It'll help with traction (for all four wheels) if you plow snow.

But as you wrote...not much help in loader operations.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Additional traction to all four wheels for box blading, etc. and increased stability on slopes. I already have loaded tires and was looking for more. I have several horsepower more than a "stock" 955 and am looking to deliver more of it to the ground before breaking traction. There is a trade off, though.... with more traction there is increased risk of something else besides traction breaking.

 

[HunterWare]

My only concern would be the shock loading of the MMM supports. Having heavy weights that are free to move up and then slam back down seems like it could cause problems unless one keeps things slow and smooth. I know that I certainly wince every time I hit a bump with my 62C and hear it pop up and then get caught by the lift arms... Shock loading systems just never seems to work out well.

 

[RoyJackson]

My only concern would be the shock loading of the MMM supports. Having heavy weights that are free to move up and then slam back down seems like it could cause problems unless one keeps things slow and smooth. I know that I certainly wince every time I hit a bump with my 62C and hear it pop up and then get caught by the lift arms... Shock loading systems just never seems to work out well.

Good point...although Mechanos hasn't specified, I'd assumed the weight box would be bolted to the tractor's frame.

 

[The Haymaker]

My only concern would be the shock loading of the MMM supports. Having heavy weights that are free to move up and then slam back down seems like it could cause problems unless one keeps things slow and smooth. I know that I certainly wince every time I hit a bump with my 62C and hear it pop up and then get caught by the lift arms... Shock loading systems just never seems to work out well.

Just build some "hooks" from the tractor chassis. Lift up the weights then pin them in place.

I still can't figure out why some feel a weight box takes weight away from the front axle. If you have nothing on the front, yes, it would, but if using the weight box as counterbalance for a heavy load, it would be adding weight to the front. A counterbalance in no way shifts a heavy load rearward.

 

[RoyJackson]

I still can't figure out why some feel a weight box takes weight away from the front axle. If you have nothing on the front, yes, it would, but if using the weight box as counterbalance for a heavy load, it would be adding weight to the front. A counterbalance in no way shifts a heavy load rearward.

Visualize the rear axle being a fulcrum or pivot point. Adding rear ballast does reduce the load on the front axle by putting more weight aft of the fulcrum.
As a practical exercise, put a heavy implement on the 3PH with no loader or other front weight, then raise the 3PH. You'll feel the front end rising (even if the front wheels don't actually raise off the ground). If you drive the tractor, you'll feel very light steering.

 

[The Haymaker]

Visualize the rear axle being a fulcrum or pivot point. Adding rear ballast does reduce the load on the front axle by putting more weight aft of the fulcrum.
As a practical exercise, put a heavy implement on the 3PH with no loader or other front weight, then raise the 3PH. You'll feel the front end rising (even if the front wheels don't actually raise off the ground). If you drive the tractor, you'll feel very light steering.

If truly used to counterbalance the FEL, I have to disagree. Put a 400lb package on both ends of a teeter-totter. What would the total weight be on the fulcrum?

Put 400lbs on one end, it obviously tips to that end. Put 400 on the other to counterbalance, and I assure you it will not put less weight on the fulcrum.

 

[RoyJackson]

If truly used to counterbalance the FEL, I have to disagree. Put a 400lb package on both ends of a teeter-totter. What would the total weight be on the fulcrum?

Put 400lbs on one end, it obviously tips to that end. Put 400 on the other to counterbalance, and I assure you it will not put less weight on the fulcrum.

The fulcrum is the rear axle...the intent is to lessen the load on the front axle (one end of the teeter-totter, to use your example).

 

[The Haymaker]

The fulcrum is the rear axle...the intent is to lessen the load on the front axle (one end of the teeter-totter, to use your example).

Again, if counterbalancing an FEL, the FRONT axle is the fulcrum, the tractor does not tip on its rear. If using the FEL without "enough" counterbalance, when you tip forward the maximum load on the front axle would be whatever weight is rearward of the front x.

Add counterweight, and you are now loading the original weight, plus the counterweight, which is increased even higher because of leverage created by the added weight being 10' or so behind the fulcrum. This last note being the reason a midmounted cw is not practical. You have the weight, but not the leverage.

Yes, the secondary fulcrum created by the rear axle in this case does complicate things.

 

[RoyJackson]

Again, if counterbalancing an FEL, the FRONT axle is the fulcrum, the tractor does not tip on its rear. If using the FEL without "enough" counterbalance, when you tip forward the maximum load on the front axle would be whatever weight is rearward of the front x.

Add counterweight, and you are now loading the original weight, plus the counterweight, which is increased even higher because of leverage created by the added weight being 10' or so behind the fulcrum. This last note being the reason a midmounted cw is not practical. You have the weight, but not the leverage.

Yes, the secondary fulcrum created by the rear axle in this case does complicate things.

I think you've got it all wrong, bro... That rear axle IS the fulcrum...not a secondary anything. The front axle is not a fulcrum.

Suggest you do a bit of research on TBN and the web on ballasting a tractor. There have been numerous threads (on TBN) concerning this and I'm not going to rehash them here.
I'm pretty sure a bit of research will clarify things for you...

As far as the weight Mechanos is adding...it's not to counterbalance anything. It's to increase stability and traction.

 

[Runner]

Mechanos,

This is probably a dumb question, but have you thought about wheel weights?

They're kind of expensive, but you can get an extra 350 lbs or so out of them.


"My only concern would be the shock loading of the MMM supports. Having heavy weights that are free to move up and then slam back down seems like it could cause problems unless one keeps things slow and smooth. I know that I certainly wince every time I hit a bump with my 62C and hear it pop up and then get caught by the lift arms... Shock loading systems just never seems to work out well."

I was thinking of some kind of rigid attachment, pinned to the MMM mounting points and/or frame. I feel your pain about having the MMM bouncing around. I have rough property and my MMM bounces too... don't like it...

 

[The Haymaker]

I think you've got it all wrong, bro... That rear axle IS the fulcrum...not a secondary anything. The front axle is not a fulcrum.

Suggest you do a bit of research on TBN and the web on ballasting a tractor. There have been numerous threads (on TBN) concerning this and I'm not going to rehash them here.
I'm pretty sure a bit of research will clarify things for you...

Who's got a set of truck scales?

 

[Marveltone]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the fulcrum is dynamic... That is to say, it shifts between the front and rear axles, depending on the amount of weight on either end. Enough weight will effectively change your fulcrum.
Think about it: If you have enough weight in the FEL bucket to tip the tractor on the nose, the fulcrum is the front axle. If you put enough weight on the 3pt to do a wheelie, you've moved the fulcrum to the rear axle. I doesn't matter if there's anything in the bucket or not. The fulcrum has changed. Loads are dynamic, not static. Things change with every wheel rotation. On a hill, your fulcrum could very well change to a pair of side wheels!
...but then, I digress.

To the OP: Mid-mounted weight box is an intriguing idea! I'll definitely want to keep up on this project!

Joe

 

[Mechanos]

You don't need a set of truck scales unless you just must see it with your own eyes. A simple free-body diagram and simple static force analysis will easily show that any weight hung off the tractor rearward of the rear axle with increase the weight on the rear axle and decrease the weight on the front axle. Any weight hung off the front of the tractor forward of the front axle will increase the weight on the front axle and decrease the weight on the rear axle. Any weight hung off the tractor between the two axles will increase the weight on both axles.... the amount per axle depends on the bias of the weight in relation to the axles.

The purpose of this mid mount weight box would be to increase the load on both axles for increased traction. The added benefit, as Roy pointed out, would be increased stability.

What I had invisioned was a weight box that I could drive over or straddle. Use the MMM lift arms to hoist it in place where it would then be pinned or bolted or otherwise firmly secured to the tractor's frame. Another thought was to use the 955's mower height adjuster to lock the weight box in the fully raised position, but I'm not sold on this idea.

Yes, I have considered wheel weights and would love to have them. They are unfortunately stupid expensive. JD wants $130/each. So for 6 of them with tax it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $840. I've seen them a couple of times listed on ebay for very close to what new would cost from JD. Then add on shipping and used ones are more expensive than new. That kind of money for a hunk of cast iron is absolutely rediculous.