Tire Ballast safety issue?

[patrickg]

I'm assuming that not following instructions in the tractors owner's manual (in the case described below) would be a safety violation, I just don't know why in this instance.

The manual for the Kubota L4610HSTC is a shared manual that covers multiple models and variations within models. A full and complete discussion with instructions and proper safety caveats is given for adding calcium chloride for liquid ballast in the rear tires. The manual then goes on to say that if you have the model with cab not to do it. I asked multiple people at two different Kubota dealerships WHY that is and prior to my question all were blissfully ignorant of the prohibition.

I reasoned that if it was because the cab version weighs more then they would have placed a restriction on how much to fill the tires rather than not allowing ANY fill. Surely the cab doesn't weigh more that ballast in the tires. No clue is given in the manual.

Anybody out there know what the deal is?

Patrick

 

[EdKing]

It seems to me that you would want to load the tires in a model with a cab more so than one without, as the weight of the cab would surely raise the center of gravity on the tractor. Doesn't make sense to me. You got me wondering now to.

 

[spencer200]

My guess would be that the rear axles are rated for a certain amount of weight, and the cab is pushing this weight limit.

 

[skent]

But filling the tires does not put load on axles ?!?

 

[centex]

I would bet that filling the tires on the cab model would exceed the ROPS certified weight limit.

 

[RoyJackson]

The manual then goes on to say that if you have the model with cab not to do it.

I think I'd contact Kubota through their website on this one.

I understand the dealers not knowing the answer (off the top of their heads), but I think they'd be curious too.
That prohibition doesn't make a lick of sense to me...

 

[EdKing]

<font color=blue>I would bet that filling the tires on the cab model would exceed the ROPS certified weight limit.</font color=blue>

Thats about the only reason that would make any sense.

 

[patrickg]

Spencer200, I dunno, but a couple things spring to mind. 1. The weight of the liquid tire ballast does not add to the weight carried by the axle, and 2. If indeed the cab were that heavy as to approach the limit of the axle carrying capacity then the 3PH would be a useless ornament best removed to avoid its use and further overstressing of the axle.

Patrick

 

[patrickg]

Centex...... ALLLLLLLLLLLLRightyThen, give than man a cigar. That is the first suggestion that sounds plausible. You'd think they could have just said so. Maybe they don't want to admit how marginally the roll over protection passes the standard. Both dealers at least pretended to be interested. One was GOING TO FIND OUT, Two months later and they didn't find out.

Patrick

 

[ByuBill]

All of this has gotten my curiosity up. /w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif Doesn't make much sense to me why you shouldn't fill your tires because you have a cab on your tractor.
Therefore I just e-mailed Kubota Tractor Corporation and ask about this. Maybe we will get an answer, and maybe not. We'll see.......