You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Weight distribution
- Thread starter JCA
- Start date
- Views: 11580
F_22
Bronze Member
Seems like a reasonable question to me, and I'm an engineer (formerly automotive, now aerospace). Note that he said "typical". He's not looking for exact weights to the pound, just a rough percentage front/rear. I have read that a bare compact tractor is typically 33% front / 67% rear.
After having my tractor for 6 months and reading these forums for about a year now I've concluded that these tractors are not well designed for the uses that they're put to.
With very heavy duty rear axles and tires, and relatively light front axles and tires, they're obviously designed for 3-point draft applications with ground engaging implements. But my impression is that most are purchased with a FEL and that is the most commonly employed implement. Even if the FEL isn't used most often, it is usually left attached. In my case (NH TC33D with 7308 FEL) the FEL adds 800 Lb to the front end of a 2500 Lb tractor, and I'm sure it biases the weight distribution significantly forward. BTW, I have 600 Lb liquid ballast in the rears but it still isn't enough to keep the back end down without carrying the rotary cutter, which severely limits maneuverability in all my trees.
After having my tractor for 6 months and reading these forums for about a year now I've concluded that these tractors are not well designed for the uses that they're put to.
With very heavy duty rear axles and tires, and relatively light front axles and tires, they're obviously designed for 3-point draft applications with ground engaging implements. But my impression is that most are purchased with a FEL and that is the most commonly employed implement. Even if the FEL isn't used most often, it is usually left attached. In my case (NH TC33D with 7308 FEL) the FEL adds 800 Lb to the front end of a 2500 Lb tractor, and I'm sure it biases the weight distribution significantly forward. BTW, I have 600 Lb liquid ballast in the rears but it still isn't enough to keep the back end down without carrying the rotary cutter, which severely limits maneuverability in all my trees.
Even though your an enginier, and gess who diesingns these things, i'll agree these tractors aren't designed for what we do to them. I have seen broken front axeles and i have said in the past to keep front wheels turned in there are guys that will say turn them out but i don't think they realize the stress the front end will take expecally if the axle hits the stops on one front wheel. Yet we all want more lift on loader, well mine lifts enough i don't want more and mine will last! but back to the weight the loader just blew the bias out the window as did loaded tires the wheights you put are recomended not an auctal. i'll bet the tractor stock is probly off the mark. close maybe! Cat enginers suck they down size parts and when they break there is always an update kit to fix it,at first its the operator then after a couple times the update kit, then they still don't admit it was a problem! I'm not picking on you just stating enginers mak mistakes even in the const. field i see scewd up plans every day,water will run up hill acording to the plan.
F_22
Bronze Member
Dang! I couldn't have said it better. Literally.
theonlybull
Gold Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2003
- Messages
- 310
I have read that a bare compact tractor is typically 33% front / 67% rear.
being an engineer, you should stand back and look at a bare tractor. i belive you have your %'s reversed, there is alot mor weight on the front axle, then the rear. this is from the age old design of rear mounted accessories..
being an engineer, you should stand back and look at a bare tractor. i belive you have your %'s reversed, there is alot mor weight on the front axle, then the rear. this is from the age old design of rear mounted accessories..
Poppa
Gold Member
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( there is alot mor weight on the front axle, then the rear. this is from the age old design of rear mounted accessories.. )</font>
Kind of wondered about the aformentioned weight distribution myself. Figured there must be a reason why the big old engine sits on the small front wheels and the big wheels just hold the Farmer /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif.
Mike
Kind of wondered about the aformentioned weight distribution myself. Figured there must be a reason why the big old engine sits on the small front wheels and the big wheels just hold the Farmer /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif.
Mike
AndyMA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2000
- Messages
- 3,713
- Location
- Windham County, Conn
- Tractor
- Ford 2120 , Kubota MX5200 , Deere X748SE. 1956 Economy Tractor
I've been following this discussion and I think it's going in the wrong direction /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif Acording to everything I've read, static weight distribution should be set as close to 60% rear 40 % front as possible when equiped as going to be operated. Many of the posts I read on this board just don't run enough rear ballast to use their loaders at full capacity. As I've said before, the specs on my Ford 2120 require filled tires AND metal wheel weights AND a rear implement to use loader at rated capacity. Most of the smaller New Hollands require both filled tires and either metal weight or an implement to use the loader at rated capacity. No compact tractor should be set up with more weight on the front axle than the rear. The front tires don't have the load handling capacity of the rears, and neither does the axle. Stability will be an issue. Also when you look at a tractor, the rear definately weighs more. The larger rear tires, trans,and rear axle/ differential definately out weigh the engine. lighter front axle and other misc parts. Also the rear carries all the heavy 3pt, towing hardware and in most cases the fuel tank.
Just the thoughts of another engineer.
Andy
Just the thoughts of another engineer.
Andy
Poppa
Gold Member
Well, let me qualify this by stating that I am not an engineer. Nor an expert. nor even qualified to comment on this but hey what the heck.
Seems to me that Andy's post goes a long way towards asking a question I have seen in older threads. Are these tractors really designed to use a FEL to it's capacity?
When I think about the older tractors I think about a great big lever. As much weight as possible was placed forward of the rear wheels to off set the weight and drag of any implement placed on the back of the tractor. If I am wrong then I apologize and ask for enlightenment.
So, as I read Andy's Post it appears to me that to use a FEL we have to readjust that weight distribution through ballast, and implements. to offset the added front weight of the loader itself. Giving us the 60% rear, 40% front set up. THEN, the added load in or on the FEL cannot exceed the difference of the two.
Am I in Left field? /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
Are we (well not me yet /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif) overloading these CUTs
Mike
Seems to me that Andy's post goes a long way towards asking a question I have seen in older threads. Are these tractors really designed to use a FEL to it's capacity?
When I think about the older tractors I think about a great big lever. As much weight as possible was placed forward of the rear wheels to off set the weight and drag of any implement placed on the back of the tractor. If I am wrong then I apologize and ask for enlightenment.
So, as I read Andy's Post it appears to me that to use a FEL we have to readjust that weight distribution through ballast, and implements. to offset the added front weight of the loader itself. Giving us the 60% rear, 40% front set up. THEN, the added load in or on the FEL cannot exceed the difference of the two.
Am I in Left field? /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
Are we (well not me yet /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif) overloading these CUTs
Mike
I myself am noy going to worry about the weight dis. if i can move it without lifting a tire i'm going with it. you'd spend more time adding and loosing wheight than it would take to do the job. My bias is set to 4 wheels on the ground,no matter front or back. It's worked for 40 yrs. why change cause an enginer said thats the way it has to be, i think they should build them like they used to in stead of thiner and lighter,and if it brakes well make it heavyer atitude. the old designers made them to last and hold up, period.
