What should my rear ballast weigh ?

[deadend]

i would just like to say that i am in the process of building a rear ballast box for my b7510 and have been goiong back and forth about putting ballast in my rear tires . i mainly wanted to say that this thread has taught me alot and given me a better understanding about how it all works. thanks

 

[wvpolekat]

Now i'm wondering how many people actually know or calculate the loads they are lifting/moving with loaders?
On our medium frame new holland for example, is an approximate .6 cubic yard bucket, level full of either soil or gravel has a net load weight of around 1700 lbs, based on a cubic foot average weight of 105 lbs/cubic foot.
This is on a tractor/loader combination weight of just under 6000 lbs, so with this setup it would be pretty hard to lift the rears.

This should be something you could figure out pretty easily with a pressure gauge. It has been discussed before.

Tee the gauge into the lift cylinder circuit with a valve to isolate it. The pressure showing on the gauge should be proportional to the weight being lifted. Little math should be able to give you a table to figure it easily. Should be pretty darn accurate too.

The valve is there to keep you from constantly exposing the gauge to spikes and pressure changes as you operate. The gauge would be used more for spot checks or gee wiz checks on what something weighs.

 

[LD1]

This should be something you could figure out pretty easily with a pressure gauge. It has been discussed before.

Tee the gauge into the lift cylinder circuit with a valve to isolate it. The pressure showing on the gauge should be proportional to the weight being lifted. Little math should be able to give you a table to figure it easily. Should be pretty darn accurate too.

The valve is there to keep you from constantly exposing the gauge to spikes and pressure changes as you operate. The gauge would be used more for spot checks or gee wiz checks on what something weighs.

I have often thought about doing this as well but it would be anything but accurate. It would be a rough approximation at best.

The amount of pressure the load will exert back on the cylinders would directly be related to where it is located in relationship to the pins, and at what height it is lifted to.

500lbs of dirt/gravel in the bucket will give a different reading than say... a chained load off the edge or a hook. And 500lbs lifted at max height is going to give a higher psi reading than 500lbs at ground level as well. Its the whole levers and angles thing.

And regardless of how much is in your bucket, it would still make it hard to guage the weight in the front axle. 500lbs in the bucket with no weight out back vs 500lbs on the back will give two totally different amounts of weight over the front while still reading the same on the guage.

 

[CharlieS]

This should be something you could figure out pretty easily with a pressure gauge. It has been discussed before.

Tee the gauge into the lift cylinder circuit with a valve to isolate it. The pressure showing on the gauge should be proportional to the weight being lifted. Little math should be able to give you a table to figure it easily. Should be pretty darn accurate too.

The valve is there to keep you from constantly exposing the gauge to spikes and pressure changes as you operate. The gauge would be used more for spot checks or gee wiz checks on what something weighs.

On the other hand, if one researches an average material weight they are handling, and does they're homework on the equipment they own, and has a calculator handy, its pretty easy to guesstimate.

 

[wvpolekat]

On the other hand, if one researches an average material weight they are handling, and does they're homework on the equipment they own, and has a calculator handy, its pretty easy to guesstimate.

But, that's nowhere near as cool as a gauge!

 

[beppington]

I 'm pretty much just tryin' to ballast FEL a bit when using for wood hauling, dirt, or road gravel. And I 'd like to stick with and average rate instead of adding or removing weight for a particular job as I 'm gonna use concrete for weight in one of those post cylinder things with a rod through it for lower links.
Stats : Kubota 2320 weight 1477 lbs., FEL with 48 " bucket 562 lbs.
Manual says a max of 660 lbs on lower links.

What do you think would be a weight ? As a side note, I think it will be cheap to do so I might make a few different weights for different jobs.

Why not fill your rear tires with water? Filled to the 75% mark adds over 1,000 lbs to mine.

 

[rjkobbeman]

Why not fill your rear tires with water? Filled to the 75% mark adds over 1,000 lbs to mine.

Believe it or not, some of us do not like the idea of filling our tires with liquid. Me, I like wheel weights and ballast on the 3ph. Ballast boxes are nice and compact.

 

[wvpolekat]

I would be curious why some are opposed to filling tires? I respect that you don't want to do it, just curious about the reasoning.

 

[beppington]

I would be curious why some are opposed to filling tires? I respect that you don't want to do it, just curious about the reasoning.

Same here. Maybe it's to stay lighter when finish mowing your yard?

My Kubota manual has a section on its "Rear Ballast" page called "Liquid ballast in rear tires", which says, "Water and calcium chloride solution provides a safe and economical ballast. Used properly, it will not damage tires, tubes or rims. The addition of calcium chloride is recommended to prevent water from freezing. Use of this method of weighting the wheels has full approval of the tire manufacturer."

 

[rjkobbeman]

I would be curious why some are opposed to filling tires? I respect that you don't want to do it, just curious about the reasoning.

Here are a few:

Possible corrosive issues
Seems more of a hassle to remove if I want to make the tires light again (harder to handle heavy tires if needed)
I can remove wheel weights / ballast if required to make things lighter
Makes fixing flats more work (I work in a highly thorny pasture)
Makes tires "harder" -- less cusioning
Seems like liquid sloshing around could have a negative affect in certain situations -- like transporting a half-full water tank

And last but not least (probably not last... just can't think of any more right now), it just seems like an old-timer solution when no other options existed. Hope nobody takes offense. I'm not saying filled tires doesn't work, I'm just I don't think it is necessary with other options available. Seems very "rigged" to me.

If you think my reasons for not wanting filled tires are silly, that is fine. If you will try to convince me otherwise, save your breath.

I also like the idea of ballast on the 3ph to take some weight off of the front end. We all know filled tires doesn't do that.