Wheel VS Frame weighs...what's up?

Bob_Skurka · Feb 14, 2004

Re: Wheel VS Frame weighs...what\'s up?

zuiko . . . you are absolutley correct about the placement of the weight being farther out to counteract weight of an implement.

In my case I chose EZ Weights for 2 reasons. #1, I wanted weight low because I wanted to lower my COG. #2, I keep 2 tractors and all my implements in my garage and space is limited so I did not want to add length to the front of the tractor.

But moving the weight forward would be more effective in countering the weight of a heavy implement on the rear. It just did not meet my 2 objectives. And all things are pretty much a compramise, so I put weights in the front wheels of my NH because it did what I needed done.

JerryG · Feb 14, 2004

Re: Wheel VS Frame weighs...what\'s up?

Bill,
Wheel weights are smaller in diameter and cause less rotational force. They are also centered out farther from the center line of the tractor, which promotes more stability than liquid fill. Wheel weights allow the tire patch to be fully utilized, where as fluid fill reforms the patch to the expansion of the fill in the rubber which reduces traction. Wheel weights are also easily removed if designed properly, fluid fill is not. I didn't save the page, but somewhere on the Firestone site, they state that you can use half the weight if you use wheel weights vs fluid. I think that is the right ratio. Old age thing. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
This didn't answer your question about wheel vs frame, sorry. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Could you guess that I like wheel weights and don't like fluid fill. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

art · Feb 14, 2004

Re: Wheel VS Frame weighs...what\'s up?

To add water or any type of fill to a tire makes them to stiff to respond to the irregularities of the contours of the ground more then likely hindering the traction. Wheel weights or three point hitch attachments are the best.

Henro · Feb 14, 2004

Re: Wheel VS Frame weighs...what\'s up?

JerryG,

I had not thought about the fact that wheel weights would probably be a bit further out than the center of the wheel. That looks at first like it would be an advantage as far as side slopes go...but now that I think about it, there may not be any other advantage, since they are on both sides and do not increase the width of the point at which the tractor contacts the ground.

Wheel weights will lower the center of gravity, but seem not to add anything else to stability. What I am trying to say is that while wider track has an effect on side slope stability, I doubt that the wheel weights do...since the tipping points of concern are the tire contact point and the elevation of the center of gravity.

I guess I am hijacking my own thread here! /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif Conslusion to this point is that weight added to the wheels should cause no more wear and tear on the tractor than weight in a weight box or suitcase weights on the front.

I can see what you are saying with respect to deformation of the tire at the bottom and how the flattening of the tire would increase traction. It also make sense that a tire with 100% air in it would deform more than one with 75% liquid and 25% air, or worse, one with 100% foam fill...

Art,

Your are probably right in the absolute sense if traction is the main goal. I must say though, that my experience is that a foam filled tire gives a lot more traction than a flat air filled one... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif Experience speaking here...darn those people that dumped all that broken glass down back... /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

I guess the issue is settled in my mind. I am not going to worry about my B2910 having foam-filled tires on the front and liquid filled on the rear...and if I do get a set of bar tires for the BX2200, I am going to get them foam filled and not feel guilty about it.

Watch out, Junkman! Then we'll see who's King of the BX mountain! /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Soundguy · Feb 15, 2004

Re: Wheel VS Frame weighs...what\'s up?

( Now my first though on this question, is that assuming a wheel weight is "balanced" on the wheel that would not lower the CG as much as a frame weight, since half of the wheel weight would be above the axle at all times.
)

You are assuming that the tractor axle IS the center of gravity.. when it is probably well below the center of gravity on new compacts. So adding a wheel weight would lower ceenter of gravity.. whereas a frame weight may actually raise it.. depending on where it is hung.

Speaking of location.. where a weight is mounted is important too... for instance.. front ballast is used to offset rear weight... and rear ballast is used to offset front weight.

A wheel weight will add to the stresses on the axle, as it is having to overcome the extra inertia of the weight.. etc.

Soundguy

JerryG · Feb 15, 2004

Re: Wheel VS Frame weighs...what\'s up?

Bill,
You would have to have wheel weights to see how they change the stability of a tractor. It is amazing how much more stable a tractor is on a side hill situation with them. I only have 200 lbs per side and I would venture to say that they gave me at least 5 degrees more side slope capability.

narcnh · Feb 16, 2004

Re: Wheel VS Frame weighs...what\'s up?

I can't add anything to the physics side of this thread, but can tell you that my first tractor, a used Kubota B1750, and my new tractor, a B7800, both came with liquid filled tires. The dealer told me I would need the extra weight for snowplowing and that filled was they way to go. More of an order than a recommendation. They didn't even list it separately on the invoice. Now, maybe I know why. These guys provide A1 customer service, so in the unlikely even that something goes wrong as a result of the filled tires I'm not worried.

narcnh (who spilled coffee in his lap after spinning his cup with a crumb in it /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif)

Bob_Skurka · Feb 16, 2004

Re: Wheel VS Frame weighs...what\'s up?

From what I've read on this board, a lot of dealers who sell tractors with FELs will fill the rears automatically. I think Henro started this thread simply becuase Kubota recommends against wheel weights or filled tires.

Some of the other brands recommend filling tires or using wheel weights.

I know I feel more stable with wheel weights on the front of my NH.

PineRidge · Feb 16, 2004

Re: Wheel VS Frame weighs...what\'s up?

 Bill,
You would have to have wheel weights to see how they change the stability of a tractor. It is amazing how much more stable a tractor is on a side hill situation with them. I only have 200 lbs per side and I would venture to say that they gave me at least 5 degrees more side slope capability.


Jerry I am also an advocate of wheel weights. I have but 150 pounds on each side and it really increases my stability on the hills.

Junkman · Feb 17, 2004

Re: Wheel VS Frame weighs...what\'s up?

( ...................
Watch out, Junkman! Then we'll see who's King of the BX mountain! /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif )

My rear tires are filled with beet juice and the Kubota weight box has 600 pounds of lead in it. I have already stood my tractor on its ars to the point where the weight box kept it from going over backward. I wasn't trying to do this, but it did happen and you have seen the picture to know. If you want to challenge that record, be my guest. I like living and would like to have about 40 more years, so I an not going to try to defend the record. If you break it, good luck to you. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
I posted this same question a few months back and no one was able to come up with a better answer than those posted here. I have toyed with the idea of adding rear wheel weights to the filled tires, but decided that it isn't necessary.
The BX22 manual on page 42 suggest using 75% liquid fill to the rear tires. The backhoe manual on page 8 says "Do not add liquid ballast or any other weights to the front tires." "While BT600 backhoe is installed on the tractor, liquid ballast in the rear tires should be removed." This makes absolutely no sense to me. Does this mean that you should have multiple sets of tires? /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif On page 42 is says "To avoid damage to the transmission, do not use rear wheel weights and liquid ballast at the same time." This would imply that rear wheel weights are acceptable, but no where else in the manual does it say so. The rear wheels are stamped for the square head carriage bolts that are used with rear wheel weights. Why would they make this provision if you were not supposed to use it?? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
I personally believe that the different engineering groups have their own agenda and are in contradiction with each other just to play with our heads. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif