You need balast or you will trash your front axle!!!! really?

[s219]

Doesn't the horizontal distance forward of the front axle change as the height increases?

Of course, but that's geometry, not physics. When you derive the physics equations, it comes down only to horizontal distance. Measure it with a ruler wherever the bucket sits.

 

[ovrszd]

Of course, but that's geometry, not physics. When you derive the physics equations, it comes down only to horizontal distance. Measure it with a ruler wherever the bucket sits.

Bear with my ignorance.

Then the physics equation changes as the height increases because the horizontal distance is changed?

If so, then the vertical height does in fact change everything??

 

[CobyRupert]

Bear with my ignorance.

Then the physics equation changes as the height increases because the horizontal distance is changed?

If so, then the vertical height does in fact change everything??

Yes. It also adds lateral leverage if you're not on completely flat ground to tip you over sideways.
Hey, speaking of tipping over sideways have we started arguing about the role of the front axle pivoting yet?!

 

[RaydaKub]

Doesn't the horizontal distance forward of the front axle change as the height increases?

Yes it does, but to calculate the forces and leverage at a given static point, the vertical is not a factor. But how often are we in a static situation?

 

[AxleHub]

Glade, it would seem 2 other numbers effect the weight shift change percentage and efficiency to your calculation:

1. How far forward of the front axle is the load.

2. How high is the load (thus effecting cog)

The reason I presented these two points is the following:

1. Glade uses distance assumptions for distance of weight behind the rear axle. But the efficiency of the calculation also relates to the weight transfer from the front axle it would seem. Front weight close to the front axle would be much more efficient than if its 2 or 3 feet forward of that front axle it would seem. Using only wheelbase assumes the weight is directly over the front axle it would seem instead of leveraged weight.

2. Point two about how high the front weight is located is an issue of two things . . . a change in center of gravity for side to side effect as well as a repositioning of cog front to back. High weight has an impact on the "weight shift" back to the rear because it is closer to weight being directly over the front axle AND high at the same time. We all know high weight makes a tractor less stable and more prone to tip or weight shift either side to side or front to back. That also effects calculations for efficiency of weight transfer it would seem.

Yet Glade hasn't considered either of these points in his calculations. Wheelbase is only part of the formula needed because leverage positioning and gravity's pull (or the "ease to create shift") are involved it would seem.

But lets hear from the physics folks on their viewpoint . . as I contend that geometry and physics are linked or relational when physics is discussed.

 

[ovrszd]

Yes. It also adds lateral leverage if you're not on completely flat ground to tip you over sideways.
Hey, speaking of tipping over sideways have we started arguing about the role of the front axle pivoting yet?!

Well, it appears this thread has the maturity to add the side topic of axle oscillation. Folks tend to have some very strong beliefs about that.

I'll ask the inevitable question to get this started. Is a wide front axle tractor more stable than a narrow (tricycle) front axle tractor? If your answer is yes, please explain why??

 

[ovrszd]

The reason I presented these two points is the following:

1. Glade uses distance assumptions for distance of weight behind the rear axle. But the efficiency of the calculation also relates to the weight transfer from the front axle it would seem. Front weight close to the front axle would be much more efficient than if its 2 or 3 feet forward of that front axle it would seem. Using only wheelbase asdumes the weight is directly over the front axle it would seem instead of leveraged weight.

2. Point two about how higj the front weight is located is an isdue of two things . . . a change in center of gravity for side to side effect as well as a repositioning of cog front to back. High weight has an impact on the "weight shift" back to the rear because it is closer to weight being directly over the front axle AND high at the same time. We all know high wright makes a tractor lessvstable and more prone to tip or weught shift either side to side or front to back. That also effects calculations for efficiency of weight transfer it would seem.

Yet Glade hasn't considered either of these points in his calculations. Wheelbase is only part of the formula needed because leverage positioning and gravity's pull (or the "ease to create shift") are involved it would seem.

But lets hear from the physics folks on their viewpoint . . as I contend that geometry and physics are linked or relational when physics is discussed.

Not to side track your statements here because I want to hear the technical responses. When I've got a heavy load on the FEL and I raise it to a very high level I can feel in the seat of my pants the weight transferring from the front axle to the rear axle.

 

[RaydaKub]

Bear with my ignorance.

Then the physics equation changes as the height increases because the horizontal distance is changed?

If so, then the vertical height does in fact change everything??

Exactly! The calculation is all about weight and leverage, doesn't matter if it is a tractor or seesaw. The fact that the vertical changes the horizontal on your tractor is merely an implementation detail.

 

[jenkinsph]

Yes. It also adds lateral leverage if you're not on completely flat ground to tip you over sideways.
Hey, speaking of tipping over sideways have we started arguing about the role of the front axle pivoting yet?!

Some of these guys are having enough trouble understanding the static loading. Dynamic loads are a whole new ball game.

 

[ovrszd]

Some of these guys are having enough trouble understanding the static loading. Dynamic loads are a whole new ball game.

HEY, I resemble that remark!!!!