I wanted to revisit a topic discussed here last week. Hopefully some of the blood-letting has subsided. I've been following this forum for quite some time now but as a newly registered member, not having posted before, was somewhat taken aback at how outraged some members get when responding to certain "not so apparent" 
hot button personal opinions ... opinions formed from decades of experience. Be that as it may, I offered my apologies after recognizing things had morphed into emotion-dom where no valid points could further be made. Life goes on. Here is the point that I was trying to make. One respondent mentioned traction testing where two identically equipped tractors were pulling identical euipment under identical circumstanses. Paraphrasing, the results of the testing cited were: axle weights are better than no weights and no weights are better than fluid weight. To me, if that test was conducted only as cited, the results are flawed because there is signifigant missing information. Here's why. Consider three identically installed biased tires side by side with the weight configurations as follows: Tire #1, with axle weights, will have the best traction because it will have the largest footprint. Tire #2, bearing no additional weight, will have the second best traction because the tires will have at least some inert flexibility. Tire #3, containing 75% fluid, will have the worst traction because the fluid will counter the tire flex, resulting in the smallest footprint and just adding dead weight. None of this, however, takes into account adjusting the air pressure ... the point I so sorely missed getting accross last week. So let's examine that train of thought for a moment. Tire #1 will have the largest footprint and, therefore, the most traction, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In this case the added axle weight will cause the tire to flex more. Without adding air pressure the tire will be weaker around the rim (less air pressure, enabling possible separation from the bead under load) and sidewall cracking (from too much flex). Tire #2, depending on the load, would suffer increased slippage wear and related higher fuel costs). Tire #3, having the least flex, would therefore have the greatest slippage issues. So, if you go by manufacturers recomendations that I've been advised of through the years, add or reduce air pressure to four bars touching the ground at all times (R1's) with "slight" flexing evident. This automatically puts the fluid filled tires back to a similar footprint as the correctly pressurized axle weighted tires. Walla! Valid testing results can be expected! No signifigant difference should be apparent in the performance of either tractor #1 or tractor #3 EXCEPT some people will still argue that axle weight causes additional differential wear and a higher center of gravity and others will argue that fluid is more problematic if leaking. My opinion is that correctly set up and maintained equipment doesn't give you any more problems than anything else and if it does break down it's usually something you least expect. The above information is offered only as an opinion and no response is necessary.
hot button personal opinions ... opinions formed from decades of experience. Be that as it may, I offered my apologies after recognizing things had morphed into emotion-dom where no valid points could further be made. Life goes on. Here is the point that I was trying to make. One respondent mentioned traction testing where two identically equipped tractors were pulling identical euipment under identical circumstanses. Paraphrasing, the results of the testing cited were: axle weights are better than no weights and no weights are better than fluid weight. To me, if that test was conducted only as cited, the results are flawed because there is signifigant missing information. Here's why. Consider three identically installed biased tires side by side with the weight configurations as follows: Tire #1, with axle weights, will have the best traction because it will have the largest footprint. Tire #2, bearing no additional weight, will have the second best traction because the tires will have at least some inert flexibility. Tire #3, containing 75% fluid, will have the worst traction because the fluid will counter the tire flex, resulting in the smallest footprint and just adding dead weight. None of this, however, takes into account adjusting the air pressure ... the point I so sorely missed getting accross last week. So let's examine that train of thought for a moment. Tire #1 will have the largest footprint and, therefore, the most traction, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In this case the added axle weight will cause the tire to flex more. Without adding air pressure the tire will be weaker around the rim (less air pressure, enabling possible separation from the bead under load) and sidewall cracking (from too much flex). Tire #2, depending on the load, would suffer increased slippage wear and related higher fuel costs). Tire #3, having the least flex, would therefore have the greatest slippage issues. So, if you go by manufacturers recomendations that I've been advised of through the years, add or reduce air pressure to four bars touching the ground at all times (R1's) with "slight" flexing evident. This automatically puts the fluid filled tires back to a similar footprint as the correctly pressurized axle weighted tires. Walla! Valid testing results can be expected! No signifigant difference should be apparent in the performance of either tractor #1 or tractor #3 EXCEPT some people will still argue that axle weight causes additional differential wear and a higher center of gravity and others will argue that fluid is more problematic if leaking. My opinion is that correctly set up and maintained equipment doesn't give you any more problems than anything else and if it does break down it's usually something you least expect. The above information is offered only as an opinion and no response is necessary.
