Kubota L40/L60 Front "clown" tires -- why?

[Rustyiron]

T-Rex is a good one, I pictured it right away. Sometimes for the 12's they go with a 9.75" rim. I am not sure what Kubota used on the MX.

Or there is the "alligator arms"

I agree on the improper "proportional" look of the clown tires on some tractors.

 

[FatTire]

On the other hand Rustyiron, nothing weird looking about your 9540. That's what "capable" looks like.

 

[Rustyiron]

Now that you mention it.....
I was looking at the smaller M7040 (back at shopping time), it really would have done the job HP & size wise, but I didn't like the "knife" (narrow & tall) proportions of the only Ag front tires available for the M7040. IIRC they were something like 9.5X24. Proportions matter:thumbsup:

 

[dieselcrawler]

Being well aware of the front to rear diameter ratio, I would prefer a wider tire on my JD 3005, if I could get it the same hight. With just shy of 300 hours on them, my fronts are showing signs of wear... I expect to replace them in the area of 600 hours, and even if I have to build a custom wheel to do so, I'll explore wider when the time comes. For loader work, the extra floatation/footprint would be welcomed.

 

[FatTire]

I think a lot of people choose to run R4's because they're doing loader work, so yes, a little more width is desirable in many cases. So far nobody seems to know why Kubota thinks the premium tractor model should be marketed with a smaller front tire.
Diesel crawler, what's up with your '99 F250? Not too often you see comments about a 7.3L being out of service.

 

[Oldoak]

I don't see all the fuss over the size of the front tires. The Kubota tractors, like all other manufacturers I'm sure, are designed and built to handle the capacity of the FELs fitted for each series tractor. Maneuverability and clearance are also factors which enter into the engineering and design of the tractors, along with load capacity in determining the size of the tires. Want bigger tires than what the manufacturer recommends/provides, buy a bigger tractor. Sometimes people are asking too much of their compact and sub-compact tractors.

By-the-way, I seriously doubt anyone here use tractors with FELs more than commercial farmers (people who farm for a living) and they all have tractors with R1 Ag tires and tractors sized right to do the expected jobs at hand.

 

[mike69440]

Yes I understand that the 10's are the specified size for the L40, but why? Kubota designed it -- so why not set it up to run the same ratio as the MX5100? They both have HST, axles appear similar, so why did they make that design choice? Is there some advantage to the smaller tire height? (By the way, the larger L40s and MX4900/5100/5200 use the same size rear tires.)

Don't feel so bad that about the small size of Front 10-16.5 tires. The L47 L45 and L39 have 10.5 - 15 fronts, 15-19.5 Industrial Lug R-4 rears, way to small for the weight of these tractors.
As a minimum 10-16.5 front and 43/16.00-20 rears on this size machine.
There is clearance on the FEL and fenders to fit these tires, as fronts only go from 27 to 29" rears from 40 to 43, keeps same ratio.
The M59 & M62 need 12-1.5 8 ply fronts period.

 

[dieselcrawler]

Diesel crawler, what's up with your '99 F250? Not too often you see comments about a 7.3L being out of service.

Full description in this thread:

http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/projects/353163-f250-motor-swap-7-3-a.html?highlight=

CliffNotes version: lost compression in one or more cylinders, lots of smoke. Likely cracked piston or broken rings. Have long block being prepared for replacement, with 378k miles on it. Miss driving that truck, like a stick shift.

 

[Grandad4]

Is there some advantage to the smaller front tires that Kubota wanted to take advantage? Cheaper tires, and less expensive & lighter snow chains is the only thing I notice so far, but I'm wondering if there is a good reason.

I had always figured it was to allow a tighter turning radius, being that these are still "compact" tractors (at least theoretically), where better maneuverability is desired. With the front tires turned full lock, there is very little clearance between the FEL frame bracket and the front tires on most of the GL's. Putting wider or taller fronts on those models would require considerable re-engineering because you'd need to either stretch the wheelbase or change the FEL mounting design.

In the early days of TBN there was a long thread discussing the adventures of one GL owner who wanted to switch to some Michelin R4 radials because they had a much more aggressive lug design than the factory R4's (they were/are neat tires... R4 carcass with an R1 tread). In order to get the right front/rear mechanical ratio he ended up with a slightly larger than factory size of front tire, but had to slice off some of his FEL bracket so the tires didn't rub in a sharp turn.

Other than appearance (and I agree bigger tires would look better), would there be enough functional improvement from larger front tires to justify changing the design? How much more would you pay for it (because it would clearly add cost)?

 

[FatTire]

I had always figured it was to allow a tighter turning radius, being that these are still "compact" tractors (at least theoretically), where better maneuverability is desired. With the front tires turned full lock, there is very little clearance between the FEL frame bracket and the front tires on most of the GL's. Putting wider or taller fronts on those models would require considerable re-engineering because you'd need to either stretch the wheelbase or change the FEL mounting design.

In the early days of TBN there was a long thread discussing the adventures of one GL owner who wanted to switch to some Michelin R4 radials because they had a much more aggressive lug design than the factory R4's (they were/are neat tires... R4 carcass with an R1 tread). In order to get the right front/rear mechanical ratio he ended up with a slightly larger than factory size of front tire, but had to slice off some of his FEL bracket so the tires didn't rub in a sharp turn.

Other than appearance (and I agree bigger tires would look better), would there be enough functional improvement from larger front tires to justify changing the design? How much more would you pay for it (because it would clearly add cost)?[/QUOTE

I don't believe it would cost anything beyond the tires themselves, maybe $50 difference. They put the larger tires on the less expensive MX machines. The MX5100 is the same size as the L5740, and even with the larger tires the MX turns a little tighter than the L5740, and the loaders on the two machines have the same lift capacity (within 50 lbs.) BUT- Your comment about the loader makes me wonder if the tire size is related to the ability to mount the cab on the GL series? I will look at the position of the loader mount and see if that might be it.