Ballast help FEL loading ?

[johnk]

Roy,
I was talking about getting the feel of loading up the FEL. I agree weight on the back is a must but when first learning I SUGGESTED not to load the back and try to pick up light material. Then on second thought I guess I was wrong. You should have weight on the back and still go very slow to learn the technique. My main train of thought was just don't ram the pile full speed and think you're doing loader work....

[RalphVa]

I do a lot of bucket work with my 400 # brush hog on the back.

Just go forward, bucket level and then curl up while slowling moving forward. I often get a full bucket of mulch the first try. It's not so easy lifting gravel but possible with smooth, combined motions. Definitely helps to have a bucket level indicator. Mine didn't come with one, but I coerced the dealer into getting me one.

I only use a tooth bar for dirt work. It'll dig too much into the dirt underneath a pile of mulch if you have a tooth bar.

Ralph

[wolc123]

You mention spinning your wheels as you enter the pile. Do you have 4wd? Is it engaged? Front loaders on 2wd tractors are really only usefull for moveing loose piles. Adding a pond scoop to the back would be more effective on a 2wd as it will increase your traction as you dig just like the front axle on a 4wd.

[VABlue]

If you don't care what your ballast looks like, check out the 'build it yourself' section here and find the ballast box building threads. You can save a boatload, but it won't look as pretty as the OEM version. The end result is the same - needed ballast.

[RoyJackson]

Originally Posted by johnk

Roy,
I was talking about getting the feel of loading up the FEL. I agree weight on the back is a must but when first learning I SUGGESTED not to load the back and try to pick up light material. Then on second thought I guess I was wrong. You should have weight on the back and still go very slow to learn the technique. My main train of thought was just don't ram the pile full speed and think you're doing loader work....

I went through the inadequate ballast routine. I'd tried my back blade (heavy old thing) and RFM with little success.
I borrowed a ballast box from a friend....wow! what a difference. Now, I had a loader!
When I got offered one (used and for a good price), I leapt right on the deal.

It was quite frustrating before I had the box. I could never get a good solid bucketfull (tooth bar helped, but not enough) because my rear tires would start spinning before I could get a good load. Now, this was a pile of dried out gravel that had clumped together.
Several different techniques made little difference (although I have learned a couple new tricks reading TBN over the last few months).

Also, ballast does reduce the load on the front axle.

So, an opportunity to learn from my mistakes.

[daTeacha]

Now, Roy -- Do you really want to open the can of worms about ballast on the rear resulting in less load on the front tires? A lesser percentage of the weight, yes, but not less weight in pounds.

Let's say my tractor/loader without ballast weighs 2400 lb and the loader can lift 1400. With no ballast, the most I can lift is 700 before the rears come off the ground, so the fronts are carrying all 3100 lb at that point.

Then, I add 600 on the 3 point. The tractor will now lift 1300 when the rears are just barely touching the ground. With 1400, the rears come up, so the fronts are now carrying 2400 plus 1400 plus the 600 on the rear or 4400 lb.

If I now add another 400 in wheel weights on the back, the rears will stay on the ground with 400 lb of weight on them, but the fronts are still carrying that same 4400 lb. load.

This is all going to be somewhat influenced by changes in leverage caused by the rears coming up, location of the weight (3 pt. vs. wheels), distance from the front axle to the load center, and a few other factors best left to the physicists and engineers, but the basics come down to this -- when you lift a heavy weight with the FEL, you add considerably more than that much load to the front tires, regardless of how much weight you have on the back.

The weight on the back will decrease the initial load on the fronts, and that decrease will carry over if you compare identical weighted and unweighted tractors lifting the same load, but only until you reach the load that will lift the rear of the unweighted tractor. After that point, all added weight in the FEL results in about twice as much being added to the front tires.

This analogy has some flaws, but think of a teeter-totter (or see-saw, depending on where you live). Make it a strange one with a leg halfway down the right side. Putting a heavy load on the right end allows you to add more to the left end before lifting the leg on the right side off the ground, but as you add more and more weight to the left side, the load on the pivot point in the center increases until the right side lifts up and all the weight is on the center fulcrum. Adding weight on the right end does not decrease the amount of weight on the fulcrum.

On the tractors, the front axle is the fulcrum about which all the weight hangs when using the FEL. The rear axle is the leg on the right side of the teeter-totter. Rear weight keeps the rear end down, but doesn't do much to decrease the load on the front axle.

[dtd24]

I use my box blade for ballast most of the time, If I don't have the back hoe on. Works wonders. The hoe bounces around to much when doing just loader work.

[john_bud]

Originally Posted by daTeacha

On the tractors, the front axle is the fulcrum about which all the weight hangs when using the FEL. The rear axle is the leg on the right side of the teeter-totter. Rear weight keeps the rear end down, but doesn't do much to decrease the load on the front axle.

It's been awhile since I took statics, but there are 2 possible pivot points on a tractor. Front axle and rear axle. Where the pivot is located is dependant on the relative weights and thier distances from each pivot. At some combination of front weight x distance and rear weight x distance the pivot point changes from front axle to rear axle. It's more complex than that in reality due to the bending moments of the tractor body/frame, but that's close enough.

Let's go stupid for a second with your example. If I put 10,000# on the rear that is 24" beyond the 3pt, do you really really think that the front axle is the pivot point? I think that the front axle and tires would be off the ground!

With 2wd old iron, a common complaint is that since they mostly don't have power steering adding a loader makes them hard to turn. A common solution is to add 1.25x - 1.5x the loader max listed capacity in rear weight. (not wheel weight, rear weight) Both for ballast AND to reduce steering effort. Now, why do you suppose that tens of thousands of folks think that the steering effort is reduced by adding a lot of rear weight?

With your example - there is a front loader lift weight that puts the rear tire down force to ZERO pounds. Let's say you are at that exact teeter-totter point with nothing on the 3pt. I think that was 700 in the bucket and a total weight of 3100#. Now you add 1.5x the lift capacity (1400x1.5=2100#) to the 3pt at 12" behind the eyes or 36" distance behind the rear axle. That gives a moment arm of 3'x2100 or 6300 ft-lb down force. It's not moving, so there is an up force on the other side of the axle. Let's say the front axle is 6 feet from the rear axle. The effective up force on the front axle is 6300 ft-lb / 6' or 1050 pounds. So, if the original load on the front axle was 3100 pounds with no 3pt weight, adding 2100 pounds to the 3pt reduces it to 2050 pounds. That's a 33% drop in front axle load.

Like I said, it's been a lot of years since statics, but that should be pretty close. Everyone should feel free to correct it if it's ain't.

jb

[RoyJackson]

Originally Posted by daTeacha

Now, Roy -- Do you really want to open the can of worms about ballast on the rear resulting in less load on the front tires? A lesser percentage of the weight, yes, but not less weight in pounds.

I'm not sure why this would be a "can of worms".

I suggest you take a look at your tractor and loader manuals...read what's there.
Anyway...read my post again...it says "reduce the load on the front axle".
I believe the intent of your post is the same thing...but I don't think the front axle would be the fulcrum...not if properly ballasted on the rear.

By the way, if you want to try something fun sometime, rig your ballast box to the 3PH before installing your loader... Don't do this inside!

[Mike_Lipke]

All I know is that when I put the ballast box on (full of busted concrete blocks), the fel works more better, the front tires don't look like they are gonna burst, the wheels hardly spin, and I get a lot less bounce on the front end when fel has a load. Ballast = more better.

I have loaded rear tires.

Ballast box makes more better loading, and as someone else said, you can feel the more better center of gravity if there is ANY slant to the ground.
So, ballast box also makes more better pucker factor.

I don't care about the physics. It works.