Toughest Material To Move With FEL

[pat32rf]

I find that digging in rocky ground, or just trying to get stones in athe bucket can be frustrating with no toothbar. Thats why I built a stone bucket......also works for rooting out saplings or carrying brush.

 

[rekees4300]

I always keep a couple small piles of gravel (1-2 tons) at the top of our road for general road repair and winter use to get better traction when icy. Unfortunately, during our last snow, I had used all the washed stone and decided to use material out of the road bond pile (stone & crushed material). Was I in for a surprise...

The freeze/thaw/freeze conditions had transformed that gravel pile into nothing short of a cement dome that I could't penetrate with a toothbar on my loader. Literally stopped my machine dead in it's tracks! Had to turn the unit around and chip away with the backhoe, then break up with shovel. Took about 2 hrs to do a 30 minute job.

Covering the stone pile with a tarp to keep it somewhat dry will lessen the freezing. Only problem is that the tarp must be removed before the stone can be accessed. That can involve manually shoving the snow/ice off first.

 

[NuBota]

I read this topic differently - I have the hardest time with light material, i.e. mulch, compost, etc. A free standing pile of such things will "move" on you when trying to get a full bucket. Granted some of it is FEL technique - but I have a much easier time moving dirt and rock piles. I moved four dump trucks of fill down a 15 degree hill and 100ft back into the woods - had BH or RB and filled tires in the back - took heaped buckets. Many many trips with the BX but I was amazed how well it handled. I initially worried when I saw the "squish" on the front tires, but it held up fine.

As far as stress, I rely on the hydraulics to give out on too heavy a load before the axle/frame becomes at risk.

All that said, I only have 200 hrs logged, and am not the most proficient operator, so could be all wet here....

 

[magicheater]

I read this topic differently - I have the hardest time with light material, i.e. mulch, compost, etc. A free standing pile of such things will "move" on you when trying to get a full bucket.

A lot of truth in your statement and I can relate.

 

[JDGreenGrass]

Yup, tire squish......That is what sold me on the ballast box.

I will never again use the FEL without ballast. It "feels" like the tractor's performance increases 10 fold. :thumbsup:


And, I hate the looks of tire squish.!!

 

[rjkobbeman]

It is my OPINION (FWIW) that front axles SHOULD be able to carry across reasonably rough ground whatever the loader can lift, without undue wear or premature failure.
QUOTE]

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

However, if you take a look at the weight rating of R1s, you will see it is very easy to overload those tires. I think that is where weight behind the rear axle really helps.

I was looking at a Kubota M7040 the other day. It had R1s on it and the front tire rating was 1800 lbs. That is 3600 pounds for both tires. That tractor is approximately 5k lbs. without the loader. I would guess the loader is close to 2k lbs. Not sure how much of that weight is on the front, but that does not leave much for the bucket.

 

[nwbearcat]

Read the tractor's manual about ballasting your machine.
Tractor manufacturers sell ballast boxes for a reason, and they've been around for many decades.

Making do with what you have. Tobacco has been around for along time, but that doesn't make it good for you

One reason is, of course, to improve rear wheel traction when necessary.
Another is to improve stability and another is to reduce the load on the front axle by acting as a counterweight.

Counter weight yes..reducing load on the FRONT axle no, add weight to the rear yes.

Otherwise, when using the loader to it's capacity (the relief valve in the system will let go before the system is excessively taxed), there is a substantial load on that front axle, even when worked within it's capacity. As you wrote in your post "somewhere there is a fulcrum"...that's the rear axle.

Explain how this is possible for the fulcrum to LOOSE contact with the ground when the loader is loaded? This is what is happening when you put a load in your loader right? If we agree that the fulcrum is the rear axle, how could loading the bucket possible remove weight from the pivot point? The most stress is on the front, and even if you put a counter weight on the rear, the most stress continues to be on the front axle, you've just got a buddy on the back of your teeter totter to help keep your tail on the ground. Here's an experiment you can try at home. You'll need 2-5 gallon buckets of water, and 2 bathroom scales. Place both scales in a position where you can place 1 foot on each. Do so and record the weights for each. Now pick up 1 bucket in 1 hand and hold out to the side, for this example we'll say that's your left hand. Note the change in weights and record. Now pick up the other bucket in the other hand, and hold out to the opposite side, in this experiment, your right. Note the change in weights. While I haven't personally done this, I believe the hypothesis will prove true...you're not reducing any weight on your left (the loader) by carrying some weight with your right (the rear of the tractor), but you're going to keep your machine more balanced. I'll give you balance and stability, but will disagree that you're reducing any weight on the front axle by carrying a counter balance. The loader is effectively a big lever, with the tipping point on the front axle, and hooked under the mid point of the tractor. Another test...go scoop a big bucket of dirt or rock with your loader, note the amount of squat in the front tires and the steering effort required with that load. Now go hook on your ballast box and get a similar bucket, does the impact to the front tires or the steering effort change? I'd bet not

Before you respond hastily, give that some thought or do some research. You might learn something.

Didn't know you timed my response...but yes, I've been observing for a while, just signed up for a user id recently, and have logged more than a couple hours on a tractor

And here's one for you...that FEL should be removed when not using it. The intent is to reduce wear on the front axle, pivots and such.
Deere recommends ballast (both front and rear, depending on the task at hand). Deere also recommends removing ballast when not necessary to extend drive train life. Since many of us do use that extra weight of the loader for front ballast (bush hogging, for example), one should remove that extra weight when not using it. As an example, my loader is off from Spring until Fall unless I have a specific need for it. I'll also drop the bucket off to reduce weight (buckets are heavy!!) when I have the loader on (if I know I'm going to be needing the loader in the near future).
Of course, not all loaders are removable or quick attach.

But you said that the fulcrum is the rear axle...why would leaving the loader on when you have a weight on the back of the tractor result in any wear to the front axle or pivots?.

As far as cracked castings...I've never read of or heard of someone breaking a casting using rear ballast (there was a relatively recent thread (Deere forum) which discussed an owner breaking the upper link attaching point, but that wasn't due to ballasting). I have read (on all the dedicated tractor forums on TBN) of folks breaking their tractors using 3ph backhoes (easy to overstress with a backhoe that isn't tied to the frame like the front end loaders are).

I guess you haven't been too many places where people really use tractors...I've seen cracked frame rails on 4440 JD's, busted front axles on about any color...loaders when used hard, and used alot take their toll eventually. I know the mid hp Ford SOS's had somewhat of a tendancy to spit if used alot

 

[RoyJackson]

I initially worried when I saw the "squish" on the front tires, but it held up fine....

When you see that "squish" (tire sidewalls deforming under the weight), it's time to add some pressure to those front tires (at least while you're operating with the loader).
You can run those tires right off the rims like that.

 

[RoyJackson]

I guess you haven't been too many places where people really use tractors...I've seen cracked frame rails on 4440 JD's, busted front axles on about any color...loaders when used hard, and used alot take their toll eventually. I know the mid hp Ford SOS's had somewhat of a tendancy to spit if used alot

Not much use responding to your post...do what ever you want.
But do some research on the web about ballasting your tractor.

 

[Redneck in training]

I have ordered 12yds. of Loam to fill in some holes and low spots in my yard, get some new grass growing. I am wondering how the 770 will perform getting into the pile.?? I'll have my ballast box on for sure as the Loam will be quite heavy, I assume. I find that the BB improves production greatly.

So, what material is the toughest to get a bucket load of.?? Rock.?? 3" Gravel.?? Loam.?? You tell me.......

I had trouble keeping air in the bucket.

Speaking about rear ballast. In addition to increased stability I understand that the rear weight is required to lessen stress on the front drive train. If the FEL bucket is full the front wheels have a lot of traction while rear wheels have less or no traction. Therefore all the power of the engine is transferred to ground trough the front axle. Front axles of some tractors are designed to take the full power but many tractors have front axle designed to take only partial power. Without rear ballast the front axle or the shaft of such tractors could fail prematurely. If properly designed the weakest point is outside of the trany or axle so it is easy to change. There are quite few posts of failed (twisted off) front axle drive shaft on TBN.