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

[gladehound]

I am sorry, I thought you did not.

"The reason I began doubting the validity of this is because the amount of rear ballast most people use is not enough to change the weight on the front axle substantially when a heavy load is lifted. I struggle to believe that a 10% difference in weight on the front axle is going to trash it."

Yes, I still stand by this statement. I should clarify that this statement is only true when lifting near max load with the FEL when that max load is well beyond the pins (like with forks). The exact numbers are from my tractor and others will vary.

I should also note that without a heavy load on the FEL, huge percentage differences of weight on the front axle can be achieved by adding weight on the 3pt. Up to and including lifting the front end which would represent a 100% difference.

Sorry for not being more clear.

Given these clarifications, 3pt balast will certainly reduce wear on the front axle as much of the time it will only carry a fraction of the weight without balast and I've never doubted this.

My concern was actual breakage of the axle housing which is most likely to occur with a heavily loaded FEL and some sort of dynamic force (like a bump or ditch while moving).

My observation is that in this max stress senario, the typical 3pt balast used for large frame CUTs (~1000 pounds) is only removing 500 pounds (in static senario) from the front axle when it is loaded to 6000-7000 pounds. That is a small % difference and I'm hoping there is enough to safety factor in the front axle strength to not break if one doesn't have the recommended (by my owners manual) 1000 pound 3pt
weight.

 

[Agvg]

Driving at high speed with max load stresses the front axel, but we don't talk about catastrophic failure. Suspension on the loader helps a lot.

 

[gladehound]

So what would be really interesting would be to understand how tractors were used (and ballasted or not) that need any type of front axle repair - breakage or wear related.

 

[rd_macgregor]

The front axle will support anything the FEL can lift, but when really digging in and pushing is where more weight on the beefy rears comes in handy. IMO digging in and pushing with a full load of dirt is where the front end gets stressed.

I would rather have the front tires slip than get torqued beyond normal limits.

This proved exactly right in my case. Pushing over trees in the woods two summers ago, I managed (a couple of months apart) to break both bevel gear cases...along with other associated damage. The only way to apply enough force to do this damage was to use the traction of the drive wheels to force excessive weight onto the front ...essentially trying to drive the tractor into the ground. Operator error: some trees are just too big and tough for a 45hp tractor!

 

[s219]

If you put enough load in front to lift the rear wheels off the ground (not hard to do) then the front axle is taking all of the weight of the tractor and the load. I can't imagine that is good.

 

[gladehound]

This proved exactly right in my case. Pushing over trees in the woods two summers ago, I managed (a couple of months apart) to break both bevel gear cases...along with other associated damage. The only way to apply enough force to do this damage was to use the traction of the drive wheels to force excessive weight onto the front ...essentially trying to drive the tractor into the ground. Operator error: some trees are just too big and tough for a 45hp tractor!

That is great to know especially since your tractor is quite similar to mine. It is a different front axle but I suspect not much different. I can easily see how one could break an axle doing what you described.

I push trees over in the woods all the time and have been doing this for 10 years with different tractors. I never, ever pressure the front drive train when doing it. What I do is I drive up and place a bucket tooth on the tree. Then I set the brakes and use the hydraulics to lift the front axle off the ground a little. Then I push using the rear only. Doing this obviously keeps stress off the front but also allows the bucket to be high on the tree for more leverage, it allows the loader pivot and bucket pivot to align with the contact patch in the rear to minimize stress on those components as well. The front wheels will gradually come to the ground as the tree goes over the bucket slides down the trunk.

Not saying the way I do it is actually healthy for the tractor, but if you're going to do it, I think the way I do it is the least likely to break something. If a tree doesn't go over right away, I just dig the back out and push again. 60 foot tall 1 foot diameter trees go over fairly quick this way.

 

[gladehound]

If you put enough load in front to lift the rear wheels off the ground (not hard to do) then the front axle is taking all of the weight of the tractor and the load. I can't imagine that is good.

And what he described could actually cause a load on the FEL that is way beyond it's rated capacity because the FEL can't go down while driving forward into a tree if the bucket is higher than where the loader connects to the tractor.

RD, when you broke your front axle how high was your bucket on the tree. If too high, hydraulic relief wont limit the weight that can be transferred to the font axle.

 

[AxleHub]

I'd don't mind admiting that I'm a bit confused by some of the logic being used to support viewpoints.

A tractor is not a teeter-totter. It would seem the discussion of ballast is based on a 2 axle scenario but statements of opinion are too often built based on a single axle scenario imo.

Here is an example. The goal of any tractor is to keep both axles in some form of contact with the ground. If both axles are in contact with the ground . . then leveraged weight outside the tractor's axles (forward of front axle and rearward of rear axle) . . Is still on that axle. That is not true with a teeter totter because the ends can go below axle center . . But on a 2 axle unit like a tractor where both axles are in contact with the groud . . . Leverage can not make the "plane extend lower than axle height".

You can definitely overload either axle or both axles . . . But unless you are allowing an axle to come off ground contact . . You can't alter the other axle's load that I can see.

Maybe my viewpoint is flawed somewhere . . But ballast is designed for one thing and one thing only . . to keep both axles in contact with the ground. A teeter totter or a roller & lever can use ballast to shift weight loads because it is a single fulcrum point. A tractor if being used correctly is a dual fulcrum/axle point.

 

[4570Man]

That is great to know especially since your tractor is quite similar to mine. It is a different front axle but I suspect not much different. I can easily see how one could break an axle doing what you described. I push trees over in the woods all the time and have been doing this for 10 years with different tractors. I never, ever pressure the front drive train when doing it. What I do is I drive up and place a bucket tooth on the tree. Then I set the brakes and use the hydraulics to lift the front axle off the ground a little. Then I push using the rear only. Doing this obviously keeps stress off the front but also allows the bucket to be high on the tree for more leverage, it allows the loader pivot and bucket pivot to align with the contact patch in the rear to minimize stress on those components as well. The front wheels will gradually come to the ground as the tree goes over the bucket slides down the trunk. Not saying the way I do it is actually healthy for the tractor, but if you're going to do it, I think the way I do it is the least likely to break something. If a tree doesn't go over right away, I just dig the back out and push again. 60 foot tall 1 foot diameter trees go over fairly quick this way. <img src="http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=458046"/><img src="http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=458047"/>

I busted a power steering hose pushing over trees. It wasn't expensive, but was a real PITA to change.

 

[Agvg]

On my old MF 135 with loader i think a concrete ballast of 800kg would help a lot to ease the load of the quite light design of the front axle, if the front leaves the ground when you shifts hard then you are there