Backhoe and Filled tires

[gsganzer]

My dealer filled mine on my L3800, but now I suspect they may have been partial fills. I'll have to go back and look through my correspondence but I seem to remember it listed the fill at something like 400LBs. total of fluid/antifreeze. I remember thinking at the time that I thought each tire would have been able to accept more than 200lbs each (my simple math tells me that's about 25 gallons each). I have R4's, so maybe someone can pull up a chart on what the maximum fill weight could be.

That actually seams like a good compromise if they were to partially fill the tires.

 

[oldpilgrim]

I've had only 2 tractors over the past 25+ years. The first I had for 23 years approx. Both had BH and both had filled tires. I am not worried about my 2 year old Mahindra.

 

[Grandad4]

When I added the BH to my L4610 - that was quite a while ago - the dealer had to install a taller ROPS (6-8" taller), because the BH was specifically designed not to work with the standard height ROPS. He explained that the heavy BH had an effect on the COG and also, in a tip-over, could increase the angular momentum enough that the tractor needed more ROPS height to mitigate the potential for a full 360 roll. Dealer also advised that similar safety considerations were behind the tire loading guidance with the BH. It's understandable that a manufacturer would not proffer such design details to the public, but that dealer's comments always made sense to me.

 

[gwdixon]

When I added the BH to my L4610 - that was quite a while ago - the dealer had to install a taller ROPS (6-8" taller), because the BH was specifically designed not to work with the standard height ROPS. He explained that the heavy BH had an effect on the COG and also, in a tip-over, could increase the angular momentum enough that the tractor needed more ROPS height to mitigate the potential for a full 360 roll. Dealer also advised that similar safety considerations were behind the tire loading guidance with the BH. It's understandable that a manufacturer would not proffer such design details to the public, but that dealer's comments always made sense to me.

Hmmm...loading the tires should significantly reduce the COG. Even up on the outriggers, which in themselves greatly reduce rollover risk, the loaded tires would anchor the whole tractor one would think.

Maybe having the tractor lifted to full height, both front and back, would be a roll over problem if the boom were being operated way to one side. Maybe that is the thought. If an operation error can be made, someone is bound to do it...and then sue.

 

[Gary Fowler]

I have not seen that in my manual, but that certainly doesn't mean it's not there. My dealer suggested filling the rears on my B26 and did so at no charge. He apparently doesn't think there's an issue with filled tires on a BH.

It is in the B26 manual to not fill the tires. Personally, if I wanted to fill them, I don't think it would hurt anything but after 4 years of ownership and running the tires with air only, I don't really see a need to have liquid ballast in them. I never take the back hoe off my B26 so traction is about as good as it gets (which isn't very good) with R4 tires and the back hoe weight. Extra weight may make it a bit harder on the stabilizers to lift the tractor off the ground which I do fairly often to keep it level when working on slopes but other than that, I think the frame work is strong enough to handle a few hundred pounds more of weight.
I don't agree that liquid in the tires make them less flexible, at least not enough to notice since you still have 30% of the air fill in them for cushioning effect when hitting a bump. Higher air pressure will for sure make the rougher but if they have the same air pressure, I don't think anyone could tell the difference between them in ride quality.

 

[Grandad4]

Hmmm...loading the tires should significantly reduce the COG. Even up on the outriggers, which in themselves greatly reduce rollover risk, the loaded tires would anchor the whole tractor one would think.

That's a fair point, but I always figured it was the rotational momentum thing that had the engineers spooked. On my tractor, there's a 2,000 lb BH and there would be another 1,000 lb added from loading the tires. It has been more than 50 years since I studied physics, but seems to me that once a roll started that extra weight would make a he** of a flywheel, particularly if the boom and dipper were extended so they would not interrupt the roll.

 

[RaydaKub]

When I added the BH to my L4610 - that was quite a while ago - the dealer had to install a taller ROPS (6-8" taller), because the BH was specifically designed not to work with the standard height ROPS. He explained that the heavy BH had an effect on the COG and also, in a tip-over, could increase the angular momentum enough that the tractor needed more ROPS height to mitigate the potential for a full 360 roll. Dealer also advised that similar safety considerations were behind the tire loading guidance with the BH. It's understandable that a manufacturer would not proffer such design details to the public, but that dealer's comments always made sense to me.

That's a fair point, but I always figured it was the rotational momentum thing that had the engineers spooked. On my tractor, there's a 2,000 lb BH and there would be another 1,000 lb added from loading the tires. It has been more than 50 years since I studied physics, but seems to me that once a roll started that extra weight would make a he** of a flywheel, particularly if the boom and dipper were extended so they would not interrupt the roll.

Could the recommendation be related to the ROPS strength? With both the BH and the filled tires the ROPS might not be able to handle both?

 

[oldpilgrim]

Could the recommendation be related to the ROPS strength? With both the BH and the filled tires the ROPS might not be able to handle both?

that's the only possible, logical, reason that has been posted here. I'll buy it. Everything else posted so far, nope.