Tires Fill Tires or Add Weight?

[Soundguy]

I've removed the fronts from the rim which is pretty much a two man job (might get by with one) and I've removed full size Ag tractor rears from rims and it was a three man job. All of this was with hand tools. So that's a pain no matter how you look at it. The fluid is hardly an issue there. If the fluid is toxic you might have a problem with disposal but only if the tire has to come off the rim. (Moral, skip toxic fluid).

That's just it.. A front tire is a 1 man job.. and a rear tire is a 1-man job.. Those of us that do, or have done our own tires.. know just how fun this is having 2 spoons and a couple limbs going at the same time. most of us don't have the luxory to have a 2nd or 3rd man 'help' us with a tire. It your right hand, left hand, a tire hammer, and an asortment of irons, and a valve fishing tool, perhaps a bead chetah if you are lucky ont he tubless tires, and an air compressir..e tc.

I can't see that. If the hole is small enough to plug, you can plug it whether its got fluid in it or not. Rotate the hole to the top and plug away. If the hole is too big to plug, fluid disposal will likely not be an issue. Yes, you would have to refill it but I've done it, it is quite simple. Probably not much harder than replacing the wheel weights.

As i said before.. tube tires can't be plugged without a dismount... no way around it... Fluid storage is an issue, as wella s the time to remove and replace it. A alrge tractor tire holds an impressive amount of fluid... That means we have to go track down a reasonably clean 55g drum or a BUNCH of buckets... all the while. whatever it is we were doing witht he tractor previous to the flat, ain't getting done.

My point is, there might be an extra step or two, its just that that extra step isn't that big a deal.

That extra step means alot once you've just run a marathon..

Not hard timing you.. but I had to chuckle when you mentioned the 2man / 3 man thing.

Soundguy

 

[Leejohn]

I have a B7800 & L4240 with loaders on each and I can't see on eather one of them that the rear tires are my pivot point. What I see is the loader is pulling up on my tractors at the mounting brackets just in front of the rear wheels. Pushing down at the bucket trying to lift the rear up and it is pivoting on my front wheels. I also can't see why putting weight in or on the front for doing work with a loader would help.
I have to use weight, otherwise I don't think I could lift a bucket full of sand. On the 4240 I have to use loaded tires and weight on the 3pt and that is because the loader bucket is so far out in front of the front tires. If the bucket was closer to the front wheels the loaded tires would do the job just fine, but it wouldn't go as high. I only use the 3pt weight when doing heavy and only loader work and I don't like it. I would like to keep the 3pt. free for a trailer or what ever. The B7800 is just fine with only loaded tires.
Just my 22 1/2 cents. Lee Buy the way that 2 cents has went up over 20 years.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

Farmwithjunk,

I believe Art was referring to "cast weights" on the 3 pt hitch not "cast wheel weights". You will need to go back & read his reply. He of course is correct. The rear axle is the pivot point or fulcrum to any weight on the front end of the tractor. Therefore, the further out you put the same weight behind the pivot point, the more force (or counterweight) you have available to balance the front end. The 3 pt hitch is further back than the axle, therefore you would need less comparable weight for the same downward force as you would need with filled tires.

Vic

I don't need the "physics 101" primer to understand why weight hanging on the 3-point is of more value to a loader than weight on the axle. That I get.

I read his post carefully before replying originally and don't need to re-read it to understand his thoughts. Apparently you've misunderstood MY reply, be that MY fault for not being clear enough, or otherwise. Not sure where the misconception originated.


Art is an advocate of cast wheel weights, and something less than a fan of fluid in the tires. His case has been made in numerous threads. His comments were a little vague regarding exactly WHEN he considered the "1/3rd less weight in cast is as effective as fluid" in his post. His comments left open the possible impression that 2/3rds the weight IN CAST WHEEL WEIGHTS is equally effective as 1/3rd more weight in fluid "across the board". That's just not true. Knowing Art as an inteligent man, I doubt he was trying to imply otherwise. I simply wanted to eliminate the chance someone would misunderstand the point. Only in the case of loader counter-weighting would the hitch mounted ballast having the effect of being "heavier" apply. I was simply pointing out that fact to eleminate the possibility of anyone taking that in the wrong direction.

Not EVERY case of needing ballast involves a loader. A large portion (maybe even the majority) of cases, ballast is added for aquiring more traction for pulling (or stopping/braking) drawbar loads. (including hitch mounted implements) IMHO, ballst needs to be mounted in a manner convenient to ALL the needs a person would have and NOT one way for loader use and ANOTHER way for pulling a plow as a for instance. Otherwise, you'll be re-arrainging weights every time you use your tractor for a different chore. IMHO, the most convenient, most logical place to semi-permanently mount ballast weight for the majority of needs is on the axle. (ie wheel weights or fluid in the tires)

I ALSO pointed out the fact that simply piling cast weights on the 3-point hitch as ballast for a loader will interfere with the use of "implement of choice" on the hitch while cast weights/ballast box is on the hitch. Many folks are inclined to use a rear mounted implement at the same time they're doing loader work. Often they need to change implements while doing that. A ballast box/cast weights slung on the hitch put an abrupt halt to that idea.

As a matter of personal preference, I don't like to be installing ballast and removing it with every change of the tractors use. A WELL BALANCED tractor should be able to handle the vast majority of it's chores without constant adjusting of weights. If it's a requirement that weight constantly be added for some chores, IMHO again, the tractor is too small. Tire selection can adjust flotation issues to accomodate a heavier tractor for ground conditions.

After 47 years of tractor ownership, I grew a little tired of slinging weights. I prefer to balance a tractor to it's best performance, then LEAVE THE WEIGHTS ALONE.

 

[art]

From all I've read, the tire flex issues with fluid is limited to radial tires. Bias ply tires provide same traction with fluid or cast, when ballasted to an equal given weight. No advantage or disadvantage to either. (Info from Iowa State Univ, Ohio State Univ, Titan Tire, Michelin, and Firestone)

Fluid filled tires offer some increase in stability with a lower center of gravity than equal amount of cast weight.

Why would you think 1/3 less weight (of cast wheel weights) would accomplish same as fluid? Less weight carried on the 3-point hitch would accomplish the same as weight carried on the axle in regards to loader work.

Be it cast or fluid, weight is weight. No matter what form, carried on the axle, cast or fluid would provide the SAME amount of ballast. Cast ballast carried on the hitch would limit use of the hitch for implements.

In the case of larger AG tractors, cast iron wheel weights are generally heavy and awkward for one person to handle. Fluid can be easily pumped in or out of a tire by one person. Smaller tractors with smaller weights, it may well be easier to handle the cast weights.

That's why we have options for ballast. No ONE is ideal for every situation. No one type has a distinct across the board advantage or disadvantage .

All things being equal, I'd just as soon not have to deal with handling ANY type of ballast. I can't say I have a "favorite" one way or the other. My personal recommendation is to go with what works the best in YOUR situation. That's why you'll find fluid in the rear tires on most of my tractors and cast weights on a couple.

I'll try and find those tests you have refered to from your companies about bias to radial tires. In the tests that I watched there was that much disadvantage to the liquid filled tires it was based on the difference of the performance of the two tractors being used. The liquid filled tires vs the cast weights was at that much disadvantage. The liquid ballast was a total of 2200 lbs and to remove 1000lbs of cast ballast still left a half a tractors length difference on the pull, this was vs about a fifty foot spread with both tractors being the same weight. So to say that it is 1/3rd is very conservative. I know it's not right for everyone but it's a lot less messy then the liquid and for the bulk of the compact tractor weights, and once you buy them you don't need to do it again. The compact tractor weights normally ranging from 50 to 75lbs are not heavy at all compared to the five hundred and thousand lb farm tractor weights..

Many of the customers will option to over load the tractor for everyday functions for a limited amount of front loader use. Much as the doctor tells us heavy isn't good for us, the same goes to are machinery! Have you complained about your fuel bills?

 

[N80]

Spoken like a guy that's not had to dismount and patch a bunch of wet tractor tires by himself!

Nope, never done it by myself. But I have done it, several times, but with help. And these were tires off a JD 2255, with tubes and I think calcium carbonate, which could not be done single handed regardless of what was in them. We just let the fluid run out. Then its business as usual. I just don't see the big deal. Don't get me wrong, unmounting and remounting these things by hand was a JOB for three grown men and one boy. But the fact that there was fluid on board really didn't make a whole lot of difference.

Had we had to remove wheel weights, I'm not sure the job would have been any less difficult than dealing with the fluid. (However, I guess it depends on how the wheel weights hook on. We just pulled the outer rims off and left the inner rims on the tractor. If weights mount just on the inner rims then they are no problem at all.)

 

[art]

The weight I refered to was in the tires and on the hub for the cast weights. With the liquid ballast a radial tire can not flex fast enough to match ground contours and there is a loss of traction. Loss of life of the tire do to the loss of traction to boot! We know that the tire life we got with loaded tires on ag tractors has historically been about 2000 hours max on the rears. With out the fluid using cast we've seen as high as 5000 hours. We are still working with some bias ply customers to see if we can get some extended life on the tires as well as the clutches.

For some that try it, they will get a different feel of aggressiveness on the throttle, they might also notice that they won't have to fill the fuel tank as much as their friends.

For the heavy loader work I like the three point hitch ballast, to carry it all the time is not at all economical. For the fuel tank or life of the tractor. Often with working with customers that complain about filling a bucket a little assistance in loader operation helps to end the problems. I've run big payloaders and still not been able to fill the bucket by just driving into the material so size doesn't always matter here if you can operate your tools efficently.

Do I load tires, yes we do, one of my tractors in the shop is getting loaded tires, a fellow who's hills are barely walkable as much as he's taken hay off them for the thirty plus years I've been selling to him and now he wants to finish mow them. Front snowblower for winter snow removal and rear mowers on the back for the thirty acres he wants to play with on the summer months. Now for front ballast we are still unsure till we get there with the mowers.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

I'll try and find those tests you have refered to from your companies about bias to radial tires. In the tests that I watched there was that much disadvantage to the liquid filled tires it was based on the difference of the performance of the two tractors being used. The liquid filled tires vs the cast weights was at that much disadvantage. The liquid ballast was a total of 2200 lbs and to remove 1000lbs of cast ballast still left a half a tractors length difference on the pull, this was vs about a fifty foot spread with both tractors being the same weight. So to say that it is 1/3rd is very conservative. I know it's not right for everyone but it's a lot less messy then the liquid and for the bulk of the compact tractor weights, and once you buy them you don't need to do it again. The compact tractor weights normally ranging from 50 to 75lbs are not heavy at all compared to the five hundred and thousand lb farm tractor weights..

Many of the customers will option to over load the tractor for everyday functions for a limited amount of front loader use. Much as the doctor tells us heavy isn't good for us, the same goes to are machinery! Have you complained about your fuel bills?

From all I've seen, most folks tend to over ballast tractors for almost ALL uses. If a tractor needs 200lbs, they'll throw on 1000lbs. Most of my tractors spend a fair amount of time being hauled from point A to point B on a truck and trailer. I fight any excess weight where ever possible. When I was still farming, I kept one tractor around that had all the weights I could hang on it for the "heavy" work. The rest of the fleet travelled light when and where I could.

I'll try to find you a link to the University testing that I read. If memory is correct, it was published in either Prairie Farmer or Successful Farming Mag's.

 

[montanaman]

You misread my reply. I don't question why weight on the 3-point hitch is "better" than on the axle in regards to ballasting for a loader. I raised the point that it would prohibit use of an implement on the hitch. Go back and re-read my reply with that understood.

I also questioned why cast weight on the axle would be "heavier" than 1/3 MORE weight from fluid in tires.

I got you now, I think we both read the first post and took it different ways. I assumed when it was stated that 1/3 less cast weight was used, it was on the three point and you read it as being on the tires. So yes, we are on the same page as far as where the weight will go and what function it will serve, etc.

Ken

 

[N80]

That's just it.. A front tire is a 1 man job.. and a rear tire is a 1-man job.

If you can completely dismount and remount a rear tire on a full size Ag tractor by yourself, well, you're three times the man than me, my farmer friend and his farmer buddy. My hats off to you. I've BTDT and the three of us struggled with this thing and two of the three of us knew what they were doing.

But your point is well taken, and its my point too, mounting and remounting a tire by hand is hard. A little harder if you have to deal with the fluid, but hardly a reason not to use fluid.

As I said before.. tube tires can't be plugged without a dismount... no way around it... Fluid storage is an issue, as wella s the time to remove and replace it. A alrge tractor tire holds an impressive amount of fluid... That means we have to go track down a reasonably clean 55g drum or a BUNCH of buckets... all the while.

I don't follow this stuff about storage, pumps, removal time.....pop the valve, out it comes. Done. Maybe you are neater than we were.

Not hard timing you.. but I had to chuckle when you mentioned the 2man / 3 man thing.

Soundguy

Hey, no problem. Some have it and some don't. We just don't have it I guess. Those two tires kicked our behinds. Three of us. If you can do it by yourself, again, my hats off to ya. You da man! But again (and again and again) my point is that its a hard job whether you are one super guy or three stooges. The fluid doesn't, and didn't (in our case) add anything to that difficulty.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

I think that if I had a tire full of RimGuard, I would be concerned about loosing it all over the ground, that stuff is expensive. But water mixed with whatever would not and does not bother me. The gains far out weigh the negatives for my application. Frankly, everybody has different conditions to meet and what is tried and true for one person could be a disaster for another. Another thing to keep in mind is what makes economical sense for a professional has little or no effect on a home owner application.