Rear Counter Weight

[Branson Bob]

Counter weight does save the front axel but not in the way most people think. It would take immense counter weight to actually lighten the front axel by a lot. 800 pounds on a 4000 pound tractor isn’t even close to reaching that point. But what the counter weight does do is increase the traction on the rear tires. The front axel ring gears aren’t that strong and weren’t designed to do all the work. If the back tires are more planted and doing most of the work the front axel will be better off.

This discussion is all a matter of degree. 1) The amount of weight on the FEL 2) The amount of weight behind the rear axle 3) How far that weight is behind the rear axle

The point remains true regardless of the fulcrum point... when lifting with the FEL, the less weight on the front axle the better. There's less stress on the front axle's static and dynamic parts... because both can fail.

 

[bindian]

If you click on the drawing it opens... you will see the top and the bottom scenarios.

That doesn't work here.
Brandi

 

[ning]

I think @bindian is just looking at the fulcrum diagram with an eye toward keeping the rear planted. For the purposes of keeping the rear on the ground, the fulcrum to consider is the front wheels, and then all of the weight behind the front is challenging the loader and its cargo.

When considering getting weight off of the front axle though, the rear tires are the fulcrum. Weight behind the rear axle works to unweight the front axle because the weight (like ballast box or an implement) is up in the air and the tires are the first thing on the ground.

Try a different picture: pickup truck with a trailer hitch on the bumper. To make it more obvious use a hitch extender. What happens to your steering when you put lots of weight out on that hitch?

The steering gets light, because the weight hanging off the back of the truck is levering the truck with the rear wheels as the fulcrum.

Same thing with the tractor.

But yes it does take a lot of weight or a longer lever arm (weight needs to be farther back) to counter enough to significantly unweight the front axle.

 

[mndave]

Here are some real world (northern) results. The rear box blade is about 500lbs and sand bags are about 1000lbs, for 1500lbs total. The setup has worked very well all winter and it has not felt front-heavy at all, even with a large 8ft pusher full of snow.

 

[Slowpoke Slim]

Here are some real world (northern) results. The rear box blade is about 500lbs and sand bags are about 1000lbs, for 1500lbs total. The setup has worked very well all winter and it has not felt front-heavy at all, even with a large 8ft pusher full of snow.

View attachment 788736

Hey, I'm interested in that 8 foot pusher and not having chains on the back.

I was of the mindset that I should get chains for the little 6 foot pusher I want to add to my snow weapons.

Do you find yourself alright with traction with just the added weight?

 

[mndave]

Hey, I'm interested in that 8 foot pusher and not having chains on the back.

I was of the mindset that I should get chains for the little 6 foot pusher I want to add to my snow weapons.

Do you find yourself alright with traction with just the added weight?

For the most part the traction is OK, but could definitely be better. Before next winter I plan to fill the tires, which should help. I also looked at chains but had no idea they were so expensive for large tires. The only reason I have an 8ft pusher is that I got a very good deal from an auction, otherwise I would have selected 7ft - or possibly 6ft if you need to push lots of deep or heavy snow.

The other thing to keep in mind is that a pusher only works well for short runs. If you have a long road or driveway you need to plow, a blade that can push snow to the side would be a better option. I have both a wide flat area and a long driveway and it's a bit of a pain to have to stop, turn off, and dump the pusher multiple times to clear the long driveway.

 

[LD1]

Too little ballast is worse than no ballast at all. I can actually increase the load on the front axle rather than reduce it, which is the goal

 

[ning]

Too little ballast is worse than no ballast at all. I can actually increase the load on the front axle rather than reduce it, which is the goal

Instead of me jumping to conclusions can you explain this? Are you saying that it's possible to put some weight behind the rear axle that causes an increased load on the front axle?

 

[LD1]

Instead of me jumping to conclusions can you explain this? Are you saying that it's possible to put some weight behind the rear axle that causes an increased load on the front axle?

Exactly what I am saying.


Say you are digging into a pile or a stump...and with no ballast the back wheels keep coming off the ground right.....

Now let's say the tractor weighs 2500#....and is able to expert (lift) 500# before the back wheels hike into the air. That would make 3000# all be on the front axle right......

Now let's add 500# of ballast. And that is enough to make the loader lift 800# before the rears lid in the air now. (Insufficient ballast). But now the 2500# tractor, 500# ballast, and now 800# load is all on the front axle. Total of 3800#.

So let's increase ballast to 1000#. That can now make our loader lift 1100#. AND the rears stay planted but barely....and only retain 500#.

So the 2500# tractor, 1000# ballast, 1100# load is now the total weight of the machine at 4600#.....but still 4100# on the front

Adding ballast/counterweight only adds to the "potential" loading of the front axle. But only up to the point of ENOUGH weight on the back to actually start unloading the front axle.

But this varies by tractor and loader lift capacities. With "just" enough ballast to max out the loaders lift capacity yet have next to zero weight on the rears is the worst case scenario. Because from that point onward any addition rear ballast will shift the fulcrum back to the rear axle and start unloading the front axle. But until that happens.....you are only adding to the potential front axle load

 

[Branson Bob]

Exactly what I am saying.


Say you are digging into a pile or a stump...and with no ballast the back wheels keep coming off the ground right.....

Now let's say the tractor weighs 2500#....and is able to expert (lift) 500# before the back wheels hike into the air. That would make 3000# all be on the front axle right......

Now let's add 500# of ballast. And that is enough to make the loader lift 800# before the rears lid in the air now. (Insufficient ballast). But now the 2500# tractor, 500# ballast, and now 800# load is all on the front axle. Total of 3800#.

So let's increase ballast to 1000#. That can now make our loader lift 1100#. AND the rears stay planted but barely....and only retain 500#.

So the 2500# tractor, 1000# ballast, 1100# load is now the total weight of the machine at 4600#.....but still 4100# on the front

Adding ballast/counterweight only adds to the "potential" loading of the front axle. But only up to the point of ENOUGH weight on the back to actually start unloading the front axle.

But this varies by tractor and loader lift capacities. With "just" enough ballast to max out the loaders lift capacity yet have next to zero weight on the rears is the worst case scenario. Because from that point onward any addition rear ballast will shift the fulcrum back to the rear axle and start unloading the front axle. But until that happens.....you are only adding to the potential front axle load

I am not an engineer but I believe it depends on where the center of mass is.

I believe your scenarios are only correct in the case where the rear wheels lift off the ground.