Liquid Ballast In Radial Tires

[coolnature]

I will be taking delivery of a NH T4.95 w/ FEL in early January. The rears are Michelin 18.4x34 R1W. It appears Michelin does not recommend liquid ballast in their radials but I and my dealer cannot seem to find any wheel weights over 440# for both rear axles. I don't anticipate much road usage, the tractor will primarily be used for mowing and baling hay, mowing pastures, etc. Even with a 3PT attachment as ballast, I can't see 440# of wheel weights being much of a help. Any comments / suggestions surely welcome!

 

[arrow]

This is a great question CN since a radial is a whole different animal than a bias ply. Radial ags do not seem to "get a grip" with the same method as bias ags. There is much more floatation with the radials, so much so that it is purported that radials will not even scrub up grass on a tight turn. Radials for tractors were developed mostly for the high degree of road travel farmers in Europe seem to practice. They are much smoother for this endeavor. I can only hazard a few guesses why Michelin states they should not be loaded but I am thinking it may have to do with sidewall stress at high speeds for which they were intended. Or ruining the "smoothness" of travel with a loaded radial. Also, you may add more weight by loading the tires but you also may compromise the tractive properties of the tire itself. It is probably why they recommend weights before liquid ballast. The devil is always in the details. If you don't need "smoothness" as you do not do a lot of road travel, I'd try with just the weights first. The tractor may have enough stability not to need much more weight if lifting large round bales. It is not as if you are needing to pull a 5 or 6 point chisel plow through the red clay of Tennessee.
I hay in the summer down at my bils horse farm in Kentucky. All he has is a jD 5320 (or whatever the heck the number is for this tractor) with no weighting at all. We have no problem cutting, baling or lifting.

 

[BAP]

Radial tires for tractors are designed to be run at lower PSI for an increased footprint for maximum traction and reduced compaction. Take 2 tractors, the same model and setup side by side, 1 with radials and 1 without, the one with radials will out pull the bias ply tractor. One reason they don't recommend the liquid ballast is the lower PSI and also, if you use tubes in the tires, the tubes have an increased chance of chaffing thru on the sidewalls of the tube.

 

[jeff9366]

Radial tires for tractors are designed to be run at lower PSI for an increased footprint for maximum traction and reduced compaction.

Given the uses you have specified in Post #1, mowing and baling, why do you believe you need additional wheel weight?

Neither mowing nor baling require the traction of ground contact work such as plowing, or tilling with a heavy Disc Harrow.

Seems to ME: 1) You should not need any additional weight. 2) You are working against the design parameters of (expensive) radial ag tires. 3) The radials you have purchased are a form of high traction ag tire.

I am one of those here who always considers limiting soil compaction before taking my tractor over dirt. (I have R4s on my heavy frame Kubota L3560.)

[ I assume your new tractor will have 4-WD, if not please correct me. ]

 

[coolnature]

Given the uses you have specified in Post #1, mowing and baling, why do you believe you need additional wheel weight?

Neither mowing nor baling require the traction of ground contact work such as plowing, or tilling with a heavy Disc Harrow.

Seems to ME: 1) You should not need any additional weight. 2) You are working against the design parameters of (expensive) radial ag tires. 3) The radials you have purchased are a form of high traction ag tire.

I am one of those here who always considers limiting soil compaction before taking my tractor over dirt. (I have R4s on my heavy frame Kubota L3560.)

[ I assume your new tractor will have 4-WD, if not please correct me. ]

Thanks Jeff. The tractor is MFWD. My concern is when doing FEL work, I need to have adequate ballast in the rear in order to avoid tipping and premature wear on the front end components. Any dealer I have talked to in this area will not sell a new tractor w/ FEL unless they put fluid in the rears - liability issue I think. You are correct about the actual tire - very pricey and I am sure they will perform very well. My decision to purchase this particular tractor was based upon the Michellin tires that are on it.

 

[jeff9366]

Counterbalance to the FEL in the form of an implement mounted on the Three Point Hitch is much more effective, pound for pound, because weight is cantilevered behind the tractor --- and you can remove it.

 

[arrow]

Thanks Jeff. The tractor is MFWD. My concern is when doing FEL work, I need to have adequate ballast in the rear in order to avoid tipping and premature wear on the front end components. Any dealer I have talked to in this area will not sell a new tractor w/ FEL unless they put fluid in the rears - liability issue I think. You are correct about the actual tire - very pricey and I am sure they will perform very well. My decision to purchase this particular tractor was based upon the Michellin tires that are on it.

Your tractor with fel is coming in at over 8000#. The loader has a capacity of over 5000#. I doubt anything that would fit in the bucket as far as loose material will approach that. A yard of dirt is coming in at about 3000#. I believe there are ways to get around this with external ballast as Jeff suggests. I think I'd own the tractor first and see what I can see with it's specific jobs and then make a decision about any additional liquid ballast. As stated before, my bil in Kentucky has a bale spear in the back and front. He counterweights the load and easily makes it to the wagon. He picks up 700 lb bales with no additional ballast at all. I'd try it out first and go from there and if you need to, construct a cement block 3 pt ballast that will weigh 1500# or more. With something like a Quik Hitch, you can drop it or pick it up at will in nearly an instant.This way you will not have to carry all of the unsprung weight of loaded tires when doing chores like haying. Nice looking tractor by the way. Good luck with it.

 

[jeff9366]

No dealer in this area will sell a new tractor w/ FEL unless they put fluid in the rears - liability issue I think.

First time this situation has been exposed on T-B-N.

 

[coolnature]

Thanks arrow and Jeff. A 3ph ballast box or heavy ROB would probably be the best solution for a counterweight. I should have spent an additional $10K and moved up to the NHT5 series - it weighs an additional 1400# over the 8000# T4. I gave it serious consideration but the engine and 12 speed tranny for the T5 and T4 are essentially the same. I believe I made the right decision by getting the T4 - time will tell. The tires are huge for this tractor and the Michelin R1W tread is much deeper than a regular R1. As both you guys have stated , I will be better off without the liquid ballast and the performance and life of the tire should be better. I don't even want to think about the cost of replacing these a few years down the road. Thanks for the nice looking tractor comment - blue is the wife's favorite color.

 

[coolnature]

First time this situation has been exposed on T-B-N.

I should have said no dealer in this area "wants" to sell a new tractor w/FEL unless they put fluid in the rears.