Rear wheel weights vs filling tires

[Gary Sweat]

I would like to hear opinions on installing weights to the rear wheels vs filling the tires. I have seen both but don't really know the benefits of each.

Since adding the loader to my YM1900 2wd, I have only had to hitch up the box blade to keep traction. I don't always want the box blade on so I know I need to add weight but don't know exactly how much or the best method.

 

[clemsonfor]

I would like to hear opinions on installing weights to the rear wheels vs filling the tires. I have seen both but don't really know the benefits of each.

Since adding the loader to my YM1900 2wd, I have only had to hitch up the box blade to keep traction. I don't always want the box blade on so I know I need to add weight but don't know exactly how much or the best method.

If your 1900 has the 24 in rear rice like my 2000 , i had a post a month or so ago and california posted a table from like bridgestone or firestone ag. You were only able to get around 80 lbs max per tire, so it will get you about 160lbs by filling with antifreeze/water. Something to consider if you can find say 100lb wheel weights. Wheel weights unless you fab something cheap will prolly cost more.

 

[Gary Sweat]

If your 1900 has the 24 in rear rice like my 2000 , i had a post a month or so ago and california posted a table from like bridgestone or firestone ag. You were only able to get around 80 lbs max per tire, so it will get you about 160lbs by filling with antifreeze/water. Something to consider if you can find say 100lb wheel weights. Wheel weights unless you fab something cheap will prolly cost more.

The rear wheels on the tractor are 22" and the front are 12". I would like to find 24" rear wheels as I plan on building a heavier front axle this winter and upgrading the spindles and tires to a larger size just for a margin of comfort now that the loader has been added. Right now I have about 4" clearance from the tire to the fender so I think 24" wheels would work. Might be close though.

 

[deepNdirt]

I'm sure you have your reasons as to not wanting have the bb connected for ballast weight, But I must suggest that using a ballast connected to the rear of the tractor extending past the rear tires not only give traction but also helps to unload weight from the front, think about it for a moment! like a child seesaw the weight is over the center support just as the weight is on the axle of a tractor, the farther back the ballast the more equal the load on front becomes,:thumbsup: however I'm not saying that liquid or wheel weights don't add benefits to traction, They do... but while using a FEL it does help to have a ballast weight on the rear,

 

[whistlepig]

I'm sure you have your reasons as to not wanting have the bb connected for ballast weight, But I must suggest that using a ballast connected to the rear of the tractor extending past the rear tires not only give traction but also helps to unload weight from the front, think about it for a moment! like a child seesaw the weight is over the center support just as the weight is on the axle of a tractor, the farther back the ballast the more equal the load on front becomes,:thumbsup: however I'm not saying that liquid or wheel weights don't add benefits to traction, They do... but while using a FEL it does help to have a ballast weight on the rear,

Very good advice!

 

[winston1]

Was doing some turning yesterday with an old Dearborn 2 bottom disc turning plow and my ym2002d. Plow is actually a little to big for my tractor but I had success. Able to break ground around 8" deep. Decided at the time I might want to look into liquid in my rear tires. Found a chart showing 8.3 24 tires hold about 13 gallons at 75% full which is about normal fill. Using water and antifreeze this would come to about 108# per tire. Not a lot but I believe it would sure help. I already had about 270# of front weights. Power is no problem just traction. Any time I use my loader I have some kind of implement on the back for counter weight, but when plowing that isn't a possibility. I think the pros use calcium chloride which is considerably heavier than water but also quite expensive. Here in East Texas one wouldn't need anything close to a 50/50 mix to protect against freezing.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Was doing some turning yesterday with an old Dearborn 2 bottom disc turning plow and my ym2002d. Plow is actually a little to big for my tractor but I had success. Able to break ground around 8" deep. Decided at the time I might want to look into liquid in my rear tires. Found a chart showing 8.3 24 tires hold about 13 gallons at 75% full which is about normal fill. Using water and antifreeze this would come to about 108# per tire. Not a lot but I believe it would sure help. I already had about 270# of front weights. Power is no problem just traction. Any time I use my loader I have some kind of implement on the back for counter weight, but when plowing that isn't a possibility. I think the pros use calcium chloride which is considerably heavier than water but also quite expensive. Here in East Texas one wouldn't need anything close to a 50/50 mix to protect against freezing.

You could just use water. Unless you have day/nite average less than 32 yould be ok. I use water in VA in the 7520 and dont drain til well into Dec. ... Maybe not at all this year because I have an insulated shop [sofar unheated] to park it in.
larry

 

[jerrybob]

On my 186d.....I took an old washing machine tub.....drilled holes in the sides.....ran a steel rod thru it and filled it with rocks. I attach it to my 3 point....works great for ballast. I was moving some gravel with my FEL.....without my tub.....I lifted the back wheels right off the ground. Added the tub.....problem solved. Easy to remove.....probably weighs 300 lbs.

 

[winston1]

Here is the chart I spoke about earlier. Liquid Tire Ballast

 

[Gary Sweat]

I'm sure you have your reasons as to not wanting have the bb connected for ballast weight, But I must suggest that using a ballast connected to the rear of the tractor extending past the rear tires not only give traction but also helps to unload weight from the front, think about it for a moment! like a child seesaw the weight is over the center support just as the weight is on the axle of a tractor, the farther back the ballast the more equal the load on front becomes,:thumbsup: however I'm not saying that liquid or wheel weights don't add benefits to traction, They do... but while using a FEL it does help to have a ballast weight on the rear,

I may be thinking about this all wrong but my view on extended rear weights is that it makes the rear axle the pivot point. To me that seems to be putting the casing from the engine to the rear differential taking the strain of unloading the front end. The loader is mounted forward of the center line of the tractor and to unload the front axle it would seem that the center of the tractor is actually lifting a portion of the weight up to do that if weight is used behind the rear axle. Am I wrong in how that works?

By adding weight to the axles (filled tires or weights) I would think the center of the tractor does not see any strain caused by uplift of the front end. Due to the small size of the loader and bucket, the front end seems to be holding the weight ok. The tires barely bulge with a loaded bucket. Granted, I am going to have to watch what I lift so I don't over tax the front end. I don't have any problems so far with steering so I think I can get by with just getting traction.

I don't have a quick hitch yet so swapping out a BB, bush hog and trailer hitch is getting to be a pain, not to mention a mashed finger in the process. My thoughts is that if I can just get a little more traction, I could just hop on the tractor, go do a little loader work and not have to hook something up each time.