Backhoe Filled tires with backhoe?

[Reg]

I see no GOOD reason not to have loaded tires with a hoe on, other than the total weight when trailering it.
As noted in other threads, I have a set of loaded R4s and a set of unloaded turfs for the mowing season.
I try to do any digging before the turfs go on for the summer, so MOST of my hoe use is with loaded tires.
The extra 1100 or so pounds doesn't seem to HURT anything, in fact it probably helps keep me from pulling the tractor and myself into the holes I dig (-:
Seriously, the tractor has to be more stable when hoeing if the tires are loaded.
More mass and it is very low to the ground - gotta be GOOD !

 

[radioman]

As others have mentioned, the manual says no liquid ballast with the BH mounted but it isn't feasible to drain the fluid to use the BH. Having your rear tires loaded have way too many advantages than not loading them.

AMEN!! same here ! I have asked several times already on why kubota doesn't want the rears filled with BH, but they do have a section on how to properly fill the rears . so far no answers.

 

[MarkV]

AMEN!! same here ! I have asked several times already on why kubota doesn't want the rears filled with BH, but they do have a section on how to properly fill the rears . so far no answers.

I have alway felt that Kubota's statement in the owners manual about using ballast when the backhoe is removed and removing the ballast for backhoe use is the single dumbest statement I have ever seen in an owners manual. It has to be something that came from the legal department to minimize liabilities. They use to, and may still, say no ballast in the cab equipped tractors either.

I speculate the statement comes from the higher center of gravity created by the weight of the backhoe or cab COULD cause ROPS failure if a tractor with ballast had a sever rollover.

MarkV

 

[AKfish]

It has to be something that came from the legal department to minimize liabilities. They use to, and may still, say no ballast in the cab equipped tractors either.
I speculate the statement comes from the higher center of gravity created by the weight of the backhoe or cab COULD cause ROPS failure if a tractor with ballast had a sever rollover.

MarkV

Hmmm... John Deere has the same language in the owner's manual for the 110TLB. "Additional wheel weight must be removed with the installation of the backhoe"... blah, blah, blah.

Not at all practical!

I think you may have really "hit the nail on the head" with the legal liability - ROPS issue!!!

My owner's manual states that the ROPS has a safety rating for 9,000lbs. If I fill both rear tires - I'll be over the weight limit!

Good thread.

AKfish

 

[LBrown59]

I have alway felt that Kubota's statement in the owners manual about using ballast when the backhoe is removed and removing the ballast for backhoe use is the single dumbest statement I have ever seen in an owners manual. It has to be something that came from the legal department to minimize liabilities. They use to, and may still, say no ballast in the cab equipped tractors either.

I speculate the statement comes from the higher center of gravity created by the weight of the backhoe or cab COULD cause ROPS failure if a tractor with ballast had a sever rollover.

MarkV

Also filled tires could over load the Rops causing it to fail, perhaps.

 

[LBrown59]

Hmmm... John Deere has the same language in the owner's manual for the 110TLB. "Additional wheel weight must be removed with the installation of the backhoe"... blah, blah, blah.

1*Not at all practical!

2*I think you may have really "hit the nail on the head" with the legal liability - ROPS issue!!!

3*My owner's manual states that the ROPS has a safety rating for 9,000lbs. If I fill both rear tires - I'll be over the weight limit!

Good thread.

AKfish

1*-3*
Good point about loaded tires and too much weight for the rops to support.

 

[Reg]

I have alway felt that Kubota's statement in the owners manual about using ballast when the backhoe is removed and removing the ballast for backhoe use is the single dumbest statement I have ever seen in an owners manual. It has to be something that came from the legal department to minimize liabilities. They use to, and may still, say no ballast in the cab equipped tractors either.

I speculate the statement comes from the higher center of gravity created by the weight of the backhoe or cab COULD cause ROPS failure if a tractor with ballast had a sever rollover.

MarkV

I suspect that you may be right, but...

It seems to me that the reduced risk of a rollover with a lower C of G outweighs the reduced protection if/when a rollover actually DOES happen.
It isn't just a lower C of G, it is more mass and it is distributed farther out.
If it is written to satisfy the legal department I would guess that they VERY CAREFULLY didn't ask whether or not they should just beef up the ROPS (-:
{Yeah, ain't I a li'l ole cynic ?}

 

[cgardnerma]

Spoke to dealer and he recommended NO FILL for backhoe use. I was on cell and could not find out why, but he was adamant that the weightbox was a better solution if I wanted to FEL with no hoe. Hmmm.

 

[radioman]

Hmm, does anyone know the wieght rating on BX ROPS ?

 

[kdm0811]

I don't know, but I would think that the ROPs rating is based upon the forces that the frame would see if you rolled the tractor slowly on a flat level field.

If I ever roll my rig on my property, it will probably flip ten times before I get to the botttom of the hill. How does that effect the ROPs rating?

I realize that the ballast would compromise the ROP. But it may just prevent the roll from starting.