Rear wheel weights vs filling tires

[looknlearn]

Inch or ft x lbs = Inch or ft x lbs (the result is in ft/lbs or Inch/lbs)

So if you suspended a 400 lbs ballast box on your three point which is aprox. 3ft behind your axle. 400 x 3 = 1200 inch/lbs of torque at the axle. This means that at your front end loader bucket (aprox 10ft forward of the rear axle)(1200 divided by 10 = 120 lbs) So with 400 lbs ballast box it would unload 120 lbs off the front axle. This is only about the weight of the bucket on the FEL.

All this to say is that it does unload the front axle some. With some measurements and some known weights you could find out what weight behind the rear axle would help.

 

[Reg]

so basically what your saying beside repeating yourself is! you have no Compact tractor and never have had the need to improvise to make your tractor perform in a way to work better, One thing you must know is, our Compact tractors are strong built small tractors although can do task well beyond what some people would expect from a tractor tractor this size, However by them being so lightweight can limit us to certain task for the lack of traction, example: just as a race car enthusiast will do to cars to gain faster and better performance we can make improvements to our CUT tractors to allow them to perform better and more efficient and weight added to the rear happens to be necessary for such a lightweight tractor, given one with a FEL means even More weight is needed for the rear, Your argument seems to be that weight added further past the rear wheels connected to the 3-pnt lift has no effect in helping to relieve the load from the front,....................
Well I also read back a thread where a trailer was being discussed over and you chimed in for the sake of argument.....
Let us use a trailer as an example: I have a dual axle trailer estimated 1800 lbs, unloaded.... 500 lbs of which is tongue weight, So! I add 600 lbs of cargo in front portion of the trailer approx 4 ft in front of the axles and 4 ft. rear of the tongue this puts the load about Halfway between the tongue and axles, I approximate half of 600 lbs (300) is on the axle and the other half (300) is on the tongue, this now gives a total tongue weight of 800 lbs, This could be considered cantilever weight to the front of the axles, Correct! OK this is the fun part of figuring, my trailer has no tongue jack and I need to unload the trailer and cargo from the hitch of my truck and have no way to do so, I cannot not physically lift 800lb, But Wallah!
I find a stack of cinder blocks and back up to them and start loading them onto the rear of my trailer in effort to lighten the tongue enough to lift it by hand and to Scotch it up and pull my truck away from it, Question is: how much weight from the Cinder block will be needed to unload the weight from the tongue of the trailer? or would you be willing to say that this would not work and would not help to lighten the tongue?

No, what I said was what I said.
Since you acknowledge that I was repeating the same principle only differently there is little/no point in my wording it differently a third time to aid your (lack of) understanding.

looknlearn has summarized it well enough.

The whole pastime of using equipment beyond it's design limits is another topic.
I have no doubt that you can put too much loader on a compact or sub compact tractor.
I have no doubt that even the standard loader for most tractors can be juiced up a bit with larger diameter cylinders or by messing with the relief valve, that just ain't the way I do things.
Hanging extra weight off a 3 pt hitch JUST to unload a front axle is an example of a poor solution to a situation that shouldn't have been gotten into in the first place.
Measure up your tractor, it is unlikely that whatever mass you add to the 3pt "relieves" the front axle by more than 40% of that added weight, 30 or 35 is more likely.

On the other question; Yes, I have enough tractors for what I do.
When they are "too small" I don't use them, there are other solutions and most of them are better than pushing my equipment beyond it's design space.

 

[deepNdirt]

Inch or ft x lbs = Inch or ft x lbs (the result is in ft/lbs or Inch/lbs)

So if you suspended a 400 lbs ballast box on your three point which is aprox. 3ft behind your axle. 400 x 3 = 1200 inch/lbs of torque at the axle. This means that at your front end loader bucket (aprox 10ft forward of the rear axle)(1200 divided by 10 = 120 lbs) So with 400 lbs ballast box it would unload 120 lbs off the front axle. This is only about the weight of the bucket on the FEL.

All this to say is that it does unload the front axle some. With some measurements and some known weights you could find out what weight behind the rear axle would help.

Thanks! there looknlearn I like better your way of explaining this issue,
and what you have explained is what I was saying all along, the 120 lbs might just be what is needed to unload the front end weight load to keep from overloading the front end components of the tractor, this might be close to marginal however does help somewhat, I never really meant or wanted to mislead anyone to think that having rear Ballast weight to the rear is a fix to an overloaded front end, only to help take some of the load off it in worst case scenarios, for instance a couple weeks ago I used my tractor/FEL to move some dirt 200 ft I had to make many trips, ordinarily I would only load the bucket up to 3/4 full around 400lbs..... although while the distance was 200 ft I wanted to move all I could at one time, so I had my 230 lb son stand on the Box blade to ad more ballast just to see if it did in fact help? and yes it did the tires were not so flattened and I could better maneuver the steering, so one would assume more weight on the rear helps to unload weight from the front as well as give better traction,

 

[deepNdirt]

No, what I said was what I said.
Since you acknowledge that I was repeating the same principle only differently there is little/no point in my wording it differently a third time to aid your (lack of) understanding.

looknlearn has summarized it well enough.

The whole pastime of using equipment beyond it's design limits is another topic.
I have no doubt that you can put too much loader on a compact or sub compact tractor.
I have no doubt that even the standard loader for most tractors can be juiced up a bit with larger diameter cylinders or by messing with the relief valve, that just ain't the way I do things.
Hanging extra weight off a 3 pt hitch JUST to unload a front axle is an example of a poor solution to a situation that shouldn't have been gotten into in the first place.
Measure up your tractor, it is unlikely that whatever mass you add to the 3pt "relieves" the front axle by more than 40% of that added weight, 30 or 35 is more likely.

On the other question; Yes, I have enough tractors for what I do.
When they are "too small" I don't use them, there are other solutions and most of them are better than pushing my equipment beyond it's design space.

No one here is arguing the fact that a larger tractor would be more suitable for front loader work, although some folks must use what they have and need to improvise with what they have, and it is not my "Lack of" understanding of what your saying about having a larger tractor for FEL work, the fact is you are absolutely correct, I think the lack of understanding this ballast issue comes from you, But of course not having a smaller Cut tractor to had ever need ballast weight you couldn't possibly understand,
again my apologies go out to you Gary for having derailed your question pertaining the best way to get the best traction to the rear tires, I might sound like I'm repeating myself But earlier in this thread I only mentioned having rear Ballast weight not only help with traction but would also help with equaling out the load on the front, How it got to the point of an argument I have no idea

 

[Gary Sweat]

No one here is arguing the fact that a larger tractor would be more suitable for front loader work, although some folks must use what they have and need to improvise with what they have, and it is not my "Lack of" understanding of what your saying about having a larger tractor for FEL work, the fact is you are absolutely correct, I think the lack of understanding this ballast issue comes from you, But of course not having a smaller Cut tractor to had ever need ballast weight you couldn't possibly understand,
again my apologies go out to you Gary for having derailed your question pertaining the best way to get the best traction to the rear tires, I might sound like I'm repeating myself But earlier in this thread I only mentioned having rear Ballast weight not only help with traction but would also help with equaling out the load on the front, How it got to the point of an argument I have no idea

Not a problem for me. I've enjoyed all sides of the debate and have learned some things. What I got out of it is there are two ways to solve the same problem.

I've decided that I am going to build the sub frame back to the rear and add wheel weights. Then I'll probably destroy the bucket

 

[careyo63]

I've decided that I am going to build the sub frame back to the rear and add wheel weights. Then I'll probably destroy the bucket[/QUOTE]

:laughing: That would be just my luck also.

Carey

 

[deepNdirt]

I've decided that I am going to build the sub frame back to the rear and add wheel weights. Then I'll probably destroy the bucket

:laughing: That would be just my luck also.

Carey[/QUOTE]

Now that is a factor I haven't thought of
the many years of owning the old Kubota I never had a FEL on it, only a Box Scrape and you'd be surprised how much dirt can be moved with only a 4 ft Box scrape if you decide to give up on the FEL
but if like me I wanted a FEl for more purposes than to move heavy dirt and very seldom do I subject the loader to lift 4-500 lbs most the time only a couple hundred lbs,when you get to my age a FEL can become your strong back for if nothing else but to move a 50 lbs bag of sand.:thumbsup:

 

[winston1]

I purchased a little anti freeze today and am going to be filling my tires in the next few days. When my mission is accomplished and I have had a little opportunity to evaluate the outcome I will post my findings for what it is worth.

 

[Gary Sweat]

:laughing: That would be just my luck also.

Carey

Now that is a factor I haven't thought of
the many years of owning the old Kubota I never had a FEL on it, only a Box Scrape and you'd be surprised how much dirt can be moved with only a 4 ft Box scrape if you decide to give up on the FEL
but if like me I wanted a FEl for more purposes than to move heavy dirt and very seldom do I subject the loader to lift 4-500 lbs most the time only a couple hundred lbs,when you get to my age a FEL can become your strong back for if nothing else but to move a 50 lbs bag of sand.:thumbsup:[/QUOTE]

Well that's the way I look at it too. I'm afraid it will eventually make me lazy:laughing:

I've found already that between the box blade and the loader, I can move a lot of dirt pretty quickly. Break up the hard stuff with the BB and scoop it up with the loader:thumbsup:

 

[Gary Sweat]

I purchased a little anti freeze today and am going to be filling my tires in the next few days. When my mission is accomplished and I have had a little opportunity to evaluate the outcome I will post my findings for what it is worth.

I was thinking of going that route until yesterday. I was at the local garage where I get some car work done from time to time and there were two farmers there. When I mentioned about the weights vs filling, they both agreed that if you can put weights on then go that route. The tire guy there also said it's a pain in the rear for him to have to deal with filled tires. He also pointed out that he sees a lot of wheels with corrosion damage if it's not done right and then only do it if you have tubes in the tires.

So, I opted to go the weight route. I'm sure others will disagree but that is what I based my decision on. If I puncture one or just need to replace it, I will only have to drop the weights and take the tire to the shop. It will be a little easier to handle and I won't have to waste a day draining and refilling. I'm breaking the weights in to 3 pieces for each wheel which will make handling them a little easier since each will weigh about 33 lbs.