Whats with you guys and ballast boxes and rear weight implements.

[MtnViewRanch]

All I can say is that I have a 7300lb tractor with a loader that weighs 2000lbs, that will lift 3900lbs to full height. If I want to lift that 3900lbs comfortably, I need ballast of some kind. I have all my tires filled and have 864lbs of wheel weights. the tractor will lift maximum weight with that, BUT, if I want to move that weight any distance, it is waaaaay easier , safer and more comfortable to do it with a 1000lb rear implement attached on the 3pt. So to get the best performance from my tractor for lifting and traction purposes, it is usually in the 12,000lb plus range.

I also have a 32hp tractor, and that tractor by far does it's best work while ballasted. Not that it would not do the work without ballast, but again with it ballasted it does the work faster, safer and easier than if it was not.

Just my experiences with my tractors.

 

[LD1]

All I can say is that I have a 7300lb tractor with a 2000lb loader that will lift 3900lbs to full height. If I want to lift that 3900lbs comfortably, I need ballast of some kind. I have all my tires filled and have 864lbs of wheel weights. the tractor will lift maximum weight with that, BUT, if I want to move that weight any distance, it is waaaaay easier , safer and more comfortable to do it with a 1000lb rear implement attached on the 3pt. So to get the best performance from my tractor for lifting and traction purposes, it is usually in the 12,000lb plus range.

I also have a 32hp tractor, and that tractor by far does it's best work while ballasted. Not that it would not do the work without ballast, but again with it ballasted it does the work faster, safer and easier than if it was not.

Just my experiences with my tractors.

Well put.

I also have to add to some earlier posts about over-weighting the front axle.

Someone mentioned the MASSIVE 6100lb front axle rating on his tractor. But it is all relative to the sixe of the tractor.

See, his tractor weights in at 5300lbs. Probabally another 2000 for the loader. And then his loader probabally has the ability to lift near 3000lbs. Now we are at about 10k:confused2: And I highly have my doubts that that tractor can lift anywhere near its max without ballast or counterweight. But with some pallet forks or something, or hard digging at a stump, that tractor SHOULD easially be able to lift the rears if it has no ballast. And THAT WOULD go well over the 6100lb front rating:confused2: And it the tractor CANNOT lift an unballasted rear, there is something terribally wrong with the hydraulics on that machine. just my :2cents:

 

[North Country]

If the rears come off the ground equally, for me that's no so bad, (provided the loader is not fully raised )

JB

That's quite a balancing act. All your weight on the front pivot with *both* rears off the ground?

 

[North Country]

JD doesn't "demand" ballast to buy a tractor with a loader or there would be lawsuits galore over them selling a dangerous tractor. They don't sell tractors designed to overload the front axle either.

Sure they do. They sold hundreds of 2xxx series with just a FEL and a MMM. Put a full load of gravel or soil in the bucket, and you've overloaded the front axle instantly. Do people do it every day? Sure. Does it shorten the lifespan of the front axle & bearings? I don't see how it can't.

 

[Marveltone]

C'mon! The OP didn't criticize anybody. He just said he didn't use ballast and didn't understand those who said it was necessary. The only person I see criticized in this thread is the OP.

I think people were reacting to the perceived tone of the OP's post. "Whats with you guys and ballast boxes and rear weight implements" can have a mocking or condescending tone to it, or it could merely be an honest question. Much inflection is often lost in text-only conversations.

Surely we can explain our usage and experiences without being criticized or accused of criticizing someone else.

Agreed! :thumbsup:

If the OP is happy without ballast, then my response to him is excellent! You obviously have lots of tractors and experience.:thumbsup: I have ballast and think I need it because my tractor is much more stable since I added fluid ballast to the tires. I also keep an implement on the 3PH when doing loader work.

Once again, agreed! Most of us here are dealing with much smaller tractors than the OP. These machines, while resembling their larger kin in many aspects do tend to be much more sensitive to the loads and implements they are dealing with on a daily basis.

I'll shut up now.

Joe

 

[crash325]

I'm a firm believer in "Useful" ballast. Keep my back hoe on 98.3% of the time. Several advantages to using a BH. At times I have picked up a large rock for more weight. When crossing a side slope, BH can be turned to the up hill side. A foot put down on the low side just in case.

I hate filled tires, but that is a whole nother story. :laughing:

 

[jinman]

I think people were reacting to the perceived tone of the OP's post. "Whats with you guys and ballast boxes and rear weight implements" can have a mocking or condescending tone to it, or it could merely be an honest question. Much inflection is often lost in text-only conversations.

Well, it's not quite the affront that one poster did in another thread. His thread was titled, "Where are the real tractors?" or something very similar. I refuse to post to a thread like that or to defend the OP. In this case, the "What's with you guys. . ." is a bit smirky, but not to an excessive level in my opinion. It just shows that from his experience, he feels his tractor doesn't require ballast and is surprised that so many here feel it is needed. I'm one of those who feels certain that my tractor needs ballast, especially with a heavy load on the FEL and going downhill. With that, I want ballast and 4wd engaged so I have front brakes.

 

[mjncad]

But catch a corner of the bucket on an unmovable object or get a very uneven load in the bucket, and you get that feeling that the machine wants to lay over on it's side cause one rear is coming off the ground.
That is a very unstable situation and I'm sure that could happen to OPs machine as well, considering it's lift capabilities.

JB

I had something along this line happen to me last year; hence my comment about bung-hole pucker. Dropped the bucket, and all was well. The cause in my case was inadequate rear ballast, a slight side-slope, and a swinging load on the bucket.

 

[Chilly807]

I'm not being sarcastic here, but can someone explain how adding rear weight (ballast) actually reduces the load on the front axle?

With an un-ballasted rear end, the loader (if it has high enough lift capacity) can simply pivot the whole tractor around the front axle. The stress on the front axle is limited to how much tractor weight is behind the axle.

To my way of thinking, when you add rear ballast you increase the weight behind the front axle, and you increase the load on the front axle (provided the loader has more capacity than is required to lift the tractor before you added ballast).

Am I missing something here?

PS.. I have loaded rear tires and wouldn't be without them. I simply don't have enough tractor weight without them for either traction or loader work.


Sean

 

[Captain Ned]

I'm not being sarcastic here, but can someone explain how adding rear weight (ballast) actually reduces the load on the front axle?

Simple. Hanging weight off the stern moves the center of gravity aft. Think of a truck pulling a trailer with too much weight on the tongue. What happens? Yep, butt down and nose high.