OK guys today was weight day to determine necessity for rear counterbalance

[foreman Etexas]

Mine is a 74" it covers tracks,I will measure outside width of tires today.

 

[LD1]

I like my rear counterbalance weight to be at the rear tires.

At the rear tires, it wouldnt be called counterweight. Cause you arent countering anything. behind the axle for it to be counterweight. At the tires, just plain old ballast.

I would think You can get away with it more than most, because of the shear size of your tractor.

I think thats alot of it. You sure wouldnt have much success without counterweight on a sub-50HP tractor,

I'm was planning on putting fluid in the rear tires but haven't decided what type of ant-freeze to use. After yesterday's weigh-in I know I'm going to fill rear tires. I will load them myself as I see no reason to pay someone to supervise what I've done several times in the past. I leaning toward windshield wiper fluid or bio-deg antifreeze.

Just so you know, the tire ballast wont effect your front axle weights. Only weight BEHIND the tires will. So if you had loaded tires, the results of front axle weight would have been identical.

 

[ovrszd]

We will agree to disagree then.

I would think You can get away with it more than most, because of the shear size of your tractor.

If my methods are causing unnecessary wear, it isn't any worse or better dependent on tractor size. That's the point I was making when referencing different sized tractors having different sized loaders with different lift capacities. They are all matched to fit the tractor's ability to handle it.

When you max out the lifting capacity of the loader on your L3750 or L3800 you are getting just as close to the maximum weight carrying capacity of your tractors as I am of mine.

Rear counterbalance weight should be used to maximize safety if needed at all. When used caution should be taken in regards to making the front axle dangerously light when going up a steep grade with nothing in the loader bucket.

 

[ovrszd]

I think the issue here is we are talking about two different things.

So ask yourself this question, why do I carry weight on the rear of the tractor??

If the answer is to make the tractor more stable when carrying a load with the FEL, then it doesn't matter where you put the weight because it's all counterbalance. This is because the fulcrum point is the front tires. Yes, the farther this weight is carried from the front axle the more effective it will be because EVERY pound of weight that is rearward of the front axle is counterbalance weight.

If the answer is to take weight off the front axle of the tractor when carrying a load with the FEL, AND, when not carrying a load with the FEL. To have this effect the weight must be added behind the rear axle. This is because the fulcrum point you are concerned about is now the rear tires. Yes, the more weight that is carried by the 3pt, the more weight reduction is created on the front axle. Loads the crap outta the rear axle. But takes weight off the front axle. Dangerous side effect is making the front of the tractor light when the FEL is unloaded.

If I'm considering weight on a SCUT that doubles as a lawn mower then I am more inclined to add weight that can be removed such as 3pt weight.

If I'm considering weight on a CUT or Utility tractor that does not do cosmetic lawn work then I want it to be more permanent because I likely need it more often. In my case daily. My M series tractor has nothing to do with this concept. It has to do with what type of work I do. I felt the same way about weight on my previous L series tractor.

For the OP, who is carrying big bales often, he needs weight that stays with the tractor so he doesn't fear an unstable situation if he sits down either bale of hay.

 

[Tx Jim]

Just so you know, the tire ballast wont effect your front axle weights. Only weight BEHIND the tires will. So if you had loaded tires, the results of front axle weight would have been identical.

May I ask where you are getting you facts to prove that "rear wheel weighting" won't have a very similar affect as weight on the 3 pt in lessening load on frt axle? Granted the further behind the rear axle the more the weight will affect the weight transfer. When weighing ft axle the frt tires(axle) is the fulcrum point not the rear tires(axle).

 

[k0ua]

May I ask where you are getting you facts to prove that "rear wheel weighting" won't have a very similar affect as weight on the 3 pt in lessening load on frt axle? Granted the further behind the rear axle the more the weight will affect the weight transfer. When weighing ft axle the frt tires(axle) is the fulcrum point not the rear tires(axle).

Trust me Jim or better yet put iron ballast on the wheels or "load the tires" with fluid and repeat your weight measurements. Neither methods of adding weight will "unload" your front axle the slightest bit. You must have weight on the 3pt to "unload" or decrease the weight on the front axle. Tire ballast wont do it. Tire ballast is great for increasing stability and keeping the rear end from lifting when a heavy load is in the loader, but it will not decrease the load on the front axle because it is pressing on the ground straight down, and there is no lever arm to "lever up" the front axle to decrease the strain on it.. Trust me. Just as we proved to you that weight on the 3pt actually did decrease the weight on the front axle. We can prove to you, (or you can prove to yourself) that adding tire ballast or wheel ballast will not do a thing for decreasing the load on your front axle or tires.. This "proof" will be a bit more time consuming and costly than sticking on a hay bale though

James K0UA

 

[Bluegill2]

May I ask where you are getting you facts to prove that "rear wheel weighting" won't have a very similar affect as weight on the 3 pt in lessening load on frt axle? Granted the further behind the rear axle the more the weight will affect the weight transfer. When weighing ft axle the frt tires(axle) is the fulcrum point not the rear tires(axle).

Jim, the rear tires are sitting on the ground. No amount of extra weight in the tires is going to change the weight on the front axle. But it will add more weight to the front axle if enough weight is added to the loader.

 

[Bluegill2]

If my methods are causing unnecessary wear, it isn't any worse or better dependent on tractor size. That's the point I was making when referencing different sized tractors having different sized loaders with different lift capacities. They are all matched to fit the tractor's ability to handle it.

When you max out the lifting capacity of the loader on your L3750 or L3800 you are getting just as close to the maximum weight carrying capacity of your tractors as I am of mine.

Rear counterbalance weight should be used to maximize safety if needed at all. When used caution should be taken in regards to making the front axle dangerously light when going up a steep grade with nothing in the loader bucket.

Yes Richard, using a loader with no ballast on the 3 pt is causing more wear on the front axle components.

Big or small tractor doesn't matter. But a larger tractor seems to handle it better. Our old L3750 is 1300 lbs heavier than our L3800 and it isn't as noticeable. After many years of loader work with the L3750 and no 3pt ballast I had to rebuild the front end. It was a costly mess!

3pt ballast should not be heavy enough to make the front too lite. There needs to be a balance there.

 

[Bluegill2]

We don't want the fulcrum point to be the front axle, we want it to be the back axle. Compare the size of the two axles and the wheels tires. Also the front tire have to steer...

 

[LD1]

We don't want the fulcrum point to be the front axle, we want it to be the back axle. Compare the size of the two axles and the wheels tires. Also the front tire have to steer...

Bingo.