Do I have a "real" problem ?

[arrow]

On guidance from another source I checked the listed factory specs between the the Solideal and the original Titan R4s.

It seems the diameter is less than 5/8 different i.e. 30.9 vs 30.3"

The original R4 that I replaced must be very worn compared to new.

I also found out from the original dealer that the T1530 started out as a lease vehicle in a nursery pulling wagons around. Could be the bulk of the 360 hours were on a roadway.

The data listed for original front tire size for R4's on this tractor are 25x8.50x14 which are 24.9 inches in diameter. The rears are listed as 15.9 industrials which are 40.4". If you have over 30" tires now on the fronts while keeping the rears the same, that is quite the increase in ratio.

The math is as follows: 40.4x3.14= 127" rolling circumference. 24.9x3.14=78" rc. 78 divided by 127 =.61 ratio for original factory tire installation.

For 31" tire: 31x3.14=97.3 rc. 97.3 div. 127 = .76 ratio. which is way more than the advised 2% plus or minus increase.

Of course all this being contingent on the actual rear tires that are on the tractor now being the original industrials from the factory.

 

[vtsnowedin]

The data listed for original front tire size for R4's on this tractor are 25x8.50x14 which are 24.9 inches in diameter. .

HUH? a tire that has a 25" rim size has a -0.1 inch sidewall? I don't think so.

 

[SARG]

The R4 tire size on the T1530 for 2012 was 10-16.5. At least that's what the manual says.

 

[arrow]

HUH? a tire that has a 25" rim size has a -0.1 inch sidewall? I don't think so.

I wouldn't think so either. The rim size is 14" however. Doesn't much matter as the tire listings at "Tractor Data" are incorrect. Needs to be figured again with the correct sizes.

 

[arrow]

The R4 tire size on the T1530 for 2012 was 10-16.5. At least that's what the manual says.

So much for the "tractor data link:TractorData.com New Holland T1530 tractor dimensions information Thought these tires listed were too small for an over 3000# tractor.
The rears apparently are listed incorrectly was well. If you give them to me we'll figure it out again. Sorry.

 

[SARG]

Many sites I've looked at have the T1510 -T1520 data mixed up with the T1530 info -- the T1530 is a MUCH bigger frame size.

 

[arrow]

Many sites I've looked at have the T1510 -T1520 data mixed up with the T1530 info -- the T1530 is a MUCH bigger frame size.

Those rears look at least 14.9 x24's or perhaps larger. Far from the size rear R4's listed on the site.

 

[SARG]

What the manual states & what is actually on the machine:

Front = 10 x 16.5
Rear = 17.5 x 24

I was cutting about 7 acres with the small machine & a 4' rotary. My kidneys approved the purchase of the larger tires and 6' Woods cutter.

 

[PILOON]

My understanding is that the fronts are smaller because they wear faster than the larger rears and that generally the rears work harder and carry more weight thus allowing the small front to slip somewhat.

This is supported by the fact that majority of tractor implements mount on rear.

About the only exception is the FEL installations but even that is probably (in most cases) a rather small % of usage.

The front (generally) being lighter will slip more easily than the heavy loaded rear and so escapes damage.
Once the smaller front has worn down it will then lose its 'lead' and rotate at the same as the rear.

Another phenomenon will be that the largest powered tire will wear itself faster until it matches its mate as while uneven it will get all the power transmitted to it.

I venture to say that most tractors sport smaller fronts mainly because steering is lighter and easier and really don't work all that hard.
Fact is fronts are 'helpers', just that little bit more that gets you (usually) out of a bind.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Another phenomenon will be that the largest powered tire will wear itself faster until it matches its mate as while uneven it will get all the power transmitted to it.

I venture to say that most tractors sport smaller fronts mainly because steering is lighter and easier and really don't work all that hard.
Fact is fronts are 'helpers', just that little bit more that gets you (usually) out of a bind.

Wrong.
,,,Equal torque will be delivered to each axle on an open differential. The consequence of this is that the tire turning faster will be transmitting more than 1/2 the power.

As to fronts, I think smaller ones are used because bigger ones get in the way in most tractor usage.
larry

 

[vtsnowedin]

About the only exception is the FEL installations but even that is probably (in most cases) a rather small % of usage.

.

Can we assume you have never had a tractor with a loader on it?

 

[PILOON]

Can we assume you have never had a tractor with a loader on it?

No, I have a loader and I do use it a lot., in fact more often as a skid steer.
I have loaded rears plus ballast and have had to rebuild my front differential.
Only in winter will my front relax.

I was thinking more of a farming style operation (which most tractors are designed for) where days on end are tilling, haying or mowing.
Where majority of work is loading or excavating other than Cuts or farm tractors are used.
I.E. Michigan loader, Deere industrial, etc. Generally those sport much bigger front tires, usually same size as the rears.

 

[vtsnowedin]

No, I have a loader and I do use it a lot., in fact more often as a skid steer.
I have loaded rears plus ballast and have had to rebuild my front differential.
Only in winter will my front relax.

I was thinking more of a farming style operation (which most tractors are designed for) where days on end are tilling, haying or mowing.
Where majority of work is loading or excavating other than Cuts or farm tractors are used.
I.E. Michigan loader, Deere industrial, etc. Generally those sport much bigger front tires, usually same size as the rears.

Modern haying with large bales uses loaders a lot and where I am plowing and disking includes picking rocks and every trip into the woods seems to require some loader work and then I plow snow with a loader mounted plow so I'm up around 70 percent loader use. Physics say the front tires should be at least equal to the rears if your designing for the loader as the primary function but it causes visibility issues so we have a compromise. Notice how front tires have evolved from the narrow tricycle front ends of the early row crop 2WD tractors to the much wider and taller of the modern 4WD. Realizing that there is a compromise going on there and keeping the right weight on the counter weight is your best defense for your over worked front axle.

 

[arrow]

On guidance from another source I checked the listed factory specs between the the Solideal and the original Titan R4s.

It seems the diameter is less than 5/8 different i.e. 30.9 vs 30.3"


y.

Sarg, these dimensions in itself are just around 2%. If what manufacturers say about percentage deviation are accurate (and why wouldn't they be? ), you're absolutely fine.

 

[Highland]

Short answer, check with your dealer and local ag tire supplier a good one can save you thousands and hours of repair time down the road. I would be quite concerned about the different sized tires on the same axle, that is a recipe for several day job yourself replacing parts and they are NOT cheap. Long answer, this situation is a mathematicians dream. You situation is the difference or the deviation either a lead or lag. This means that if the tires are rotating more in the front than the rear, it is a lead situation which is what we want, to a point. That being said, too much lead gives you excessive tire wear. If there is a lag situation, it means that the front tires are being pushed by the back tires and this is a bad situation. This damages the gears in the MFWD prematurely by making the front of the tractor 途esist the back end of the tractor too much. While in 2wd this does not matter as much as the MFWD is not engaged. When the tractor is in 4wd both axles are trying to work together with an acceptable amount of tolerance difference so that one doesn稚 over work or over power the other. Lead/lag ratio formula: ((RCfront x 1.32308)-RCrear)/RCrearRC front = Rolling circumference front tire RC rear = Rolling circumference rear tire Very rough guideline -2 to+5% is OK, as long as you are not too tied into the ground for example, dry concrete. If you do not have access to dealers or tire suppliers, try this-the test requires the machine to roll or move 10 full revolutions of the rear tires while counting the amount of rotations of the front tire. In order to do this there are marks put on the tires all the way around in order to count revolutions as well as incremental rotations. This is done in 2wd as well as 4wd and then compared. From that calculate your rolling circumference of your front and rear tires.

I had too change the tires on one of my tractors as well. Here is what I got from Firestone via email -No amount of lag is acceptable to the tire...some lag is acceptable to the tractor...excessive lead or lag is not acceptable to the tractor.

We recommend no lag and up to 5% lead as acceptable for tire wear. If lag occurs, it's like applying brakes to the front tires, it causes rapid tire wear.

Check with your manufacturer of your machine to see the limits set forth by them. It will keep your drive train happy. Splitting a tractor to fix a trans is never a short/cheap day.