You need balast or you will trash your front axle!!!! really?

[gladehound]

One more attempt to simplify. The basis of my opinion is the definition of how leverage and pulleys and levers work. Its about distance and movement combined to alter weight locations. But if all 4 wheels and both axles are in ground contact . . . Movement doesnt exist . . and without movement, levers and fulcrums and pulleys can't work.

Jmho. . . . I'll let others present their side.

Others have presented their side over, and over and in different ways. I strongly suggest that you get a toy tractor loader and do your own experiments with a small scale so you can see what's happening. At this point, I think that is the only way you are going to understand.

I can explain it for you. But I can't understand it for you. Good luck!

 

[gladehound]

without movement, levers and fulcrums and pulleys can't work.

The quoted statement is false. Your belief in this statement may be why you're struggling to get this.

 

[s219]

One more attempt to simplify. The basis of my opinion is the definition of how leverage and pulleys and levers work. Its about distance and movement combined to alter weight locations. But if all 4 wheels and both axles are in ground contact . . . Movement doesnt exist . . and without movement, levers and fulcrums and pulleys can't work.

Jmho. . . . I'll let others present their side.

Sum of Forces = Mass*Acceleration. When there is no acceleration (which means constant velocity, including zero velocity) then the sum of forces equals zero. You can have any combination or forces but they have to add to zero.

There is a similar law for angular momentum, and when something is rotating at constant speed (including zero speed) the sum of all moments (leverages) must equal zero. You can have any combination of moments but they have to add to zero.

In both cases, movement or motion has nothing to do with it.

Let's say you use the back of a hammer to try and pull out a stubborn nail. So stubborn that you pull with all your might but the nail doesn't budge. You will eventually turn red in the face from exertion, and obviously you are exerting a force and a leverage. But the nail is stuck enough to react and cancel out your efforts. Nothing is moving, there is zero motion but you are clearly exerting force and leverage. If you think you're not, just hang out like that indefinitely and I bet you will change your mind.

Bottom line, forces and moments can be applied with or without motion. This is all high school physics BTW. I won't fault you for forgetting some HS physics, but it's not something you should be arguing about.

 

[4570Man]

Here is a simpler experiment. The fulcrum over the scale represents the front axel.

In this picture the load is close to balanced with 107 oz over the front axel.



Now without moving either fulcrum or reducing the front load I can reduce the load over the scale to .9 oz.



The problem comes in is now I can stack way more weight in the front bucket without changing the fulcrum or changing the rear load I pegged the 10 pound scale.

 

[gladehound]

Here is a simpler experiment. The fulcrum over the scale represents the front axel.

In this picture the load is close to balanced with 107 oz over the front axel.

View attachment 458079

Now without moving either fulcrum or reducing the front load I can reduce the load over the scale to .9 oz.

View attachment 458080

The problem comes in is now I can stack way more weight in the front bucket without changing the fulcrum or changing the rear load I pegged the 10 pound scale.

View attachment 458081

Hard to trump an empirical demonstration like that. Very nice!

 

[k0ua]

Here is a simpler experiment. The fulcrum over the scale represents the front axel.

In this picture the load is close to balanced with 107 oz over the front axel.

View attachment 458079

Now without moving either fulcrum or reducing the front load I can reduce the load over the scale to .9 oz.

View attachment 458080

The problem comes in is now I can stack way more weight in the front bucket without changing the fulcrum or changing the rear load I pegged the 10 pound scale.

View attachment 458081

Well, there you go. If he don't get it after seeing this, he is never going to get it.

 

[murphy1244]

Well, there you go. If he don't get it after seeing this, he is never going to get it.

Remember getting Richard on board? He is the one to use the scales. Took me a bit too.

 

[k0ua]

Remember getting Richard on board? He is the one to use the scales. Took me a bit too.

And there was a heated discussion about 3 years ago too. I can't remember who all was in on that one. But some scales whether with a tractor model or even a big set of scales and actually weigh the tractor is what it takes for some guys.

 

[davesl708]

Well there are people who still believe the earth is flat. Better known as the Flat Earth Society.

 

[gladehound]

So now getting back on topic - this thread was never supposed to be about the physics of ballast. I actually assumed that everyone was on the same page with the general principles.

I still want to know if anyone has actually "trashed" a front axle, or had premature wear issues, from running too little ballast on the 3pt?

We have one broken axle example so far but that sounds like ballast on the 3pt might not help if you decide to wedge the front end between the earth and a tree trunk and keep driving forward.

(That example would actually be fun to talk about in terms of physics because I can see how several multiples of the tractor's actual weight could be applied to the front axle.)