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

[AxleHub]

I did a small scale test using a toy loader and a kitchen scale. Let's pretend the lift capacity of the loader is 1 pound.

Machine weight with no ballast 17.1 oz
Front axel weight with no ballast 10.3 oz
Front axel weight with bucket loaded to tipping load with no ballast 27.1 oz
Tipping load was 9.2 oz. this is pretty accurate since most tractors will tip before maximum load is reached.
Now I added 11 oz of ballast.
New front axel weight 4 oz.
weight of front axel with previous tipping load 21 oz.
Here is the problem, I can now lift much more.
Weight of front axel with 1 pound load 34 oz.
weight of front axle with the ballasted tipping load 70.oz
Weight of tipping load 41 oz.

View attachment 458071



View attachment 458072



View attachment 458073

Greetings 4570,

I have to say I certainly found your example clever in its humor and educational in its message.

 

[LD1]

Greetings 4570,

I have to say I certainly found your example clever in its humor and educational in its message.

Does that mean you are understanding now? or do you still incorrectly maintain that added weight behind the rear axle doesnt take weight off the front axle?

 

[murphy1244]

No. Its wrong because we a re not talking a static condition. Enuf has been said about the greater front loading possible with rear ballast that it should have been called to your attention as obvious. If you use your loader lightly, counterweight will reduce front load. If you use your loader to capacity pushing and lifting, then rear ballast and counterweight will enable much more weight on the front axle -- up to the combined weight of the entire tractor, its ballast and counterweight, and the load supported on the loader. The tractor will move but not travel in this condition because the rear wheels are skimming and you cant steer. If you use the loader a little lighter duty youre able to steer and travel as needed with about 90% of all combined weight on the front axle.

What in what I said is wrong?

 

[AxleHub]

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

And 4570 your second effort was even better. Debate of viewpoints is always a challenge of varying methods of communication. I think you were quite successful in the exchange of viewpoints.

But even more . . . you didn't stray into unsafe examples merely to attempt a weak point.

And by your very examples you also showed just how much weight at a short leverage would be required to effect the longer leg on the front . . thus demonstrating the OP's original post as well.

Well done demonstrating ground pressure. In a visual manner with humorvand skill. You have a teacher's talent.

 

[rd_macgregor]

And what he described could actually cause a load on the FEL that is way beyond it's rated capacity because the FEL can't go down while driving forward into a tree if the bucket is higher than where the loader connects to the tractor.

RD, when you broke your front axle how high was your bucket on the tree. If too high, hydraulic relief wont limit the weight that can be transferred to the font axle.

In both cases, I had initially pushed the tree over part way as you described. Then, I was pushing closer to the roots to try and pry the root ball out. As for ballast, in addition to loaded rears, I also had a weighted box blade one time and a Wallenstein BX62 on the 3PH the other time. Pushing forward like that, with the FEL bucket essentially anchored in a tree, leverages the forward vector of the tractor into additional weight on the front axles...the final straw [I suspect] would be having the front tires turned, even slightly. Even a slight turn of the wheels with that much force on them would be (was!) enough to fracture the bevel gear housing (this is my working hypothesis of what happened, anyway).

That is a fairly major field repair job (there was no way to retrieve the tractor from where it broke down, either time, but we were able to drive within maybe 30 yds of it with a 4WD pickup truck); I am blessed with an accomodating mechanic!

My wife doesn't even want me to use the tractor in the woods anymore, since the down time interfered with some of her uses...but what's the point of having it if you can't use it? I may need to get a second, smaller tractor for her to do her horse chores with while I play in the woods and fields...

 

[AxleHub]

Does that mean you are understanding now? or do you still incorrectly maintain that added weight behind the rear axle doesnt take weight off the front axle?

Greetings LD1, what it means is that a debate of viewpoints is a non-emotional effort to better communicate. I admitted in my original post that I was confused by the statements made prior to my 1st post and then established why. It also means that 4570 was very skillful in recognizing a need for visual instead of theoretical reasoning.

You used in this post that I was "incorrectly maintain" something while others claimed my need for "movement" was not valid or even required.

But 4570 in his second example skillfully demonstrated that movement was needed . . But that great force was required to create slight but important movement . . thus altering ground pressure . . a term never used until much much later after 4570's communications.

You asked if i am now understanding . . and my answer is yes . . because someone properly showed there was movement of the lever because ground "contact" is a variable. 4570 also showed just how much weight would potentially be needed on the short side of the lever (rear axle to 3 pt ballast) to create any measurable impact on the long side of the lever (rear axle to front of fel bucket).

I'm certain had you been around during the short debate . . that you would have recognized the need as 4570 did.

I also noticed a couple posters used words like "argue" which often implies emotion or rididity. I can't speak for others . . but you likely noticed mine reflect a willingness to communicate and listen to others points of view as long as unsafe operation is not acceptable . . and 4570 had some good points made


Just so no one misses my response to your posted question ive repeated it again here: "You asked if i am now understanding . . and my answer is yes . . because someone properly showed there was movement of the lever because ground "contact" is a variable. "

 

[jenkinsph]

Does that mean you are understanding now? or do you still incorrectly maintain that added weight behind the rear axle doesnt take weight off the front axle?

That is funny.:laughing:

 

[LD1]

Greetings LD1, what it means is that a debate of viewpoints is a non-emotional effort to better communicate. I admitted in my original post that I was confused by the statements made prior to my 1st post and then established why. It also means that 4570 was very skillful in recognizing a need for visual instead of theoretical reasoning.

You used in this post that I was "incorrectly maintain" something while others claimed my need for "movement" was not valid or even required.

But 4570 in his second example skillfully demonstrated that movement was needed . . But that great force was required to create slight but important movement . . thus altering ground pressure . . a term never used until much much later after 4570's communications.

You asked if i am now understanding . . and my answer is yes . . because someone properly showed there was movement of the lever because ground "contact" is a variable. 4570 also showed just how much weight would potentially be needed on the short side of the lever (rear axle to 3 pt ballast) to create any measurable impact on the long side of the lever (rear axle to front of fel bucket).

I'm certain had you been around during the short debate . . that you would have recognized the need as 4570 did.

I also noticed a couple posters used words like "argue" which often implies emotion or rididity. I can't speak for others . . but you likely noticed mine reflect a willingness to communicate and listen to others points of view as long as unsafe operation is not acceptable . . and 4570 had some good points made


Just so no one misses my response to your posted question ive repeated it again here: "You asked if i am now understanding . . and my answer is yes . . because someone properly showed there was movement of the lever because ground "contact" is a variable. "

A simple "yea I understand now" would have been sufficient, instead of a bunch of elegant paragraphs to summarize you were wrong before and stand corrected.:thumbsup:

I am glad you got it:thumbsup:

 

[AxleHub]

A simple "yea I understand now" would have been sufficient, instead of a bunch of elegant paragraphs to summarize you were wrong before and stand corrected.:thumbsup:

I am glad you got it:thumbsup:

LD1,

"elegant paragraphs" . . I'll take that as a compliment

My point would be . . if I didn't include an explanation of "why I got it" . . then how would you or other readers understand why 4570 did such a good job of communicating while others missed the trigger points ? I believe learning is a never ending need for all of us .

 

[CobyRupert]

Does that mean you are understanding now? or do you still incorrectly maintain that added weight behind the rear axle doesnt take weight off the front axle?

Rear ballast certainly takes weight off the front axle. But do you admit rear ballast also adds weight to the front axle (defined by: it enables you to load the front axle to much more than it would otherwise see)? Which gets us back to the OP's original post.
I think it's hard for people to wrap their head around (or communicate) this contradiction.