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

[npalen]

I'm getting a headache!

 

[LD1]

I'm not sure why you think I didn't admit I was incorrect.

Are you debating I didn't recognize my error when I stated it twice in the same post?

Because after about 4 posts you still DIDNT admit that you were incorrect or wrong. You simply answered "yes I understand" to my question. And continued to ramble about why you thinking the way you were (incorrectly), and made some long winded references as to what/how you have learned.

Like I said, A simple "yea, I understand now" or "I was wrong guys, thinks for straightening me out" would have been sufficient.

Glade, its my understanding that if the tires didn't squat and there was no "give" in the luft arms ir frame . . that ground pressure would rise on the rear axle and reduce on thw front axle and that would cause the fel to lift some and the 3pt hitch pins to lower some . . Creating a smaller movement than if each side of the lever was the same length. Thus it supports your initial concept that with a very short distance of rear axle to 3pt lift arm pins and a very long distance from rear axle to fel front . . it takes a big difference in rear ballast for a smaller change in in front axle pressure. I also assume the tip of the fel bucket front edge moves upward more than does the 3 pt. Pins move downward in measurement

It doesnt have to be rubber tires with squat. IT could have solid steel wheels that dont move a but and the principal of weight transfer still applies.

You load up one end with weight that is beyond the pivot point (axle) weight tranfers because you have created a lever, not because tires squat a little.

 

[Luke'sScreenName]

This may need to be refined but...

View attachment 458196

What? Doesn't everyone love graphs as much as I do? :confused3:

 

[ovrszd]

I'm getting a headache!

Me too.

Since my name has been mentioned several times I would love to jump into this fray. But I'm still trying to rebound from being called the dumbest human on this planet yesterday by Coyote Machine. So I'll just crawl back into my cave......

For my beliefs, see post #76 on page #8 made by Spyderlink.

 

[jenkinsph]

Very entertaining thread.

 

[CalG]

The simple reality: (well, not really simple ;-)

The entire mass of the tractor and any load, ballast and counter weight will be divided between front and rear axles, in some proportion between 0 and 100 %, and summing to 100%.

Any mass added to the tractor in front of the front axle will add load to the front axle in magnitude proportional to it's position and will include the weight transferred OFF the rear axle. And vice versa at the rear axle. The bucket of a FEL is a typical example of the former.

Any mass added to the tractor behind the front axle as far as the rear axle, will act to INCREASE the load carrying capacity of a FEL insofar as NOT lifting the rear wheels off the ground by loads attached ahead of the front axle is the concerned. Such added weight can be termed "BALLAST". This includes adding ballast to the tires etc. The total load carried by both axles will be INCREASED for all loadings of a FEL over the same conditions without the added weight. Note Well, That adding ballast to tires can only INCREASE any strain on the front axle due to loads in the FEL, or other front mounted equipment.

Any MASS added behind the plane of the rear axle will act to counter the weight or force carried on the front axle. This additional mass may be termed "counter balance", and includes 3pt implements, carry-alls and dedicated weight boxes etc. Such weight will add to the load carried on the rear axle by both the mass of the counterbalance AND the weight transferred off the front axle.
Simply, weight added behind the rear axle counter balances weight ahead of the rear axle. The front axle must be considered on it's own!

But don't forget:

All the weight carried by the tractor will be shared between the front and rear axles. (There truly is NO FREE LUNCH!)
If there is sufficient weight, mass, inertia, or momentum to tip the system about either axle, the entire load will be carried by the other axle. Wheelie due to sudden start off, high pull load, sudden STOP, even a bump or dip.

The "static" condition assumes an "acceleration" of one gravity. The dynamic situation, that is moving loads could easily approach 4-5 times that acceleration. (bump or dip) And thus the apparent load on either axle.

The extreme case of static loading the front axle with the combined weight of tractor, load, ballast and counter balance could be limited through hydraulic relief to some degree,(think break out force) but the dynamic loading will remain uncontrolled. So no guarantee there.

Finally, There is a thread on the forum elsewhere of a front axle failure without a fully understood cause. The poster described conditions of carrying loaded buckets of gravel in the FEL.
My sentiment would be that if sufficient counter balance were being carried to result in a front axle loading equal to an empty bucket, the failure would have been prevented . Of course I have no idea how rapidly the material transfer operation was being conducted, and can not know the G loads experienced.

Same as others, just different words. And most of it can be understood while the tractor is just standing in the yard. Even if the dynamic condition is likely the straw that breaks the camel's back. (So that 10% margin of the original post now becomes 50% due to inertia loads from things carried in the bucket.)

Oh well, stuff breaks...;-)

 

[4570Man]

What difference does tire squat make? I could remove the counter weight from my forklift ( way too much trouble since it weighs a couple of ton ) and pick up a 1 ton load on the forks. It should be able to lift this load without a counterweight and then weigh the front axel. Now I put the counterweight back on, lift the same 1 ton load and weigh the front axel again. At which test is there going to be less weight on the front axel? The forklift has small solid tires so tire squat will be extremely minimal.

 

[CalG]

What difference does tire squat make? I could remove the counter weight from my forklift ( way too much trouble since it weighs a couple of ton ) and pick up a 1 ton load on the forks. It should be able to lift this load without a counterweight and then weigh the front axel. Now I put the counterweight back on, lift the same 1 ton load and weigh the front axel again. At which test is there going to be less weight on the front axel? The forklift has small solid tires so tire squat will be extremely minimal.

Squat means "squat". ahh, err... nothing to this conversation....;-)

regarding your forklift, it's likely that adding the counterweight takes some load off the front axle and adds to the rear axle load.

 

[4570Man]

Squat means "squat". ahh, err... nothing to this conversation....;-) regarding your forklift, it's likely that adding the counterweight takes some load off the front axle and adds to the rear axle load.

It certainly does, but the counter weight is factory. In this situation the counter weight would make very little difference to the front axle since it rides very close to the rear axle. With no load on forks the rear axle is carrying nearly double what the front axle is. According to the chart on the side there is still 2,600 pounds on the rear axle with rated capacity on the forks and 15,000 pounds on the front axel with rated capacity on the forks. Now that how much that is when those solid wheels hit a bump.

 

[Snowback]

I think the key to making sure you don't trash your front axle is to use THIS much counter balance...