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

[tkevan]

Man, this thread made my head hurt.

The pictures should have stopped any discussion over to ballast or not for changing the loading percentages. As for actual weight on the front axle, and therefore actual damaging force, that's a little tougher for the stated reasons, additional OA weight, additional FEL loading, amount of counterbalance, ect. Moral, ballast with the weight the manufacturer recomends, attempt to lift no more than the manufacturer recommends. They pay engineers alot to determine how to keep us from breaking our tractors.

BTW, that Kubota broke because it's not a tractor, it's a lawnmower with a FEL, :laughing:

 

[AxleHub]

Tkevan,

You posted .. .. "They pay engineers alot to determine how to keep us from breaking our tractors."

Even more likely is: They pay engineers alot to determine how to keep us from using our warranty claim proces s

 

[zzvyb6]

I just know all yous honors graduates of 2nd grade guzintas class have omitted the manifestation of the weight of hydrolic fluid added to the lift sillinders when you is kickin the bucket up. That puts more wait on the front axel and could fail yore ballust box when it hits your role bar. Not to mention the heat of that fluid melting the seals in them sillinders.

1 guzinta 2 2 times
2 guzinta 4 2 times to.
3 guzinta 6 2 times as well.

So, you only need a caculator for large values of 2 ! Ain't that so? That's why there a 2 loader arms, 2 3pt hitch arms and only 1 bucket, 1 upper link and 1 seat ! Just think, a MMM can fail BOTH the front and rear axel ! So you need ballast at both ends of yore tracter.

Me myself, I drain the radiotor fluid out to get xtra bukkit capacity in my Deutz.

 

[rd_macgregor]

I just know all yous honors graduates of 2nd grade guzintas class have omitted the manifestation of the weight of hydrolic fluid added to the lift sillinders when you is kickin the bucket up. That puts more wait on the front axel and could fail yore ballust box when it hits your role bar. Not to mention the heat of that fluid melting the seals in them sillinders.

1 guzinta 2 2 times
2 guzinta 4 2 times to.
3 guzinta 6 2 times as well.

So, you only need a caculator for large values of 2 ! Ain't that so? That's why there a 2 loader arms, 2 3pt hitch arms and only 1 bucket, 1 upper link and 1 seat ! Just think, a MMM can fail BOTH the front and rear axel ! So you need ballast at both ends of yore tracter.

Me myself, I drain the radiotor fluid out to get xtra bukkit capacity in my Deutz.

That was exactly my point. You have just stated it much more clearly than I could. Thanks!

 

[BarnieTrk]

Hi Fellas,

Good discussion!

Just to compound this issue even more - and to spur on more discussion - I'm sure in calculating the maximum amount that could be lifted SAFETY by a given tractor & FEL or similar device, we probably also need to consider:

-- WHAT IS THE ACTUAL WEIGHT trying to be lifted. As I for one, do NOT have a way to scale/weigh the actual weight of a given 10-ft, 16-ft long X 16-inch or 26-inch diameter wood log (green or dead/dry), a pallet box (4ft x 4ft) of field stone, wet dirt versus dry dirt, etc. Knowing the actual weight is key to knowing whether or not a given load can be safety moved.

-- WHERE IS THE LOAD located on my tractor - is the load in the bucket, is it at the end of a pair of 4ft pallet forks, is it on the end of a single spear (round bale attachment), or extended out by a grapple, etc. The leverage extended by the placement of a given loads center of gravity is also a factor in knowing if it can be moved safety.

-- WHERE IS THE LOAD BEING MOVED TO, are you simply moving it across a flat barnyard, will you take it up hill, down hill, over rough, bumpy, and/or bouncy ground, etc. Moving a given load 35-ft within a building versus moving the same load up or down a rough hillside or down a 100-ft long, rough driveway would also be a deciding factor in this decision.


Please continue with this spirited discussion!

BarnieTrk :2cents:

 

[zzvyb6]

On my tractor (JD 1070 with loaded rear tires), the fuse in all the loader manipulations is the pressure relief valve in the stick. No matter where the load is placed relative to the cylinder attachments on the arms, the 'bending moment' from the load mass to the cylinder pin can never exceed the moment reacted by the maximum limited hydraulic pressure times cylinder push area times the perpendicular distance from the pin to the mounting hinge.

This is why you should match the loader to the tractor (weight, weight distribution, ballast, lift arm geometry, system pressure and cylinder force). People who game their configuration to juice their machinery have no excuses if they break the machine or themselves. Loaders, air compressors, injection volume, trailer springs etc. That's also why lawyers are so rich. The stupid ones won't admit responsibility in the face of ignorance.

 

[gladehound]

Hi Fellas,

Good discussion!

Just to compound this issue even more - and to spur on more discussion - I'm sure in calculating the maximum amount that could be lifted SAFETY by a given tractor & FEL or similar device, we probably also need to consider:

-- WHAT IS THE ACTUAL WEIGHT trying to be lifted. As I for one, do NOT have a way to scale/weigh the actual weight of a given 10-ft, 16-ft long X 16-inch or 26-inch diameter wood log (green or dead/dry), a pallet box (4ft x 4ft) of field stone, wet dirt versus dry dirt, etc. Knowing the actual weight is key to knowing whether or not a given load can be safety moved.

-- WHERE IS THE LOAD located on my tractor - is the load in the bucket, is it at the end of a pair of 4ft pallet forks, is it on the end of a single spear (round bale attachment), or extended out by a grapple, etc. The leverage extended by the placement of a given loads center of gravity is also a factor in knowing if it can be moved safety.

-- WHERE IS THE LOAD BEING MOVED TO, are you simply moving it across a flat barnyard, will you take it up hill, down hill, over rough, bumpy, and/or bouncy ground, etc. Moving a given load 35-ft within a building versus moving the same load up or down a rough hillside or down a 100-ft long, rough driveway would also be a deciding factor in this decision.


Please continue with this spirited discussion!

BarnieTrk :2cents:

The only reason we have to think this way is because many of these CUTs have under built front ends and frames compared to what they hydraulics are capable of. My previous example of the JD4100 with the ~1,100 max gross front axle weight in front proves that. Others aren't as bad.

I've had 10,000 pounds on my axle once but have no idea what it is rated for or what the safety factor is. However, 90+% of my loader work uses < 50% of my loader capacity. + I only put on 100 hrs a year and only half that is loader work. So I would doubt front axle wear will ever be a factor for me.

If anything, this whole discussion just supports what many suggest to new buyers and that is to get 1 or 2 tractor sizes bigger than they think they need. There is a difference in wear rate on a tractor that can do the work but is at it's design limits and one that is at half it's design limits.

When I had a 20hp tractor, I took it to it's limit every time I operated it. Now with a 45 hp tractor I find the limit a few times a year.

 

[ovrszd]

If anything, this whole discussion just supports what many suggest to new buyers and that is to get 1 or 2 tractor sizes bigger than they think they need. There is a difference in wear rate on a tractor that can do the work but is at it's design limits and one that is at half it's design limits.

When I had a 20hp tractor, I took it to it's limit every time I operated it. Now with a 45 hp tractor I find the limit a few times a year.

Very true. I overloaded my 44hp tractor to the point I got paranoid about it and sold it before it gave me any problems. Replaced it with 95hp tractor. I reach it's limit more than a few times a year but not nearly as often as before.

 

[k0ua]

The only reason we have to think this way is because many of these CUTs have under built front ends and frames compared to what they hydraulics are capable of. My previous example of the JD4100 with the ~1,100 max gross front axle weight in front proves that. Others aren't as bad.

I've had 10,000 pounds on my axle once but have no idea what it is rated for or what the safety factor is. However, 90+% of my loader work uses < 50% of my loader capacity. + I only put on 100 hrs a year and only half that is loader work. So I would doubt front axle wear will ever be a factor for me.

If anything, this whole discussion just supports what many suggest to new buyers and that is to get 1 or 2 tractor sizes bigger than they think they need. There is a difference in wear rate on a tractor that can do the work but is at it's design limits and one that is at half it's design limits.

When I had a 20hp tractor, I took it to it's limit every time I operated it. Now with a 45 hp tractor I find the limit a few times a year.

Very true. I overloaded my 44hp tractor to the point I got paranoid about it and sold it before it gave me any problems. Replaced it with 95hp tractor. I reach it's limit more than a few times a year but not nearly as often as before.

These are excellent points and worth repeating. This is usually true for any kind of machine. One that is stressed to near its breaking point all the time, is not liable to hold up as long as one that is not.

For firearms aficionados try firing +P ammo (maximum loads) in a firearm as a steady diet. Sure it takes it, and may be rated for it. But in a few thousand rounds. Check how things fit together. I bet there just might be some "looseness" in some of the components. Things do wear out, and the more stress you put on them, the faster they wear out.

 

[Industrial Toys]

People make a good point. There are tractors and there are tractors. Saving your front axle on a weakly built tractor may be a moot point. It is a disposable consumer offering like so much else these days. If it isn't the axle, it will be something else. In my way of thinking, this basic tractor design should never have had a FEL anyway. And before the popularity of FWD it made even less sense. Study the evolution of the tractor and all this becomes quite clear.