Tires A physics question of leverage

[N2DFire]

There are two different stories goin on in this thread:

Story 1. Is comparing impacts of adjusting rims to increase width of rear wheels stance VS. Using spacers. Story 1 was not contested to speak of becayse itvwas virtually the same impact.

Story 2. Is not story 1. Story 2 quickly developed because some said to do both instead of 1 or the other. That's when instarted posting more about bearings and lugs and side pressure and that doing both things was far different because a user would be leveraging (multiplying) the negative concerns and not just adding them.


When you start changing width by 3 or 4 inches on each side . . that may have been engineered into specs.. But when you change rims 3 or 4 inches on each side AND YOU ADD 3 or 4 inch spacers . . You've made a huge alteration in design . . especially on sidehill issues.

.

My response was directed to a specific side discussion between SPYDERLK and myself (which is why I quoted a portion of his response).

Also - I have not once spoken to the stresses or implications involved with adding spacers in conjunction with rim changes nor have I voiced any opinion for or against said practice. I have simply spoken to the two situations you describe as "Story 1" and I have limited my discussion of that topic to the theoretical.

So I'm not really sure why you quoted me in this or directed your reply to me.

 

[AxleHub]

My response was directed to a specific side discussion between SPYDERLK and myself (which is why I quoted a portion of his response).

Also - I have not once spoken to the stresses or implications involved with adding spacers in conjunction with rim changes nor have I voiced any opinion for or against said practice. I have simply spoken to the two situations you describe as "Story 1" and I have limited my discussion of that topic to the theoretical.

So I'm not really sure why you quoted me in this or directed your reply to me.

You'd stated : "In essence we are arguing semantics and accuracy instead of physics so why argue?"

The thread has 2 different issues discussed . . 1 which said what you did . . But the other issue (or story) is discussing something that is physics and geometry and much different. If someone is reading this thread . . it seems important to clarify as it was easy to confuse the posts and stories.

 

[SPYDERLK]

There are two different stories goin on in this thread:

Story 1. Is comparing impacts of adjusting rims to increase width of rear wheels stance VS. Using spacers. Story 1 was not contested to speak of becayse itvwas virtually the same impact.

Story 2. Is not story 1. Story 2 quickly developed because some said to do both instead of 1 or the other. That's when instarted posting more about bearings and lugs and side pressure and that doing both things was far different because a user would be leveraging (multiplying) the negative concerns and not just adding them.


When you start changing width by 3 or 4 inches on each side . . that may have been engineered into specs.. But when you change rims 3 or 4 inches on each side AND YOU ADD 3 or 4 inch spacers . . You've made a huge alteration in design . . especially on sidehill issues.

.

My response was directed to a specific side discussion between SPYDERLK and myself (which is why I quoted a portion of his response).

Also - I have not once spoken to the stresses or implications involved with adding spacers in conjunction with rim changes nor have I voiced any opinion for or against said practice. I have simply spoken to the two situations you describe as "Story 1" and I have limited my discussion of that topic to the theoretical.

So I'm not really sure why you quoted me in this or directed your reply to me.

Story 2 is off topic. Theres no reason an on topic poster would entertain topic 2 in any other than a cautionary mode if not ignoring it entirely.

 

[orezok]

Addressing the bearing load only, I don't think that the "cantilever" has any effect on the bearing.

For example, it the bearing located at the outer end of the transmission stub is normally loaded to 1000# for example, it doesn't matter if the wheel is at 1" or 10', the load on the bearing is still 1000#. Cantilever does not change the load. It would affect the axle only.

 

[aczlan]

Addressing the bearing load only, I don't think that the "cantilever" has any effect on the bearing.

For example, it the bearing located at the outer end of the transmission stub is normally loaded to 1000# for example, it doesn't matter if the wheel is at 1" or 10', the load on the bearing is still 1000#. Cantilever does not change the load. It would affect the axle only.

Correct. It becomes a question of if your axle shafts can handle the load.

Aaron Z

 

[SPYDERLK]

Addressing the bearing load only, I don't think that the "cantilever" has any effect on the bearing.

For example, it the bearing located at the outer end of the transmission stub is normally loaded to 1000# for example, it doesn't matter if the wheel is at 1" or 10', the load on the bearing is still 1000#. Cantilever does not change the load. It would affect the axle only.

Correct. It becomes a question of if your axle shafts can handle the load.

Aaron Z

No. The 1000# load is borne as a torque acting via the axle; upward on the outer axle bearing and downward on the inner. The further out the wheel the more the force on each bearing. The outer bearing sees 1000# more.

 

[orezok]

No. The 1000# load is borne as a torque acting via the axle; upward on the outer axle bearing and downward on the inner. The further out the wheel the more the force on each bearing. The outer bearing sees 1000# more.

So if it had 1000# before, where does the additional load come from. Did the tractor get heavier?

 

[SPYDERLK]

Additional load comes from additional torque as the wheel is relocated further out.

 

[Egon]

The total load stays the same. The internal bearing forces will change.

 

[SPYDERLK]

The total load stays the same. The internal bearing forces will change.

,,,,:thumbsup:,,,,leverage.