Traction Wheel weights or filled tires?

[fydollaho]

Or both?

 

[oosik]

I guess it depends upon how much weight you want in the rear. I have Rimguard (16.9 x 28 = 67 gal/tire = total of 1500#) in the rear tires plus a 1000# rear blade hanging out back. I can still lift the rear tires with a large P. pine log in the grapple jaws but its quite rare to have this happen.

Actually - I've completely eliminated that rear tire lift foolishness by using a log weight table.


View attachment 529231 As she sits here with the grapple, rear blade and filled rear tires it weight 10,100#. A good starting point is 60% or thereabouts of what the FEL capacity is. Remember an implement hanging out back is a lot more effective than filled tires or wheel weights.

I guess the reason you asked is because you have or are going to have FEL + bucket or FEL + grapple. Are you going to be clearing snow with your tractor? Will you be using a rear blade to clear snow? Its going to weigh around 400# and will allow you to lift quit a bit with the FEL.

Think about it this way - if you have a rear blade - that amount of weight alone may provide sufficient weight to allow you to do all you want with the FEL. If you do need more weight then consider filled tires or wheel weights.

I ALWAYS have something hanging out back - - rear blade @ 1000# or Land Plane Grading Scraper @ 796# or roll over box blade @ 710# - chipper @ 770# etc, etc.

Using a 3-point implement to offset work done with the FEL is just smart business - get two things accomplished with one implement.

 

[Michael Aos]

I have tires filled, weights, and a Land Pride GS1548 on a QH05 behind my BX2370.

 

[mopardude318]

I have a 1400 lb gearmore hydraulic box blade, and filled tires on my m7060. but i feel i want 600 pounds of wheel weight. (i think the max available with R4 tires)

 

[bcp]

If you drive over a sharp stick, a wheel weight doesn't leak away into the ground.

Bruce

 

[fydollaho]

I always have something hanging off the back as well - rotary mower, chipper, grader blade. The new MX has wheel weights already on it and I got the QH and a BH92 coming with it and that dealer seems to favor weights over tires.

The MX will be clearing a couple acres of woods and processing of said woods, light bush hogging, driveway maintenance, and the various hauling of crap and farm chores I do. Main FEL duty is with the grapple doing firewood.

 

[RoyJackson]

Filled tires help a lot with tractor stability...especially when traversing across a slope (use some sense when you do this!!)...not so much for ballast for a FEL. Ballast works best (IMHO) when rigged to the 3PH. My preference is using a ballast box as it doesn't extend too far back when you're working in relatively close quarters...unlike an implement such as a rotary cutter (plenty of weight, but extends out 6-10 feet).
I'm not a fan of wheel weights...they can be back breakers if you need to remove them.

 

[motownbrowne]

Weights are nice because you can remove them, and they don't leak away, as others mentioned. If you really want max stability, set the wheels as wide as you can and use both. I have fluid, but wish I'd gone with weights instead. I have had occasion to swap my tires solo before (13.6-28s with Rimguard) and it wasn't pleasant. Weights are pretty spendy though.

 

[LouNY]

Weights, weights; I really dislike fluid filled tires. When I was young we had mainly fluid filled tires. Back then there were several people that did tire servicing that would come out and pump out a tire install a boot in the tire patch the tube and refill the tire and you only lost a day or day and halfs work from that tractor but the cost was moderate. Today what is the initial cost of fluid filling a tire? several hundred dollars, calcium is still the least expensive and its quite high, when you get a flat how long and how much to get a service truck out to the tractor ($300+) then add in the cost of more liquid ballast and if you are lucky it will only take 2 or 3 days and several hundreds of dollars to get it repaired and back in service. In contrast if you are using bolt on weights, a slow leak you can get by airing up a tire and continuing to work, or air it up and drive it to a location that is easy to work on it, if tubeless a chance that a simple plug can do the repair and back to work in an hour or so, if it has to be broken down the cost is minimal compared to a liquid filled tire. Add on the poorer ride quality of liquid filled, the horsepower lost to liquid filled, especially if road hauling, the increased braking required with liquid. Bolt on iron can seem expensive at about a dollar a pound but it will cost less in the long run unless you are never going to have a flat, good luck with that if you are farming or doing any woods work, if you are just putting around on a lawn or paved driveway you may not ever get a flat.

 

[RandyT]

The problem with using wheel weights is the max allowable weight on each rim is not even a start of what the recommended ballast is for most tractors. I have 50 gallon of rim guard in each wheel, and when needed I put my 3 inch box frame 6 1/2 foot king kutter disc on the three point, and even then it doesn't equal the recommended ballast for my tractor. Can still pick up the rear wheels with the loader.

 

[s219]

Need to know what you're actually doing with the tractor. I will say that the smaller Kubotas are light. Tire ballast is enough to offset the weight of the loader install, but not enough to also ballast what you may carry in the loader. I have loaded tires on my L3200 and I consider it necessary to keep the rear tires on the ground under everyday use. For any heavy stuff in the bucket, I absolutely add rear ballast. That will be my box blade when doing dirt work, or an 800# ballast box for other work.

I would plan on loaded tires -or- wheel weights, and then additional ballast for heavy loader work.

 

[RSKY]

I had my tires filled to get the extra weight down as low as possible. I feel that helps when mowing on a slope. But that doesn't counteract the weight in the FEL by much. You didn't say what you needed the extra ballast for and everybody above assumes it is for FEL use. If that is correct then you also need to consider a counterweight on the 3PH when using it. Farmers add wheel weights to improve traction while pulling large implements. Unless you are using your Kubota with a plow or large disk, cultivator, or whatever a ballast box would be the best.

We were cutting up a tree at my mother's farm last year and I was hauling off the logs with my little Kioti. Due to buildings, trees, and a ditch I was having to reverse up a slight hill before turning and driving to the dump pile. Even with the bush hog on there were a couple that were heavy enough I would loose traction trying to back up. I had my wife stand on the mower as far back as possible and it worked for the hundred feet or so I had to travel. She didn't like it and on the second one she drove and I had to ride.

Any weight you add to your tractor will improve traction and your tractor's ability to do work. It was somebody else on here that said the amount of work a tractor can do is determined by it's weight, how fast it does that work is determined by it's horsepower.

Come to think about it that needs to be my third next project for my little brute. Building it a ballast box.

RSKY

 

[LD1]

I have both on a MX. With the R1's, thats about 750# of windshield washer fluid and about 600# of old EnFo weights that were modified to work.

Sure sounds like alot but NOT a replacement for ballast on the 3PH. There is more to it than just keeping the rear down. You ALSO have to take some weight off the front to counter heavy front loads. The MX loader has no issues at all lifting 3000# in the bucket or on SSQA forks. Gotta counter that or the front axle suffers.

So I am with others here. Doing both dont hurt, but really want to know what your uses are.

If you are wanting both because you think thats the answer to heavy front loader work....then my answer is NO. Dont do both as it only increases the potential to overload your front axle.

I am loaded down for traction. Pulling a 3-14 plow, JD 210 transport disc, skidding logs, etc.

So if you are doing it for reasons of traction and/or stability...then yes, go for both.

 

[fydollaho]

Need to know what you're actually doing with the tractor. I will say that the smaller Kubotas are light. Tire ballast is enough to offset the weight of the loader install, but not enough to also ballast what you may carry in the loader. I have loaded tires on my L3200 and I consider it necessary to keep the rear tires on the ground under everyday use. For any heavy stuff in the bucket, I absolutely add rear ballast. That will be my box blade when doing dirt work, or an 800# ballast box for other work.

I would plan on loaded tires -or- wheel weights, and then additional ballast for heavy loader work.

MX5200HST with LA1065 and BH92. Clearing some land and light duty around the farm.

 

[Steppenwolfe]

I did both on my MX and L series. Makes a world of difference in not just the handling of the tractor, but also the feel...

 

[CharlieKtractor]

foam filled tires will not leak

 

[square1]

Each rear tire has 220 lbs in weights and 225 lbs of fluid. I seldom lack traction, but do get light sometimes when using the FEL. I try to do the heavy lifting with the 3 pt to the greatest extent possible.

 

[wmonroe]

On my kubota I added fluid to the tires to help with stability on slopes and us a 3 point counterweight for loader work. The Ford 961 has wheel weights, fluid in the rears, and as I can find them reasonable I’ll put front weights and more custom steel weight on the rear end. The weight on the Ford is for traction as being only 2WD it needs a lot of weight to be useful.

 

[EddieWalker]

I had weights, but after getting so many flat tires, I had the front tires foamed. I tried every type of slime out there, then went with tubes, until I couldn't take it anymore. Foam filled tires never go flat, and they add a significant amount of weight for traction and stability. I have the front tires foamed on two tractors, and wouldn't own a tractor that didn't have foam filled front tires.

 

[Texasmark]

My 2400 was a rough rider. 12x16.5 6 ply industrials rated for 2350ish# each at rated pressure was a bit much for an 1800# tractor. Fast forward. Option 15 was fluid filling. Wrong....when you drop the pressure to something comfortable, like less than 10 psig and go out and work, the tire won't stay on the rim and the fluid all runs out on the ground. Then with the slick nicely painted new wheel, when you try to get traction the wheel slips on the rim, before the tire comes off and fluid gushes out....forget that.

So it was go to the weights. So I have a new suspension seat like used to be used on MF 35 series, an upholstered, padded bucket and suspension springs with 4" of adjustable pressure and no shock absorber which works real well. The tires are now 4 ply turfs (33x12.5x16.5)...bigger balloon for more air volume to compress....aka softer ride and 150" of wheel weights per tire and another 100# welded up ball of pieces of steel that mounts on the 3 pt lift arms....with the length factor (ft-lbs) worth about 150# or so. Finally starting to get there.