FEL Lift capacity

[majorwager]

There is a significant point miseed w/ regard to lifting heavy loads. The teeter totter is a prime example of what is wrong, as with this device there is a relief function. If one side exceeds the balance limit, the opposite end offsets the stress. Too many members are fixated upon max compact tractor lifting abilities. They load up on rear balast, consequently the relief factor is defeated. This scenario is accentuated when transfer from static position to moving. The tractor bounces in reaction to terrain. Nitrogen accumulators are rare on compacts, so with no relief at either end, the stress point is in the middle. Bounce one too many times and owner has a two piece tractor.

The original tractor design, motor direct coupling to transmission housing, did Not account for FEL's. This loader afterthought had minimal load capacity due to light duty front axles and low capacity hydraulics. Manufacturers of 100+ hp machines realized the need for chassis frames but this expense would NOT be absorbed by the compact market. No one was willing to go first. Nitrogen accumulators are a start, but the middle stress point remains fixed.

So when you ballast your tractor 3 point to the max, know this lesson. When a stock held in your portfolio splits, that is good. When this same scenario applies to your tractor/loader, not so much.

Counting upon the relief valve is foolish assurance

EDIT:

Clarifying the Point : When operating the loader at full capacity, adding more ballast is not the wise approach to actually moving the load, additional trips is the better choice. When the rear end becomes light, it should be an indication to reevaluate. OR NOT, as always, choice is yours, and yours alone.

Acknowledging that front axle damage occurs reinforces the premise that the loader relief valve is the only safety factor necessary.

 

[deezler]

Tractors splitting in half because of too much rear ballast? I'm on this site quite a bit and I've never seen that. Quit fear mongering. It's far safer to have sufficient rear ballast to avoid tipping the tractor. The relief valve in the loader hydraulics prevents you from lifting more than the front end can carry. End of story.

You encouraging people to have a teeter-totter tractor is just plain reckless. Putting all the weight on the front axle like that is what breaks them - that is something we HAVE seen many many times on this site.

 

[Jcoon]

Tractors splitting in half because of too much rear ballast? I'm on this site quite a bit and I've never seen that. Quit fear mongering. It's far safer to have sufficient rear ballast to avoid tipping the tractor. The relief valve in the loader hydraulics prevents you from lifting more than the front end can carry. End of story.

You encouraging people to have a teeter-totter tractor is just plain reckless. Putting all the weight on the front axle like that is what breaks them - that is something we HAVE seen many many times on this site.

I agree with you about 85%, the one thing that is not correct is that putting a rear ballast on a tractor decreases the weight on the front axle, the only way that is possible is if the rear ballast is more than the weight of the front end of the tractor along with the weight of the material in the bucket, which I doubt.

I do encourage a rear weight ballast though it makes for a much more stable machine.

 

[sd455dan]

Tractors splitting in half because of too much rear ballast? I'm on this site quite a bit and I've never seen that. Quit fear mongering. It's far safer to have sufficient rear ballast to avoid tipping the tractor. The relief valve in the loader hydraulics prevents you from lifting more than the front end can carry. End of story.

You encouraging people to have a teeter-totter tractor is just plain reckless. Putting all the weight on the front axle like that is what breaks them - that is something we HAVE seen many many times on this site.

Pretty Rare for sure but it has happened
here is an old thread about it:

https://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/buying-pricing-comparisons/32962-tractor-can-break-half.html

I still think even though they are not as stylish, a sub-frame mounted FEL that extended to the rear axle and front of the tractor is going to be stronger and adds a bit of a safety factor.

also agree that having 3 point weight added is Far safer than using any teeter totter method-
especially since once the rear axle starts to lift the tractor can pivot on the front axle and become very unstable

 

[greggyy]

Yeah, I think there are people who can sense things well, maybe through experience or just a gift, and then there are some who really should not operate heavy machinery, or sometimes you could say any type of dangerous vehicle or machine.

Same goes for many things I suppose, some are just good, some learn and become good or at least not a danger to anyone or themselves, and those that seem to be able to do most things wrong, you know, the type you lend them something and it comes back in pieces cause they pulled it apart and cant put it back together, or they just break things. I have a friend like that, let him near any of your stuff and it will be broken, like a bull at a gate....

 

[LD1]

I agree with you about 85%, the one thing that is not correct is that putting a rear ballast on a tractor decreases the weight on the front axle, the only way that is possible is if the rear ballast is more than the weight of the front end of the tractor along with the weight of the material in the bucket, which I doubt.

I do encourage a rear weight ballast though it makes for a much more stable machine.

It's a known fact that putting. Weight behind the rear axle decreases the weight on the front. It's a fancy term called weight transfer

 

[Jcoon]

It's a known fact that putting. Weight behind the rear axle decreases the weight on the front. It's a fancy term called weight transfer

ONLY if the weight in the back exceeds the weight in front of the rear axle, which is a LOT. I don’t think anyone has that much rear ballast weight because without anything in the bucket the front tires would come off the ground.

It’s very simple once you understand it.

 

[Reb954]

ONLY if the weight in the back exceeds the weight in front of the rear axle, which is a LOT. I don稚 think anyone has that much rear ballast weight because without anything in the bucket the front tires would come off the ground.

It痴 very simple once you understand it.

Try something. Take a 2x4, 8 ft long. Place a fulcrum under it, 2 ft from the end. Place a bathroom scale under the other end. Make note of the scale weight.

Now place a 5 lb weight on the end opposite from the scale. Make note of the weight shown. The more weight added, the less weight will show on the scale but it isn't a 1 lb loss for every 1 lb added. But, no matter how much weight is added, some weight will be taken off the scale.

The flip side of that is that with the ballast on the back of the tractor it is more stable with a given load so at some point, as more weight is put on the FEL, the front axle potentially will end up carrying more weight than it would have without the ballast due to some of the weight of the ballast being transferred forward.

 

[ning]

ONLY if the weight in the back exceeds the weight in front of the rear axle

Literally any weight placed in the back will reduce the load on the front axle - this is not a binary system of "all or nothing".

At least, until the front wheels come off the ground, at which point there's zero load on the front axle, at which point putting more weight on the back just makes the wheelie higher!

 

[TMGT]

ONLY if the weight in the back exceeds the weight in front of the rear axle, which is a LOT. I don’t think anyone has that much rear ballast weight because without anything in the bucket the front tires would come off the ground.

It’s very simple once you understand it.

Weight behind the rear axle will indeed decrease the front axle load, the decrease could be 1 pound with 500lbs depending on the location of the axles, weight etc. but it will decrease the load on the front axle (not necessarily eliminate it)