Surprised by need for rear ballast with L 4060 in this situation

[4570Man]

So legitimate question and I'm not tractoring so may as well get smarter.

So tape measure says my pins on the 3PT are 31 inches behind the axle (give or take me trying to look at two round objects things 31" apart and measure them). Wheel base is 84". So a handy calculator puts it at 10lbs on the 3PT (at the pins) lifts up on the front axle 3.7 lbs so 37% of the weight (at the pins) transfers off the front axles? Not bad. I don't have any ballast boxes so I'm sure all my implements push that ratio even higher pound for pound.

The front axel makes no difference. You need to measure from the load that’s on the FEL to the back axel. It’s probably another 6 feet out for a 2’ on center load.

 

[sea2summit]

You didn’t do the math right for starters. The front axel makes no difference. It’s the distance the load on the loader is front of the rear axle that makes the difference. And you along with nearly everyone else are ignoring how much more the loader can lift with ballast vs without. Again I’m not saying not to use ballast it’s essential.

The amount in the loader doesn't make any difference in how much ballast behind the rear axle affects the front wheels. You could lift up 2oz on the front axle with ballast then lift 7 million pounds and the ballast is still relieving 2oz of weight from the front axle.

 

[sea2summit]

The front axel makes no difference. You need to measure from the load that’s on the FEL to the back axel. It’s probably another 6 feet out for a 2’ on center load.

That's not how physics works. Granted this is more like a plane and finding a center of gravity but the 3PT's fulcrum is generally the rear axle and the FEL fulcrum is generally the front axle.

 

[k0ua]

I’m not a fan of lawsuits but they’re about right this time. A tractor with a loader is one of the few things that isn’t safe to be used as intended the way it’s sold. That’s kinda like selling a vehicle without a hood latch and saying if you want to drive over 5 mph you have to add that separate.

I know. Anyone that knows me knows I am NO fan of the tort lawyer, BUT in this case if someone had just taken the time at the dealership to warn this individual (however ignorant he may be) about the dangers of using the bare tractor without any ballast and insisted on selling him at least a ballast box and at least talking to him about loaded tires or wheel weights he might still be alive. In the big scheme of the tractor purchase even for a low end tractor like the 3038e, the additional couple hundred bucks for a stinking ballast box might have saved him. At least he would have had the chance to think a little about it.

We don't know what exactly happened and under what circumstances he rolled his tractor over. I can guess. My guess would be he lifted a load with the FEL, and he had the loader bucket well above the hood of the tractor like all NEW tractor owners do (because they are ignorant of the dangers) and he turned the tractor on slightly uneven ground or the high side tire found a protruding rock or the low side tire found a hole and the tractor overturned. He probably wasn't wearing a seat belt, and we don't know about the ROPS, but in any case he became trapped under the tractor and was crushed.

How many pictures of rolled over tractors have we seen here on this forum? Plenty, that's how many. And where is the loader bucket in relation to the hood of the tractor? Well above it in almost all cases. I grew up as a child around tractors and machinery, and had a pretty good idea of how to stay safe around them, but even I had a few close calls. I never rolled one, but I sure had the rear tires come up off the ground because of improper ballasting. Lessons learned, don't do that again.

 

[4570Man]

The amount in the loader doesn't make any difference in how much ballast behind the rear axle affects the front wheels. You could lift up 2oz on the front axle with ballast then lift 7 million pounds and the ballast is still relieving 2oz of weight from the front axle.

You’ve changed the measuring terms. Lifting up 2 oz on the front axel is a clear cut story. It’s 2oz lighter than it previously was. But for calculating how much a given amount of ballast lifts the front axel the position of the front axel is irrelevant. You need to know how far the ballast is behind the front axel and how far the load is in front of the rear axel.

 

[ctgoldwing]

You didn’t do the math right for starters. The front axel makes no difference. It’s the distance the load on the loader is front of the rear axle that makes the difference. And you along with nearly everyone else are ignoring how much more the loader can lift with ballast vs without. Again I’m not saying not to use ballast it’s essential.

Really?

 

[sea2summit]

The front axel makes no difference. You need to measure from the load that’s on the FEL to the back axel. It’s probably another 6 feet out for a 2’ on center load.

 

[SDT]

I can tell you this much, there isn't going to be any Deere tractors sold in the future without there being a ballast plan conversation in the future. Other brands would be wise to take notice.


Last week, a Payne County jury awarded a Stillwater woman $5 million in a civil suit that followed her husband's death in a tractor accident.

The jury found Deere & Company, the manufacturer of John Deere tractors, to be responsible for the May 25, 2014, death of James Beall, age 38, of Stillwater, when the tractor he was driving rolled over, trapping him underneath. Shylah Beall, his widow, was represented by Smolen Law, a Tulsa firm.

The case involved a John Deere 3038 E Compact Utility Tractor with a 305 front loader that was sold to the Bealls by P&K Equipment, Inc., of Stillwater. The tractor and an optional front loader were assembled at the Deere plant in Georgia and then shipped to P&K Equipment.


Shylah Beall's suit claimed that the tractor was unsafe and had not been properly configured by either the factory or the dealership before she and her husband took delivery. Throughout the lawsuit, Deere denied the accusations.

Beall's attorneys said Deere’s manufacturing failed to add additional weight to the rear of the tractor to counterbalance the almost 700-pound front-end loader, before it left the Deere plant in Georgia. The weight was also not added at the local dealership.

Representatives of Deere & Company said the tractor was not defective or unreasonably dangerous and suggested Beall may not have been wearing his seatbelt.

During the trial, the representative for Deere & Company admitted that ballast is supposed to be added to the rear and tires of the tractor. In the instruction manual it said, "To prevent death or bodily injury from tractor loader roll-over, the required amount of ballast must be added to the tractor."

The proper ballast wasn’t added before Beall bought the tractor, and Beall's attorneys argued that evidence shown during the trial suggested that if the weight had been added as recommended, the tractor wouldn’t have rolled over.

Carlton Hearn, a product safety engineer for Deere & Company, testitfied that the tractor was supposed to be configured ready for use at the dealership, and there is a checklist dealers go through to ensure a tractor is ready for use.

Among the checklist items was the installation of ballast to to prevent rollover and injury. At first, it seemed the Hearn was suggesting that it would be up to the consumer to do whatever needed to be done with the tractor, according to a transcript provided to the News Press by Smolen Law.


"So let me ask you this, so when James and his dad, Clyde, showed up to P&K and they – and he had this dream of having his own business and he had this 16-acre property that he needs help mowing," attorney Donald Smolen asked. "You think that they should have thought to themselves, 'Hey, even though I'm buying this thing brand new from John Deere and it's come directly from the factory all set up, I bet it's in an unreasonably safe condition and that I need to go through and make sure that they did everything they are supposed to. Is that the way that Deere sells its equipment?'"

"I'm sorry. What way?" the rep asked.

"Well, you've got here that in order for this tractor to be safe, and properly weighted, and properly ballasted there are certain things that have to be done to the tractor when used with a loader right?," Smolen replied. "I mean, that's what we have been talking about. And these things that are listed, the consumer, James Beall, Clyde Beall, me whoever, the consumer can't even do that, they can't even install the rear tire weights according to Deere, right?"

"It's recommended that they are done by a Deere dealership," Hearn replied.

On Jan. 16, a Payne County jury found after 27 minutes of deliberation that "by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant, Deere & Company, acted in reckless disregard for the rights of others." They awarded Shylah Beall $3 million in actual compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages.

In a statement released Thursday, Shylah Beall said that her main goal was to hold the company accountable and make sure nothing like this happens in the future.

“I don’t want James’ death to be in vain,” she said. “I want proper safety protocols followed in the future.”

Attorney Donald E. Smolen, II, said the compensation will help Shylah raise her young son, who is now left without a father.

“No amount of money will take the place of a loving husband and father, but these funds can help Shylah and her family in other ways,” he said. “Our greatest hope is we can prevent this from happening to another family. We are pleased the jury decided in our favor.”

Getting a jury to side with a plaintiff against a large corporation is one thing. Having such judgment hold up on appeal is quite another. Unless and until it does, any precedential value is negligible.

I expect that the buyer was offered rear ballast but declined. I also expect that he was not wearing his seat belt. Of course any question not raised at trial level cannot be raised upon appeal.

Tough facts often result in bad (common) law.

Only time will tell.

SDT

 

[sea2summit]

You’ve changed the measuring terms. Lifting up 2 oz on the front axel is a clear cut story. It’s 2oz lighter than it previously was. But for calculating how much a given amount of ballast lifts the front axel the position of the front axel is irrelevant. You need to know how far the ballast is behind the front axel and how far the load is in front of the rear axel.

In my case every 10lbs I lift at the pins on my 3PT makes the front axle ~3.7lbs "lighter". Regardless of how much you push down on the front axle, it's pushing up ~3.7lbs.

 

[4570Man]

In my case every 10lbs I lift at the pins on my 3PT makes the front axle ~3.7lbs "lighter". Regardless of how much you push down on the front axle, it's pushing up ~3.7lbs.

You’ve calculated wrong. Say you take a board that’s 3 feet long and you put a pencil under both ends 1 foot from the end. You’ve got 1 foot from each pivot to the end and you’ve got 1 foot between the pivots. That’s our tractor with ballast hanging off one end and a loader off the other. You put a 1 pound weight on both sides of the board. Excluding the weight of the board each pencil is supporting 1 pound. Now you put another 1 pound weight on one side. Under your logic the board should now be totally balanced on the one pencil. Its not because the weight is farther out than the pivot. It only lifts 1/2 pound off the pencil for every pound you put on the opposite side.

 

[4570Man]

I know. Anyone that knows me knows I am NO fan of the tort lawyer, BUT in this case if someone had just taken the time at the dealership to warn this individual (however ignorant he may be) about the dangers of using the bare tractor without any ballast and insisted on selling him at least a ballast box and at least talking to him about loaded tires or wheel weights he might still be alive. In the big scheme of the tractor purchase even for a low end tractor like the 3038e, the additional couple hundred bucks for a stinking ballast box might have saved him. At least he would have had the chance to think a little about it.

We don't know what exactly happened and under what circumstances he rolled his tractor over. I can guess. My guess would be he lifted a load with the FEL, and he had the loader bucket well above the hood of the tractor like all NEW tractor owners do (because they are ignorant of the dangers) and he turned the tractor on slightly uneven ground or the high side tire found a protruding rock or the low side tire found a hole and the tractor overturned. He probably wasn't wearing a seat belt, and we don't know about the ROPS, but in any case he became trapped under the tractor and was crushed.

How many pictures of rolled over tractors have we seen here on this forum? Plenty, that's how many. And where is the loader bucket in relation to the hood of the tractor? Well above it in almost all cases. I grew up as a child around tractors and machinery, and had a pretty good idea of how to stay safe around them, but even I had a few close calls. I never rolled one, but I sure had the rear tires come up off the ground because of improper ballasting. Lessons learned, don't do that again.

In addition to not having enough ballast the pivoting front axel makes a tractor much more unstable vs other equipment that has a solid axel under the loader.

 

[sea2summit]

You’ve calculated wrong. Say you take a board that’s 3 feet long and you put a pencil under both ends 1 foot from the end. You’ve got 1 foot from each pivot to the end and you’ve got 1 foot between the pivots. That’s our tractor with ballast hanging off one end and a loader off the other. You put a 1 pound weight on both sides of the board. Excluding the weight of the board each pencil is supporting 1 pound. Now you put another 1 pound weight on one side. Under your logic the board should now be totally balanced on the one pencil. Its not because the weight is farther out than the pivot. It only lifts 1/2 pound off the pencil for every pound you put on the opposite side.

How can you not understand this...

Yes, at the opposite end of the board it's "lifting" 1/2 pound in your example, but at the second pencil it's "lifting" 1lb. That math doesn't change.

 

[4570Man]

How can you not understand this...

Yes, at the opposite end of the board it's "lifting" 1/2 pound in your example, but at the second pencil it's "lifting" 1lb. That math doesn't change.

If it lifted 1 pound off the pencil that only had 1 pound to start with it would be balanced on the second pencil but it’s not. You’re claiming it’s a 1-1 lever but it’s not. It’s a 2x1 lever. Adding the second weight only lifted 1/2 pound off vs a pound.

 

[sea2summit]

In addition to not having enough ballast the pivoting front axel makes a tractor much more unstable vs other equipment that has a solid axel under the loader.

Probably the reason most of them tip and kill someone, not often talked about

If it lifted 1 pound off the pencil that only had 1 pound to start with it would be balanced on the second pencil but it’s not. You’re claiming it’s a 1-1 lever but it’s not. It’s a 2x1 lever. Adding the second weight only lifted 1/2 pound off vs a pound.

You are talking about two separate points compared to the fulcrum. We’re talking about reducing stress on the front axle. How about this, what if I made the pencils weigh 1lb each to simulate ballasted tires then put 1lb on one end, what happens?

 

[Popgadget]

Don’t forget that there are two conditions being talked about. One is with the rear wheels firmly on the ground, the other is with them light or nearly off the ground.
For arguments sake, say the rear wheels are not touching the ground due to the load on the FEL. At this point the front axle is supporting the weight of the tractor, rear ballast and the actual load being lifted. In this case the rear ballast allows or causes an increased load on the front axle.
When the loader is not lifting, the rear ballast will decrease the load on the front axle.

 

[sea2summit]

Don’t forget that there are two conditions being talked about. One is with the rear wheels firmly on the ground, the other is with them light or nearly off the ground.
For arguments sake, say the rear wheels are not touching the ground due to the load on the FEL. At this point the front axle is supporting the weight of the tractor, rear ballast and the actual load being lifted. In this case the rear ballast allows or causes an increased load on the front axle.
When the loader is not lifting, the rear ballast will decrease the load on the front axle.

Don’t get ahead of my trap

 

[TMGT]

I recently bought an L4060. I have a 4000 lbs SS QA fork attachment that I used with the L48 TLB that I sold before buying the L4060. I know it’s heavier than what one might normally buy for that size tractor, but I had it already. I have some units of hardwood lumber that I have moved around with the L4060, that are about 32” wide and 12’-16’ long, some of which weigh 1400-1500 lbs. I have beet juice in the tires for ballast. I was able to move that lumber around with no problem, while working slowly and carefully as I moved it.

Anyway, today I bought 25 leftover 4x8 sheets of 1/2” OSB from a guy and he brought them to me. We unloaded them from his pickup and put them on the forks of my tractor so I could move them to a different place on my property. These 25 sheets weigh 48 lbs. each, for a total of 1200 lbs. I had no problem lifting the 25 sheets, but my rear wheels were so light that they spun on my gravel drive.

My old L48 was my first tractor, and I always had the backhoe on it, and I never had a problem lifting anything with the FEL, and it spoiled me in that regard. I’ve been reading the many cautionary tales on TBN of hairy situations with rear wheels lifting off the ground, so when I have been moving my piles of lumber around, I’ve been very careful, and had no problems. But I was completely taken by surprise today when I couldn’t move with only 1200 lbs plus the fork weight because I didn’t have adequate ballast. Of course, OSB is 48” wide as opposed to the 32” widths of the lumber piles I’d been moving. I don’t remember my physics lessons.....is there an exponential increase in the leverage exerted as the load gets wider and further away from the fulcrum of the front wheels? Is there a simple math formula that would help me with anticipating when I have too much weight, based on the projection of the load? Thanks.

Here's the load weight chart for my forklift, thought it might be interesting, wish it had the actual numbers for all the distance points. Unlike the radial lift on a loader though, its lift capacity doesn't change throughout the lift range.

 

[ptsg]

After going through this thread, I get the feeling that maybe those who believe that 3 pt ballast won't alleviate the front axle, are using tractors with just a single axle, the rear one. In that case, yes, the front axle is irrelevant because it's not there.

 

[zoltanthegypsy]

If it lifted 1 pound off the pencil that only had 1 pound to start with it would be balanced on the second pencil but it’s not. You’re claiming it’s a 1-1 lever but it’s not. It’s a 2x1 lever. Adding the second weight only lifted 1/2 pound off vs a pound.

Gah, I should know better.. but yeah, the 2nd weight lifted 1/2 pound IN ADDITION to the 1/2 pound already being lifted by the first weight - AT THE "LOADER", not the pencil. "Rear" pencil has 2 lbs one foot away, and 1 lb two feet away. Sounds balanced to me...

[edit to add] Where I was going with this is that the "You didn’t do the math right for starters." post referred to up-thread was not wrong IMHO. It was a calculation of the effect of rear weight on _front axle loading_ not the weight required to offset some particular weight in the loader.

In the pencil example, if the rear pencil is the pivot point, rear weight counts 1x and front weight counts 2x when it comes to load on the front pencil.

Z.

 

[4570Man]

Gah, I should know better.. but yeah, the 2nd weight lifted 1/2 pound IN ADDITION to the 1/2 pound already being lifted by the first weight - AT THE "LOADER", not the pencil. "Rear" pencil has 2 lbs one foot away, and 1 lb two feet away. Sounds balanced to me...

[edit to add] Where I was going with this is that the "You didn’t do the math right for starters." post referred to up-thread was not wrong IMHO. It was a calculation of the effect of rear weight on _front axle loading_ not the weight required to offset some particular weight in the loader.

In the pencil example, if the rear pencil is the pivot point, rear weight counts 1x and front weight counts 2x when it comes to load on the front pencil.

Z.

You’re right I didn’t do the math in the pencil demonstration right. But the concept is still right. You should really move the back pencil back 6” so the distance is 6” 18” between centers and 12” on the front and repeat the pencil and board test. measuring the distance between the tractor axels like 2 posters have done is still wrong. You need to measure the distance from the load center on the FEL to the rear axel and from the rear axle to the ballast load center to determine the ratio.