Publishing Loader Capacity Numbers That Far Exceed The Capacity Of The Axles

[rScotty]

Partly an answer to the 3025R inquiry, the one that I find interesting is the 3025D. I've owned at least four manual-trans/clutch tractors, the latest being a Deere 750, and they kind of suck for loader work. But it seems these newer manuals have some sort of quick reverse function that avoids manually jogging the gear shifter back and forth through the gates? Anyone know how these things work?

Yes, they are neat. The common name is either "Shuttle Shift" for F/R, and "Powershif" for ranges and gears within ranges. Lots of tractors had both....some still do, and it's still an under-appreciated sweet spot price-wise even on brand new compact tractors. Most are fingertip operation. They aren't quite as smooth as HST, for loader work, but larger tractors tend to use shuttle because they are efficient and durable.

Some of the early versions required clutching for gears and ranges, but used clutchless electrically triggered hydraulic actuators for shuttling between forward and reverse..... whew, what a sentence....

Anyway, early versions back in the 1960s and 70s by Ford and JD were iffy and had some problems. The first powershift I personally looked at was the Yanmar clutchless "powershift" that they went to in the early 1980s on everything over 16 hp. I saw it as a demo at a dealer show. I almost bought that tractor....

How those work is that the transmission gears are locked in by hydraulic clutch pack right next to each gear on the transmission shaft. The trigger is an electric shifter that sticks out the side of the steering wheel. smooth and darn near trouble free. Even today you don't hear much problems with those old powershifts.

enjoy, rScotty

 

[IndyIan]

Anyone ever blown a front tire by overloading it? How did you do it?
I assume is basically during stationary lifting? I have R1's and the load rating is pretty low really, but the odd time I've had probably had triple the rated load on them(rear tire off ground with 1000lb on the back when trying to curl a stump out), and nothing has happened. I'm quite careful not to be pushing while using the loader on potentially immovable objects as I worry about breaking front axle with lots of weight on it and putting all the torque through it, but the tires don't seem to mind being overload to two times their capacity in normal loader work?

 

[WinterDeere]

Anyone ever blown a front tire by overloading it? How did you do it?

I've seen front tires come off the rim or break the bead seal (tubeless) on CUT's and UT's with FEL's. Mostly due to someone turning sharp under heavy load, uneven ground conditions, and likely exacerbated by less than recommended tire pressure.

Also, as noted, way too many CUT's ship from their dealers with inappropriate tires. If you ask for turf tires on a machine purchased with a loader, it's absolutely abhorrent to see how many dealers will install the cheapest 4-ply rating tire on the machine. That is almost NEVER acceptable, almost all loader and tractor manuals will specify a tire equivalent to at LEAST a 6-ply rating on any machine wearing a loader, and 6-ply turf tires are almost always available in every size. I've had to change front tires on two machines I've purchased over the years, for this reason, dealers shipping them with the "wrong" turf tires.

The recent popularity of R4's has partly resolved this, as more R4's are rated heavy enough for loader work. But it's by no means necessary to go to R4's, if you use your machine for a lot of lawn/turf work, you just need to buy the correct turf tire.

 

[Torvy]

I think they are also conflating axle problems from heavy loads with the more likely culprit...using "4wd" inappropriately.

 

[hiddentacocatneddih]

The video, imho, was a backhanded attack on the LS, TYM and Kioti tractors that don't publish that info and lift significantly more than the Kubota. In that regard, JD is not a competitor for Kubota. Both lift less than the others. Most likely, sales people are getting an earful of how the lower priced competition also lifts more weight.

Well, Neil, I am not an engineer, but I have eyes. If you compare a TYM/Branson, LS or Kioti axle to the same sized frame Kubota, it is abundantly clear that Kubota has less robust axles. Don't need the number published. Kubota has advantages in dealer network and name recognition.

As the economy worsens, people will move more and more toward substitute goods. In other words, they become more price sensitive and tend to buy the less expensive brands. Also why you are seeing some prices drop on Kubota. The price gap got too big and it is affecting sales.

i am not an engineer but i can see it is less robust?

Just because it is bigger, does not mean it is stronger. It could be difference grades of steel, different internal structures, load around it designed differently.

It is not as simple as just looking at it.

 

[IndyIan]

i am not an engineer but i can see it is less robust?

Just because it is bigger, does not mean it is stronger. It could be difference grades of steel, different internal structures, load around it designed differently.

It is not as simple as just looking at it.

True, although you if you increase the diameter of an axle tube materials can be worse and still be as strong, and if materials are equal its likely to be a bit more robust. In practice, I just checked here to make sure DK40SE's were holding up. It seems not many brands have common front axle failures with their respective loaders, although I don't read about the grey market chinese stuff.
For sure I bought the Kioti because the price/lb was much lower than many other brands, and it had more features standard. For equal money I was into a much smaller orange or green tractor, and I'm glad I went with size I have for what I use it for. Other's may have different priorities.

 

[rScotty]

i am not an engineer but i can see it is less robust?

Just because it is bigger, does not mean it is stronger. It could be difference grades of steel, different internal structures, load around it designed differently.

It is not as simple as just looking at it.

I was once one of those kind of engineers. You're right, it's not that simple.... but nearly. Most anything can be designed both lighter and stronger. The problem is it costs more. Sometimes a lot more. Think airplanes, antennas, stadium covers, racebikes, and rocket ships.

Tractors are a bit different because in a tractor you want the weight. But since weight is cheap compared to saving weight, it is still possible to improve things by making some things lighter and stronger - like loaders and steering components - and then adding back the weight were it does the most good. Like around the bottom castings, and low down by the rear axle.

The upside to that is you've designed a better tractor. More stable AND stronger. The downside is it costs more.

rScotty

 

[hiddentacocatneddih]

You could have 2 axles with the same diameter. One is .0625 wall thickness and one is .250. Which is stronger. Then you have a 3rd. Its aluminum. And all 3 are coated in paint. Then have one made of low carbon low alloy steel and 1 of high carbon steel. Which is stronger just by looking at it?

 

[WinterDeere]

You could have 2 axles with the same diameter. One is .0625 wall thickness and one is .250. Which is stronger. Then you have a 3rd. Its aluminum. And all 3 are coated in paint. Then have one made of low carbon low alloy steel and 1 of high carbon steel. Which is stronger just by looking at it?

5030 could tell you... it's just common sense.

 

[BnRidge]

You could have 2 axles with the same diameter. One is .0625 wall thickness and one is .250. Which is stronger. Then you have a 3rd. Its aluminum. And all 3 are coated in paint. Then have one made of low carbon low alloy steel and 1 of high carbon steel. Which is stronger just by looking at it?

But the number of lug bolts are different.

 

[hiddentacocatneddih]

But the number of lug bolts are different.

Ok? Some cars run 1 nut , some run a ton. I worked on an axle that carried up to 14k lbs on a single tire. 1 nut. And the load it was rated for was much more than 14k since it could survive a pretty hard landing. Yet it was smaller than my 6k lb tractor axle.

 

[BnRidge]

Ok? Some cars run 1 nut , some run a ton. I worked on an axle that carried up to 14k lbs on a single tire. 1 nut. And the load it was rated for was much more than 14k since it could survive a pretty hard landing. Yet it was smaller than my 6k lb tractor axle.

Someone mentioned earlier that they used the number of lug nuts as an indicator of axle capacity. I didn't think that was necessarily so, and by your description it sounds like that's clearly not the case. The front and rear rims on my ck4010 both have the same number of lug bolts/nuts, yet the axle capacities are very different.

 

[ROUSTABOUT]

Dang, this sticker on this trailer says that when it's fully loaded it is more than my tractor will pull.

 

[Sid Post]

You can put a 6 or 8-lug hub on your small utility trailer if you want to just like putting a 2 5/16th ball coupler on so you aren't constantly swapping balls on your pickup or tractor trailer hitch.

 

[Trackerjoe]

This popped up in my YT feed today and I found it quite interesting. The obvious question: Why would a manufacturer build a front axel that is already at capacity before the bucket is even loaded?

Maybe Mfgrs figure capacity is load that axles can carry for X,000 hours but you aren't going to do loader work that often. If you're using loader for a large percent of time. Should get a skid steer.

 

[Skypilota72]

My reaction to the video? Whatever. I was surprised Neal didn’t bash J.D. more but he refrained.

One point to be clear on, JD lists specific rear ballast requirements. He ignored that although I suspect it still overloads things by the axle specs. I owned a Kubota BX and currently own a JD 2025r. The 2025r has the same loader as the tractor in the video, just on a larger chassis, both the Kubota and the JD need ballast on the back.

So, the 1025r bucket holds 6 CF of material, meaning the max weight of material lifted would then be:

Gravel = 750 Lbs Dry
Sand = 600 Lbs Wet
Dirt = 480 Lbs Dry

I have the same bucket size on my Mahindra Max-24, and tractor+ Loader weight is 2300 lbs. My loader is capable of lifting 900 lbs, though I would never stress that type of load. How much counter weight would you suggest at 600 lbs?

 

[WinterDeere]

So, the 1025r bucket holds 6 CF of material, meaning the max weight of material lifted would then be:

Gravel = 750 Lbs Dry
Sand = 600 Lbs Wet
Dirt = 480 Lbs Dry

Yes, but the amount of load these weights apply to the front axle is increased by the lever effect, as the load is well forward of the axle.

How much counter weight would you suggest at 600 lbs?

Your owners manual should give pretty good detail on how much counterweight would be required, as there are numerous dimensions (loader COM from front axle, versus ballast COM from rear axle, and distance between axles) and weights (loader, bucket, material, ballast, tractor) that come into consideration.

Lacking that, a very rough rule of thumb might be to be sure the product of ballast mass x ballast COG to rear axle distance similar to the product of material + bucket mass x bucket COG to front axle distance. So, if your loaded bucket weighs 700 lb and it's center of mass (COM) located 3 feet forward of the front axle, it would be roughly balanced by the same 700 lb. placed 3 feet aft of the rear axle.

That's not to say this amount of ballast is required to prevent a tip, as the mass of the tractor and loader itself is aft of your front axle pivot point, it's only a rough estimate based on maintaining similar stability and axle load ratios to no loader at all.

 

[Bison]

I guess common sense is no longer required.

 

[WinterDeere]

I guess common sense is no longer required.

I'm not sure common sense is involved at all, when trying to guess how well or how poorly some tractor manufacturer in India did or did not design their front axle.

 

[bowenskye]

It seems to be a pretty common trend with inexperienced tractor owners to think since they paid a lot of money for their tractors that they should be indestructible and perform like a D6. In reality tractors are not industrial machinery and cost drastically less than machines that actually are.

It seems ironic to me, that one can often buy working, used industrial equipment for less than these new, tiny machines. Its not hard to find a decent D6, or payloader for 15k. Mind you, it won't be nearly as comfortable as the new machine.