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

[lcalverson13]

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?

I found that my 65 hp Mahindra was just enough to be of use for unloading Semi deliveries. Engage no 4 wheel drive is mandatory and f you want to handle the traction demands. Loaded rear tires are also a must.

 

[manzer7]

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?

What is missing here ? THE BALLAST BOX !!! I never ever use my (2018) 1025R without the ballast box - which is fully loaded with close to 400#s. That differential lowers the front axle amount by a large number.
The only time the box is not on is when I have the tiller on or the box blade. And during that time is when the FEL is not in use. I did not buy a lawnmower !!! To me that is not useful in a tractor in any way.

Have a nice day !

 

[WinterDeere]

Interesting to say the least, But a lot of people have problems with the front ends seals, bearings, shafts, and other components in the front end, One of the biggest problems i have encountered is front end bearings, And of course they take all of the load. Here is my take on that, they use ball bearings in this application and this is not the right bearing to use. They should be using timkin tapered roller bearings like they used to use on trucks and cars and gear boxses years ago, these bearings are made to handle heavy loads, not ball bearings.

Where'd you get this information? I guess I can't speak for other machines, but the front axle stub bearings on my 3033r are Timkens, not ball bearings. They use ball bearings for the floating shafts, where there's zero radial load, and for the steering pivots. But the actual radial load carrying axle stubs are Timken.

 

[Dr_Zinj]

Not one word about proper 3 point ballasting to reduce front axle "static" loading.

Well, I've suspended enough weight off the front loader to pick the entire rear end off the ground, and basically 2-wheeled the load on the front axle to where I wanted it. I don't recommend it though.

 

[troverman]

Neil's videos can be interesting. There's no doubt he's a Kubota fanboy, although his dealer also sells New Holland. As many people have noted, though, larger this or that doesn't necessarily mean stronger. For example, a new Ford 6.7L Powerstroke diesel has a piston connecting rod which is much thinner than the connecting rod in the old International-made 6.0L diesel. Yet somehow the 6.7L survives quite well producing a lot more horsepower and close to twice the torque of the old engine. On very small machines like a Kubota BX or Deere 1025, lighter is very likely better. These machines are going to be homeowner type machines not used in commercial applications; many of them will be mowing lawns or carrying around small buckets of mulch or lifting 500lb loads. Thus, a lighter machine has less impact on the homeowner's lawn and can be transported with a pretty light duty trailer behind a regular half-ton pickup. Shipping these things around the country or from overseas is also cheaper for the manufacturer. Frankly, when the generic SCUT manufacturers start bragging about how their less expensive tractors are also heavier and lifts more compared to the more costly 'name brand' machines, it isn't because of better engineering - its typically because they used less refined castings or less engineered parts, because they are cheaper...and the loaders are made by some third party with a lift rating that isn't specific to the brand of tractor they eventually end up on. Now I'll admit I'm also somewhat of a Kubota fan-boy, largely because I think they are a good quality tractor and a better value than Deere. The other brands are probably mostly fine as well, but with scattered dealer support and parts and components made by any number of companies including engines, transmissions, loaders, implements, and more (hence why I call them generic).

Inflating ratings is nothing new to manufacturers, look at tow rating of pickup trucks. The TV will tell you some huge maximum tow number but you later learn your King Ranch diesel is only rated for 1900lbs of payload, not the 4,000lbs the TV mentioned (for a regular cab 2WD gas engine truck with crank-up windows).

 

[jiggseob]

OP asks "Why manufacturers would...." because they can. Competent, prudent design and manufacture builds and rates an assembly for X pounds of load. That does not mean it fails/collapses when loaded at X+1 pounds. That means there is some undisclosed design margin - for safety/stupidity/litigation avoidance - you pick the reason.

So with the loader on, and the bucket loaded to rated capacity for the loader, and no ballast on the rear, the load on the front axle is beyond the engineer/designer intent, but still within what the static load of what axle will support without failing. Put some dynamics on that situation, such as turning, hitting a bump, stopping a quickly dropping load, etc and the failure of a spindle or kingpin is more likely.

When the failure happens, whose problem (responsibility to pay) it is becomes arguable, both at the dealership service/parts counter and further into the courts.

We like to think that purchasing a reputable brand would get a more robust design margin. The more robust design might be the utilization of drop-forged castings in the high stress points, and an extra eighth of an inch of high strength steel in the spindle or kingpin. As every brand has moved to "outsource" larger portions of a finished product to the low bidder, the concept of "quality" being built into a brand is long gone.

For us end-market customers, that means our multi-tens-of-thousands of dollar purchase is like stepping up to a craps-table and throwing the dice. Gone are the days of buying a product from a reputable brand and having a high level of assurance that it will last long enough to leave with the farm and continue to serve well for your grand children.

Because they can.

 

[aircommuter]

Load balance is always part of a tractor. As far as overloading the rear axle, wheel weights and filled tires don’t load the axle. Second is that the loads change with conditions. Going uphill the balance of the load shifts to the rearward, acceleration also shifts weight to the rear know as weight transfer. While not permanent just an example. Consider axle duty cycle, while not published it does exist. Just like side to side over different terrain may overload a tire. But its not forever. Bottom line is buy a machine that is bigger and stronger than what you need, protect yourself and your equipment instead of splitting straws to convince your wife you need the tractor in the thing in the first place. Also buy older stronger equipment with less shiny paint that doesn’t have to regen and fart around while it could be working. If it’s ugly buy some paint and decals. You will be happier in the long run, or maybe even in the short run.

 

[Ed Weber]

This will continue to happen when they insist on putting compact tractor parts on sub-compact tractors. Most of these things are classified as class 1 but should really be a 0. They simply aren't built to handle the loads stated by the data.
How can your front axle be at max weight capacity with no load?

 

[WinterDeere]

Well, I've suspended enough weight off the front loader to pick the entire rear end off the ground, and basically 2-wheeled the load on the front axle to where I wanted it. I don't recommend it though.

I don't get how this is possible. Every tractor I've ever owned has a pivot with an awful lot of angular travel, between the front axle and the tractor frame. If you stand the thing up on the front wheels, as you suggest, the tractor will invariably fall to one side or the other. The travel in this pivot is sufficient to put the tractor COG (esp. with a load suspended from bucket) way off to the side of your front wheel track. It seems that, unless the load, bucket, or one rear tire remain on the ground, you and the entire rig will end up on your side.

 

[Bentrim]

Where'd you get this information? I guess I can't speak for other machines, but the front axle stub bearings on my 3033r are Timkens, not ball bearings. They use ball bearings for the floating shafts, where there's zero radial load, and for the steering pivots. But the actual radial load carrying axle stubs are Timken.

Not all manufacturers use tapered roller bearings for axle bearing. Even some use ball bearings for the front differential. IH got in trouble when the 460 and 560 came out as they used ball bearing in the transmission and it was a large failure, and cost IH a lot to repair those tractors.
If you were not aware ball bearing can be manufactured as a thrust bearing, to support a load and take thrust.
But being an old timer I as you would rather see tapered rollers to support loads, especially in wheel bearings.