Ballast Ballast box or Filled tires?

[Indydirtfarmer]

You are correct in the insignificance of the arguement, in regards to casual users.

I will (when I have time to track down all the links) post test results from all the parties who have done field testing on the issue. It IS significant when you log hundreds (even thousands) of hours under heavy drawbar load conditions.

During all of the field tests that I have seen data on, no one has ever seen any evidence that fluid filled tires will use more fuel, or that they cause a tractor to expend more energy to operate. That is why fluid filled tires has been with us since the begining of pneumatic tires on farm equipment.

They will make a tractor feel heavier, and more cumbersome, but as far as using more fuel..... It just doesn't happen.

BTDT.....

And just to add to the debate, a proper ballasted tractor will actually use LESS fuel per acre worked. (No wheel spin = more efficient)

 

[bdog]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( And just to add to the debate, a proper ballasted tractor will actually use LESS fuel per acre worked. (No wheel spin = more efficient) )</font>

Actually you need some wheel slip to be most efficient. At least according to this. http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/ageng2/mf588.pdf

They state that from their testing 8-15% wheel slip gives you the most efficiency. Any more than that and well your tires are just spinning too much. Any less and you have too much rolling resistance.

 

[Indydirtfarmer]

That's correct. In MOST cases. (Heavy drawbar loads) Under some conditions, it isn't acceptable. (such as when pulling a planter)

The key word is PROPERLY ballasted.....

 

[KiotiJohn]

Bob makes some very good points. The differences in myths about most things are myriad. What I've been told all my life about the resistance of adding weight to the tires came from people who also believed it from their experience. I have to agree that for most of us, it just doesn't matter.
I couldn't find the studies myself, but would love to read up on it if anyone can find them.
Logic would seem to say that if you add weight that makes the tractor heavier in the soil, that it would take more power to move that weight and get the tires rolling in the soil. I suppose that's where the opinion about fuel useage comes from.
John
EDIT: </font><font color="blue" class="small">(
First, KiotiJohn makes a compelling arguement for buying a light tractor and adding ballast but then bought a heavy one )</font> I didn't exactly make a compelling argument for buying a lighter tractor. I stated that most of my jobs just don't require the extra weight of loaded tires. I bought a heavier tractor so that I wouldn't have to add weight, but for some jobs, I could if need be. Just to clarify. J

 

[bugstruck]

Fluid filled was my choice but with the BH on most of the time that may have been a little overkill. Has allot of traction that way though.

I see the debate on ecomomy, and don't want to jump in too awful far. But moving weight takes energy even if it's balanced both sides of an axle. Tire slippage wastes energy too. My guess it the two offset each other on heavy drawbar loads and no observable loss in efficiency is encountered.

Seems what you loose in moving more mass, you get back in better forward bite, assuming your pulling. Now if you drove it down the road all day, then the results should change a bit.

 

[Boomerang1]

If anyone needs proof that a filled tire takes more energy to move, remove a rear tire thats filled and try rolling it yourself and see how much more energy it take vs a non filled tire. The statement that it takes more hp and fuel to move a filled tire is true... period. It doesn't matter if the difference is measurable or not.

 

[MMM]

Boomerrang, I have tried. It takes a little more HP (human power) to get it rolling, but once going, it's easy. Stopping one takes some doing. The HP it takes to overcome the inertia is hardly worth nitpicking about.
This is pretty much a moot point. For those of us who can mow their lawn with their tractor, of course removable weight makes sense. I can't drive mine on the lawn unballasted without leaving depreesins and hurting grass, so permanent weight doesn't really matter. (except I'm not fiddling with expensive weights)

 

[Gunnahafta]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( It takes a little more HP (human power) to get it rolling, but once going, it's easy. Stopping one takes some doing. The HP it takes to overcome the inertia is hardly worth nitpicking about. )</font>

Not to fan any fires, but what if you tried rolling the filled tire up an incline (hill). My feeble mind tells me it would take more effort to roll a filled tire up a hill and once you got it going, you would have to keep adding effort to keep it going--more than if the tire was not filled.

So maybe a possible scenario to vendicate both sides of this interpretation of real-life situations--perhaps terrain is a factor that should be considered. If you mainly navigate on relatively flat surfaces, maybe </font><font color="blue" class="small">( The HP it takes to overcome the inertia is hardly worth nitpicking about. )</font>

And if you are on hilly terrain, the extra fuel you use on inclines is compensated by the fuel you may save on the gravity-fed return trip. After all, your net altitude change is zero if you park your tractor in the same place every night....

just a thought... /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
best to all

 

[MMM]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( tried rolling the filled tire up an incline (hill) )</font>
Not a chance. I should have my head examined for rolling a loaded tire on flat ground. Controling a 500lb tire isn't for the faint hearted.

 

[txhawg]

Wow, Gunnahafta, that is some of the best non-commital fence sitting I have seen in a long time.