Buying Advice Ballast Box vs Wheel Weights vs Filled Tires

[TripleR]

If you NEED to lighten your front axle's load by ~675 or so then maybe 1800 lbs on the back is a good idea - one would have to know the axle's rating to know for sure.
My CLAIM is that the front axle shouldn't need load relief and the 675 is probably such a small percentage of it's rating that with the loader fully loaded you should be well within the margin without having to subtract ANY load.
The loaded R4s should provide adequate stability for loader (to full capacity) work.

I would rather have my next most likely implement on there anyway, not for rear ballast, just for the straight utility of having it there and not having to swap a dead weight off and on (-:
I know, Murphy tends to interferes with that idea, but there is a better chance that the next implement I need will be the last one I used than that it will be mere ballast.

So, how many loaders are out there that can outlift their tractor's front axle capacity ?
IOW, is front axle load relief a REAL problem, or just one that we can suggest to ourselves with casual observation and a little arithmetic ?

I may have misunderstood your post, but loaded rear tires on our M8540 HSDC does not provide enough counterbalance to fully utilize the FEL. We "can" use the FEL, but the rear end gets really light.

I really don't know enough about mechanical issues to comment on the need to relieve weight on the front axle. I do know we have an 86 MF 375 that has never had rear ballast and we haven't had issues yet, guess there are a lot of factors to consider.

We are probably going to cheap out and use a 55 gallon drum of concrete instead of buying something, we use a wheeled scraper and our Woods 121 is just too bulky.

 

[whistlepig]

You guys are an awesome resource. Thanks for all of the terrific feedback.

I'm more inclined to go with wheel weights if I can get them instead of loaded tires, mostly because I'd like the option of being able to remove the extra weight when I'm mowing the front lawn, especially since I'll be using R4's.

If I understand correctly, Kubota doesn't make wheel weights for their tractors, with the exception of one or two models. Is this accurate?

If this is the case, where would you guys suggest getting wheel weights that are the ideal size for the rear wheels on the B-Series tractors? It would be great to get make and model numbers if you've got them. I know a lot of folks are more apt to just jury-rig something, however I'd really like to find weights that are the ideal size for the rear tires I'd have and won't require any retrofitting to make them work.

Thanks again for all of the help,


John

My B7800 is about the same size as your tractor and has filled tires and R4's. It doesn't tear up the lawn. I have 8 acres of yard and I go as fast as I can.

 

[whistlepig]

As far as "don't buy a tractor with a fragile front axle", I wonder if there is such a thing. I'm on my third tractor (went from a 19 HP Deere to a 35 HP Deere) and all three had loaders. The tractor and loader manuals were pretty specific on the need for rear ballast.
My machines were all CUTs and I can't say I've ever read (or even seen) manuals for full sized UTs, but I'd wager those manuals would read the same.

As far as " but don't waste money on buying or lugging around dead weight", the ballast boxes provide for a lot of weight in a very compact size...can't see calling that "dead weight". That compactness is quite handy in close quarters (meaning I haven't hit anything with it yet...can't say the same about the rear blade or rotary cutter).
Also, that ballast box is one of the easiest of implements to rig to the 3PH (mine is kept on a roll around dolly).

The main reason I bought a ballast box was because of it's compact size. It only sticks out 16" farther in the back. I move snow around barns, gates, and a horsey run in shed. Some places are tight. One of the best advantages of a compact or subcompact for me is it's small size and their ability to do a lot of work in tight places. Hanging something 5'-6' long off the back just makes the tractor harder for me to use.

 

[Reg]

I may have misunderstood your post, but loaded rear tires on our M8540 HSDC does not provide enough counterbalance to fully utilize the FEL. We "can" use the FEL, but the rear end gets really light.

I really don't know enough about mechanical issues to comment on the need to relieve weight on the front axle. I do know we have an 86 MF 375 that has never had rear ballast and we haven't had issues yet, guess there are a lot of factors to consider.

We are probably going to cheap out and use a 55 gallon drum of concrete instead of buying something, we use a wheeled scraper and our Woods 121 is just too bulky.

I don't have numbers for tractors other than those that I own.
I have figured out the front axle loads for each one with the loader at it's max, allowing for a reasonable percentage of the tractor's own weight, the loader frame itself, the fact that the load is cantilevered out in front, etc and every one of them comes in WELL UNDER the front axle rating, i.e. I don't see any NEED to relive the front axles of their load.

My "SUSPICION" is that the belief that there is a need to relieve the front axle of part of it's load may be a hang-over from when FELs were a new thing and tractor designs lagged the need for sturdy front ends. Not suggesting that it goes back as far as tricycle fronts ends, but maybe to before when tractors became the Swiss Army knife with loader, back hoe, mower... and forklift duties.

I have a minor problem believing that it is a GOOD thing to add, say 1,000 lbs to the rear of a tractor to get somewhere in the order of 375 lbs reduction in front axle load to reduce wear and tear / prolong service life.
That 1,000 lbs burdens the rest of the tractor, whether there is anything in the bucket or not, so if you have a worry about wear and tear consider the empty trips TO the pile/stack as well.

OTOH, tire ballast isn't "carried", but that is a whole 'nother fun argument we've visited a few times (-:

 

[TripleR]

I don't have numbers for tractors other than those that I own.
I have figured out the front axle loads for each one with the loader at it's max, allowing for a reasonable percentage of the tractor's own weight, the loader frame itself, the fact that the load is cantilevered out in front, etc and every one of them comes in WELL UNDER the front axle rating, i.e. I don't see any NEED to relive the front axles of their load.

My "SUSPICION" is that the belief that there is a need to relieve the front axle of part of it's load may be a hang-over from when FELs were a new thing and tractor designs lagged the need for sturdy front ends. Not suggesting that it goes back as far as tricycle fronts ends, but maybe to before when tractors became the Swiss Army knife with loader, back hoe, mower... and forklift duties.

I have a minor problem believing that it is a GOOD thing to add, say 1,000 lbs to the rear of a tractor to get somewhere in the order of 375 lbs reduction in front axle load to reduce wear and tear / prolong service life.
That 1,000 lbs burdens the rest of the tractor, whether there is anything in the bucket or not, so if you have a worry about wear and tear consider the empty trips TO the pile/stack as well.

OTOH, tire ballast isn't "carried", but that is a whole 'nother fun argument we've visited a few times (-:

Like I said, I don't get involved in the discussion on reducing the weight on the front axle by adding weight to the three point. I simply don't know enough about it. We have never needed rear ballast on the 3-point on our MF 375 as the loaded tires provided enough weight/counterbalance to get the full use of the FEL and this was also the case with our Case CX80.

On my L5030 and our M8540 fluid in the rear tires simply is not enough weight so I use a box blade or rotary cutter on the L5030 and since I don't want to spring for a implement I don't need, we will rig up a 55 gallon barrel full of concrete for the M8540.

All I am saying is that in my experience/opinion on some tractors if not most, adding additional weight to the rear of the tractor gives you a more stable machine. Two of our farms are in the hills and running a tractor without enough weight on the back is a real challenge.

Hopefully I haven't confused anyone nor presented myself as someone who knows anything on the subject of weighting/durability of front end components.

 

[Diavolicchio]

A bit more info about your situation would help.

Grandad4:

I've got an 11 1/2 acre parcel of open hayfield (and an additional adjacent 6 1/2 acre parcel I'm soon to be buying) that I'm slowing turning into a fruit orchard. 2 1/2 acres out of the 18 will be a fenced-in residential area where my goal is to have a beautiful, well-maintained lawn. I'd say another 2 1/2 acres disappear into the tall tree line that surround the perimeter of the property. The remaining 13 acres will be orchard, although I'm probably looking at about a 3 to 4 year period before all of the trees will be in.

So, I'll be using the tractor both for mowing the lawn around the house/barn/garage, as well as using it as a field mower in the orchard, and for purposes of digging, plowing, tilling, harrowing and planting. To go with turf tires would be having the tail wagging the dog; the tractor's primary purposes is the orchard and the field within it. I simply want to make sure I've got a solution for using the tractor to mow my yard and to do minimal damage to it in the process.

The solution may indeed to be to go with loaded tires, but to simply take off the front loader and ballast box when I mow. Frankly, I don't think there's any reason to have these on the tractor when I'm mowing the orchard, either. I don't however want to go with turf tires. I think the R4's are probably the best bet given my situation and circumstances.

The point was well made in the last handful of posts about the hassle of putting on and taking off heavy wheel weights. In hindsight, I'm thinking the filled tires may be the best option. I'd just like to know what I should be asking to have the tires filled WITH here in Maine, and to what capacity.

I appreciate the feedback.


John

 

[TripleR]

One consideration on filled tires v wheel weights is the loss of fluid if you get a flat and difficulty of fixing a flat with filled tires. That is why I went with wheel weights on my BX.

I also take my FEL off when mowing/bush hogging for less weight and much improved maneuverability.

 

[Diavolicchio]

One consideration on filled tires v wheel weights is the loss of fluid if you get a flat and difficulty of fixing a flat with filled tires. That is why I went with wheel weights on my BX.

I also take my FEL off when mowing/bush hogging for less weight and much improved maneuverability.

TripleR:

The solution for me could just as easily be going with the wheel weights instead, but leaving them on all the time (no different from the extra weight of filled tires), and simply removing the ballast box and FEL when I mow.


John

 

[TripleR]

TripleR:

The solution for me could just as easily be going with the wheel weights instead, but leaving them on all the time (no different from the extra weight of filled tires), and simply removing the ballast box and FEL when I mow.


John

Yes, the only advantage would be that a flat on a filled tire is going to be very messy and difficult to repair while a flat on an unfilled tire may only require a plug instead of a visit to the tire shop. Just something to consider.

We have had a few flats on filled tires and it got expensive quick. I guess everything is a trade off one way or the other as we have wheel weights, filled tires and tractors without weights or filled.

 

[Grandad4]

I'm thinking the R4's will be your best bet, probably with some liquid ballasting. At some future point you may decide it's just easier to stay out of the wife's petunia's by using a dedicated mower for the mowing chores around the house, and your choices go from box store "lawn tractors" to commercial ZTR's, all able to handle your 2+ acres of true lawn.

That's a very nice open field you have that probably won't need extensive re-grading. Do you have any idea about soil conditions? The B series tractors will do well with a tiller for working the soil, but, due to their comparative lightness, they may not be the best choice for pulling traditional ground engaging implements such as a plow and disc. Using a rotary tiller might be problematic if it's rocky soil since the rocks get hung up in the tines of the tiller.

I'm no expert regarding orchards, but I suppose you might not need to turn under an entire segment of the 13 acres each time you plant trees. Wouldn't you be able to till or turn a strip for each row of trees to be planted and leave the remaining pasture grass in place?

Be sure to space your trees so you can get your tractor through when mowing. And also be sure you're not going to have a clearance problem driving that nice cabbed tractor under or between what you've planted! Cab tractors and low-hanging trees usually do not live together comfortably.

Having seen the photo of your beautiful property and read of your plans, I can only begin to appreciate that you have a lot of work in your future. But it looks to me that you will quickly find the need for more tools, implements, storage and work areas. Don't be surprised if additions or other structures are needed! But it does sound like a great undertaking. All the best as you proceed.