DK50SE HST No Ballast Lifting

[IslandTractor]

My guesstimate: something around 500lbs would be no issue even without ballast. 1000 would be pushing it but probably doable. Just depends on how you drive. Your rears may lift a tad but if you are in 4wd that shouldn't matter. Still, I basically never leave the tractor without a 3pt implement so the lightest ballast I ever use is a six foot rake that weighs probably 400lbs and is only 3 or 4 ft behind the 3PT. If I'm serious I have either a Woods BushBull600 (about 900lbs as I recall and six or seven feet back) or a Woods BH90x (at least 1200lbs) on the back.

I was moving dirt today with just a Caroni flail mower (?500lbs) on the back. Rear end was a bit light but I could travel with a heaped 4n1 bucket of sandy soil and rock. It would have been dicey without any rear ballast.

 

[TomSeller]

I also leave a backhoe or heavy implement on anytime I am doing serious lifting. It makes raising the rear end almost a non issue.

 

[Coyote machine]

Just to be clear, I am not "broadly" advocating the operation of the FEL without rear ballast. My question, however, is based upon the premise that a safe, unballasted, operational weight does exist. To contend otherwise would be to accuse the manufacturers of purposeful endangerment. If, in fact, safe operation in the absence of additional equipment is impossible, legislation should be imposed to mandate the inclusion of that equipment with the delivery of any FEL.

Having said all of that, I fully agree the weight is subject to a plethora of environmental factors. Further, it may be the weight could be 10lbs, 100lbs or 10000lbs, depending upon the particular tractor and its specific setup.

Perhaps the question should have been posed in a more clinical fashion ... On a solid and level surface, at a speed of 1 mph, with the FEL equipped with pallet forks and being raised 6 inches from the ground, with no wind and a temperature of 72F on a partly cloudy day, what is the maximum safe limit that may be raised with the FEL sans rear ballast? I guarantee you there IS an answer, otherwise a case of gross negligence exists and some manufacturer is eventually going to be massively and successfully sued.

Just my 2 cents and I realize your mileage may vary

Purposeful endangerment?! Really? Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of tractor owners who have tractors prior to ROPS being implemented. There are now retrofit programs being offered to put ROPS on older tractors to increase the safety for those who might die from rollovers, as many have, and some continue to do EVEN WITH ROPS and seatbelts issued as standard equipment on every tractor make and model sold now.
Now, insofar as your hypothetical 72 degree day and otherwise seemingly 'perfect' day scenario. FELs come with an owner's manual, and could come with a 1000# bolted to the 3PH too, but some genius would find a way to defeat the purpose and run with no extra weight on the back and rollover and die. Anything is possible and what rules is 'usually and customary' practice in an industry like tractor manufacturers. I doubt anyone here is going to provide a safe #; they might get massively and successfully sued for doing so. TBN even states that members should take any advice or opinions given on its forums as NOT legal or in any way representative of a factual nature and NOT to rely on such advice; instead to check with a professional tractor or other manufacturer for correct information/advice.
Answer is: less weight than will flip your tractor in any given situation.

 

[Egbert]

I like your answer - "less weight than will flip your tractor in any given situation." Maybe it should be included in the owner's manuals.

ROPS is a great thing, no doubt. Even so, it is possible to operate the tractor safely without it. People drown in the bathtub, but it is still possible to safely bathe without a life jacket. Millions have driven and survived without seatbelts. Unbelievably, more millions have ridden bicycles without helmets and lived to tell.

I've handled loads that were easily in excess of 500 lbs - with no rear ballast. I was on relatively level and smooth ground, and I kept the loads low when moving. Never did I feel the platform was unstable or in any danger of rollover. Yes, I am in the process of getting some ballast on the tractor but it would make no sense whatsoever to purchase a tractor/FEL and be afraid to use it, within design limits, as delivered. In short, my question was asking about those design limits.

Nite all ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Sysop]

Stable safe and damage free are totally different things. I've heard it said by many folk smarter than most, that most front axle failures on CUTs and SCUTs could be prevented by properly ballasting off the three point. If your goal with ballast is stability, then your efforts should be to maintain same the front to rear weight ratio loaded as it was designed unloaded. If your goal is to preserve the lifespan of the front axle and FEL work is the machine's life, your efforts should be for a goal of shifting as much weight to the rear axle as you can without raising the unloaded front end. A 3pt lift will generally have a higher capacity than a FEL so you can put enough weight on the rear to counter any weight up to the rated limits (given environmental considerations as well). Generally from all I've learned, ballasting at the full capacity of the 3pt is recommended to provide the best balance of stability and lifespan of all components involved when operating the FEL at capacity. It's just like a child's teeter-totter, a child seated closer to the pivot point must weigh more to counter the weight of another child seated farther away from the pivot. For a counterweight on the 3pt to have full counteracting ability on the load in the FEL using the rear axle for a pivot, it must weigh more being closer to the pivot; and this is just to maintain the same front to rear weight ratio as when unloaded..

 

[IslandTractor]

Purposeful endangerment?! Really? Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of tractor owners who have tractors prior to ROPS being implemented. There are now retrofit programs being offered to put ROPS on older tractors to increase the safety for those who might die from rollovers, as many have, and some continue to do EVEN WITH ROPS and seatbelts issued as standard equipment on every tractor make and model sold now. Now, insofar as your hypothetical 72 degree day and otherwise seemingly 'perfect' day scenario. FELs come with an owner's manual, and could come with a 1000# bolted to the 3PH too, but some genius would find a way to defeat the purpose and run with no extra weight on the back and rollover and die. Anything is possible and what rules is 'usually and customary' practice in an industry like tractor manufacturers. I doubt anyone here is going to provide a safe #; they might get massively and successfully sued for doing so. TBN even states that members should take any advice or opinions given on its forums as NOT legal or in any way representative of a factual nature and NOT to rely on such advice; instead to check with a professional tractor or other manufacturer for correct information/advice. Answer is: less weight than will flip your tractor in any given situation.

I've not heard of significant rollover danger related to using a FEL without appropriate ballast on a flat surface. I suppose one could lose control if in 2wd on a hill if the rear tires lifted but not enough to let the bucket hit the ground. I guess the same might be true if traveling fast with an overloaded bucket, losing control and running into a ditch. I guess lifting a load high while on a slope could cross some balance point that destabilizes the tractor but that can be an issue even with a properly ballasted tractor. Seems to me some dynamic energy from forward motion or sudden level change would have to be present to imbalance a tractor enough to roll though. Mostly, tractors don't rollover and the operator just cannot lift the load or the handling is immediately squirrelly if ballast is inadequate. Safety concerns with rollover typically relate to operating sideways on a slope or having a front wheel fall in a hole or lifting an imbalanced load or pulling with the load attached above the rear axle. The vast majority of rollover incidents have not so much to do with rear ballast as with motion. That said, it is important to use proper ballast but there are safe limits without extra ballast. I'd stick with my earlier suggestion that 500lbs is not a problem. Other than the bucket and half the FEL itself, a little sheet metal, battery and radiator, the vast majority of tractor weight is already behind the front axle serving as ballast. Remember that the operator himself is ballast too. Just be reasonable regarding travel speed, slope and height of lift, all concerns with a properly ballasted tractor too.

 

[Gary Fowler]

Just to be clear, I am not "broadly" advocating the operation of the FEL without rear ballast. My question, however, is based upon the premise that a safe, unballasted, operational weight does exist. To contend otherwise would be to accuse the manufacturers of purposeful endangerment. If, in fact, safe operation in the absence of additional equipment is impossible, legislation should be imposed to mandate the inclusion of that equipment with the delivery of any FEL.

Having said all of that, I fully agree the weight is subject to a plethora of environmental factors. Further, it may be the weight could be 10lbs, 100lbs or 10000lbs, depending upon the particular tractor and its specific setup.

Perhaps the question should have been posed in a more clinical fashion ... On a solid and level surface, at a speed of 1 mph, with the FEL equipped with pallet forks and being raised 6 inches from the ground, with no wind and a temperature of 72F on a partly cloudy day, what is the maximum safe limit that may be raised with the FEL sans rear ballast? I guarantee you there IS an answer, otherwise a case of gross negligence exists and some manufacturer is eventually going to be massively and successfully sued.

Just my 2 cents and I realize your mileage may vary

I think per your parameters, the answer would be "All the tractor FEL would lift and the rear tires stay on the ground". Putting even half that amount on rough sloping ground might cause a problem but keeping it 6" off the ground at all times is going to prevent any tipping. It MAY or Likely will cause front axle damage if continually used in this manner BUT a one time thing might get by without damage to the tractor (MIGHT is the word) depending on the strength of the design of the tractors front axles and other components.

Some FEL's are capable of lifting much more than the tractor can safely handle while others have the relief set so low that even without ballast, the FEL lift capacity is so low that you couldn't damage the tractor by lifting all it will lift without rear ballast.

 

[rjwerth]

As a general rule? About the weight of your bucket. How often do you know the actual weight of what you are lifting? Sure, you can make an educated guess...but really....how much water is in that pile of soil/hay/etc today vs yesterday? How settled (packed) is it? More times than not, there are significant variables what you are going to lift. Then there is the ground you are on (as other have already posted). Is it level? Is it firm? Is there 1 pot hole you just happen to hit with a front tire when you are pushing the physical limits of your tractor? My point is, that anyone giving a specific number of pounds you can lift I don't believe is going to be helpful for you unless you have a very high confidence of the weight of your potential load and the understanding of potential hazards.

You need to very carefully try out the limits of your machine, ballasted and/or not, under the most controlled circumstances you can make for yourself and take note. Other people's experiences are a good start point, but don't just take their word for it, learn all the variables to account for and gain confidence from experience.

 

[CJONE]

??? I don't know why people believe that more ballast=less weight on the front axle??? Simple physics the more weight you can lift = the more weight on the front axle. Think of a teeter totter same principle. If the fat kid is on the back the skinny kid will rise!! If I can't lift it and can drag it thats what I will do, love the 4X4. Always carry the load as low as possible. CJ

 

[IslandTractor]

??? I don't know why people believe that more ballast=less weight on the front axle??? Simple physics the more weight you can lift = the more weight on the front axle. Think of a teeter totter same principle. If the fat kid is on the back the skinny kid will rise!! If I can't lift it and can drag it thats what I will do, love the 4X4. Always carry the load as low as possible. CJ

Imagine a tractor with a very heavy implement on the 3PT. The balance/pivot point would be the rear axle. Imagine that 3pt weight was so heavy the front wheels were actually off the ground. Now, add some weight to the FEL and the front wheels will again touch the ground but they will not exert the same pressure on the front wheels/axle as they would if there was no massive weight on the back of the tractor. Weight on the 3PT or at least behind the rear axle will take pressure off the front axle when lifting the FEL. I agree loaded rear tires would not take weight off the front axle even though they would stabilize the tractor but weight behind the rear axle would remove weight from the front axle by pivoting over the rear axle.