Do I have a "real" problem ?

[SPYDERLK]

I know. I explained it better with some editing of my original post.

You are addressing this in an indirect way and easy to misinterpret I think. ... The ratio lead is set up mechanically to deal with the tractors intended F/B tire sizes. Usually so that the fronts try to pull the rears by covering 0 to ~ 7% more ground. They slip instead by that percentage. If a larger front tire is substituted it slips more, trying to cover even more ground. This gives a greater lead % even tho mechanical drive ratio is the same

 

[arrow]

If a larger front tire is substituted it slips more, trying to cover even more ground. This gives a greater lead % even tho mechanical drive ratio is the same

"Slippage"(if you are referencing this as it applies to traction) I'm not sure is what manufacturers are trying to communicate as much as "lead" in terms of revolutions or "rolling circumference ratios". A larger tire will revolve less as it gets taller for the same distance but will cover more ground in it rolling circumfrence. My understanding is that if the fronts are always supposed to be "leading" when 4wd is engaged or revolving more to cover the same distance as the larger rear. A larger circumference tire in front reduces the amount of "lead" as it applies to revolutions but increases the amount of rolling circumference ratio. "Lead" in this case is being measured by me in revolutions and not rolling circumference. Basically, all this is measured in ground travel. Dividing the rolling circumference of the front tire with the RC of the rear will give a certain ratio. If this percentage is within 2% of factory ratio, should be ok with no problems due to binding.

All that needs to be done is to acquire the rolling circumference of both front and rear of the old tires and divide the front by the rear. Then find the rolling circumference of the new front tires and divide that by the rears. If these figures are within 2% of each other, he's ok.

To get "rolling circumference" multiply the diameter of the tire by pi or 3.14. This gives " free hanging circumference" . To get "rolling circumference", this number is reduced by things like tractor weight and tire pressure. By multiplying the "free hanging circumference" by 97%, one gets a fair assimilation of rolling circumference.

Hope this clears up some of the confusion from which can be a confusing topic.

 

[leonz]

It all depends on how much work the front tires do when the
mule is in four wheel(four shoe) drive.

The front differential will spin slightly slower than the original tires
and wheels due to the circumference.

The major issue is whether you have a no spin differential versus a
standard slipping differential in the front and you have to be careful
when turning on pavement and rock hard ground by only executing the
turns slowly.

You did the right thing in buying the identical tire for the opposing side
as you would have been up "Shitts Creek" without your mule otherwise.

The high wheel row crop tractors used for irrigated row crops/ridge tillage have the same issue with larger front tires but as long as they are identical there are no issues.

It all comes down to torque and horsepower and load against said horsepower that provides said torque per revolution.

Your turning radius is going to be larger because the front tires are larger.

For what its worth people install high wheel tires on all sorts of mules for row crop work so no issues there.

 

[SPYDERLK]

"Slippage"(if you are referencing this as it applies to traction) I'm not sure is what manufacturers are trying to communicate as much as "lead" in terms of revolutions or "rolling circumference ratios". A larger tire will revolve less as it gets taller for the same distance but will cover more ground in it rolling circumfrence. My understanding is that if the fronts are always supposed to be "leading" when 4wd is engaged or revolving more to cover the same distance as the larger rear. A larger circumference tire in front reduces the amount of "lead" as it applies to revolutions but increases the amount of rolling circumference ratio. "Lead" in this case is being measured by me in revolutions and not rolling circumference. Basically, all this is measured in ground travel. Dividing the rolling circumference of the front tire with the RC of the rear will give a certain ratio. If this percentage is within 2% of factory ratio, should be ok with no problems due to binding.

All that needs to be done is to acquire the rolling circumference of both front and rear of the old tires and divide the front by the rear. Then find the rolling circumference of the new front tires and divide that by the rears. If these figures are within 2% of each other, he's ok.

To get "rolling circumference" multiply the diameter of the tire by pi or 3.14. This gives " free hanging circumference" . To get "rolling circumference", this number is reduced by things like tractor weight and tire pressure. By multiplying the "free hanging circumference" by 97%, one gets a fair assimilation of rolling circumference.

Hope this clears up some of the confusion from which can be a confusing topic.

I dont think it is confusing at all, but your explanation does help make it so.

 

[Mace Canute]

Ground speed is not dependent on the rolling circumference; it is dependent on the rolling radius measured vertically from the centerline of the axle to the ground.

 

[Ivan49]

If it was mine I would go back to the size tire it came with from the factory. Or play it by ear until you hear a squeak squeak and then a grind and front wheels quit pulling. I know it makes this sound because my front pinion went out this winter. 600 for the ring and pinion plus seals and my time to fix it

 

[mjcountrybumpkin]

Tires wear at different rates that is some of what the "lead " compensates for. The front tires on my 5083e have wore at least 2 1/2 " while the rears have wore considerably less. No problems for me, but I do not run in 4wd on any paved surfaces. I believe your tires will be perfectly fine , just don't run in 4wd on paved surfaces ( never should anyway). By the way I bet they last a lot longer than standard r4s would anyway.

 

[arrow]

I dont think it is confusing at all, but your explanation does help make it so.

I believe you are correct. It is too verbose. To the op: just divide the front rolling circumfrence by the rear RC. I have previously explained how to find rolling circumfrence.

 

[MHarryE]

If I understand your second post correctly the same size tire was used to replace the original. According to the manufacturer of your Lifemaster tires, they should have identical size except for tread pattern. The Lifemaster is a replacement with the obviously different tread as shown in your picture but it is supposed to be molded on the same carcass. Like its name says, this tread is used for longer life on hard surfaces such as concrete and asphalt, and also damages turf less than the standard tread. From their info, if you bought their Solideal Hauler R4 is the same except for your expensive tread.

 

[SARG]

On guidance from another source I checked the listed factory specs between the the Solideal and the original Titan R4s.

It seems the diameter is less than 5/8 different i.e. 30.9 vs 30.3"

The original R4 that I replaced must be very worn compared to new.

I also found out from the original dealer that the T1530 started out as a lease vehicle in a nursery pulling wagons around. Could be the bulk of the 360 hours were on a roadway.