willfick
Silver Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 197
- Location
- Midlands of South Carolina
- Tractor
- 1946 Farmall H, !967 Ford 3500D TLB
Do you have water in all four of 'em?
WM
WM
Do you know how much your tractor should weigh?
- Thread starter bdog
- Start date
- Views: 4683
Slamfire
Veteran Member
No sir, I haven't needed any. I just step on the differential lock and keep on tractorin'. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
mikeschwister
New member
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( It would be nice to see if a B3030 and a TC29 use the same implements given the weight difference between the two. I suspect that for the most part, the TC will pull a 5' box blade easier than a B3030, but I doubt it would pull it well enough that you'd want to jump up to a 6' box blade. That said, from the "practical" application standpoint, they both might be limited to the same implements, although one probably should pull the implement a bit easier. Then again, with a finish mower, tiller or snowblower, there should be no real reason why heavier would be better that I can think of.
Now when it comes to folks who do things like pull logs for a living, tote around large round bales of hay, etc, then I totally believe in a heavy tractor.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree that weight = traction, I just tend to think that if you do things around the home like landscape and property maintainence, mowing, tilling, blowing, etc then it really doesn't matter if the tractor is heavy, as long as it is ballasted properly.
)</font>
I have a 30hp Kubota L3130 and use a 6' BB. Recently was dragging full boxes of dirt up and down and all around finish grading my property, also scraping and dragging some big mounds down to level. It never hesitated for any of this and had me wondering if I couldn't have used a 7'BB. The Kioti dealer I spoke to while shopping said their 30hp CK30 could use the 7' and even priced one in the package he offered me). I would think the TC30 could do all this just as easily.
Now, as you mentioned in your previous post, what may make the difference for my 30hp versus another 30hp tractor is the weight, as I have (tractor+FEL+BB+loaded tires) = (3300+1100+400+560) = 5060 pounds sitting on Ag tires.
This weekend I have some rough ground and rocks to rip up and I might find out that with the rippers all the way down it starts spinning me out or stopping the tractor. But so far, my 30hp has had absolutely no trouble working a 6' BB. And unless they have trouble spinning out the tires, I see know reason other 30hp couldn't handle one (note, by 6' BB is very light weight. If the dealer had delivered a true heavy duty one like he promised it probably would have weighed closer to 800 pounds).
Now when it comes to folks who do things like pull logs for a living, tote around large round bales of hay, etc, then I totally believe in a heavy tractor.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree that weight = traction, I just tend to think that if you do things around the home like landscape and property maintainence, mowing, tilling, blowing, etc then it really doesn't matter if the tractor is heavy, as long as it is ballasted properly.
)</font>
I have a 30hp Kubota L3130 and use a 6' BB. Recently was dragging full boxes of dirt up and down and all around finish grading my property, also scraping and dragging some big mounds down to level. It never hesitated for any of this and had me wondering if I couldn't have used a 7'BB. The Kioti dealer I spoke to while shopping said their 30hp CK30 could use the 7' and even priced one in the package he offered me). I would think the TC30 could do all this just as easily.
Now, as you mentioned in your previous post, what may make the difference for my 30hp versus another 30hp tractor is the weight, as I have (tractor+FEL+BB+loaded tires) = (3300+1100+400+560) = 5060 pounds sitting on Ag tires.
This weekend I have some rough ground and rocks to rip up and I might find out that with the rippers all the way down it starts spinning me out or stopping the tractor. But so far, my 30hp has had absolutely no trouble working a 6' BB. And unless they have trouble spinning out the tires, I see know reason other 30hp couldn't handle one (note, by 6' BB is very light weight. If the dealer had delivered a true heavy duty one like he promised it probably would have weighed closer to 800 pounds).
Bob_Skurka
Super Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 7,615
The L3130 is a 32 hp tractor isn't it? There are some practical limits to some of these things, certainly the weight is going to help with traction, as I stated, but then I would not really say either the B3030 or the TC29 come close to comparing to the capacities of the L3130 in any meaninful way. The 3130 is vastly superior in every measurement.
Indydirtfarmer
Platinum Member
I've searched high and low for the link I was looking at several weeks back on this subject. I can't find it to save me...
It was a Firestone tire co./University of Nebraska test data site. Their data was adjusted for modern farming techniques.
It seems that the need for tractor weight has DECREASED over the last few years. Not by a big number, but decreased none-the-less.
4WD has effected that. So has no-till farming. Also, conventional tillage methods have changed. Most of todays tillage equipment depends on ground speed to do its thing. Narrower width, at higher speed. Radial tires effect the weight requirements too.
Another consideration is soil compaction. When I was in school (at Purdue Univ.) in the mid '70's, soil compaction was a minor consideration compared to today. Research was beginning to take shape that shows it is one of the, if not THE biggest detrement to crop yields that farmers can do something about.
Now I realize that MOST everyone on TBN is NOT a "production agriculture farmer". However, what MOST of you are trying to do (create/maintain turf-pasture, lawn) is directly related to what the average farmer is doing. Your "best yields" (GREEN GRASS) is essentially achieved through simular methods.
You can't set up a typivcal tractor JUST for a "dead pull" situation. That isn't what they are ALWAYS used for. There needs to be a balance.
I have 8 tractors currently. 2 are antiques. They don't apply to this discussion. The other 6 do. 2 are used primarily for mowing/finish grading. They average out at around 110 lbs per HP. 1 is used to pull a corn planter, do hay work, and mowing. It is about 115 lbs per HP. Next comes the loader tractor. It is used quite a bit to pick up hay (we use an accumulator. A grapple on the loader is used to stack square bales on a wagon.) Because of multiple uses, it CAN'tT be loaded down with weights UNLESS it's a special need. THEN, I just hook something heavy on the 3-point) It scales out at around 145 lbs per HP. The next one is used to pull a no-till drill, SOME hay work and some mowing It's a 130 HP tractor. It scales out at around 115 HP per lb. Finally, the biggest one....205 HP, MFWD, used to pull a grain cart, and to do what little tillage work we still do. It will run right on with the 26' disc, or the 29' field cultivator..... 112 lbs per HP. (and MORE THAN ENOUGH)
Bottom line is, MOST people tend to over-ballast a tractor. That is a result of not having one big enough for SOME of the chores that are being done with them. (Weight up and gear down) Modern farming techniques favor "weight down/gear up"
I'm not "preaching" my ideas here, just speaking from my experience's.
Your results may vary.
It was a Firestone tire co./University of Nebraska test data site. Their data was adjusted for modern farming techniques.
It seems that the need for tractor weight has DECREASED over the last few years. Not by a big number, but decreased none-the-less.
4WD has effected that. So has no-till farming. Also, conventional tillage methods have changed. Most of todays tillage equipment depends on ground speed to do its thing. Narrower width, at higher speed. Radial tires effect the weight requirements too.
Another consideration is soil compaction. When I was in school (at Purdue Univ.) in the mid '70's, soil compaction was a minor consideration compared to today. Research was beginning to take shape that shows it is one of the, if not THE biggest detrement to crop yields that farmers can do something about.
Now I realize that MOST everyone on TBN is NOT a "production agriculture farmer". However, what MOST of you are trying to do (create/maintain turf-pasture, lawn) is directly related to what the average farmer is doing. Your "best yields" (GREEN GRASS) is essentially achieved through simular methods.
You can't set up a typivcal tractor JUST for a "dead pull" situation. That isn't what they are ALWAYS used for. There needs to be a balance.
I have 8 tractors currently. 2 are antiques. They don't apply to this discussion. The other 6 do. 2 are used primarily for mowing/finish grading. They average out at around 110 lbs per HP. 1 is used to pull a corn planter, do hay work, and mowing. It is about 115 lbs per HP. Next comes the loader tractor. It is used quite a bit to pick up hay (we use an accumulator. A grapple on the loader is used to stack square bales on a wagon.) Because of multiple uses, it CAN'tT be loaded down with weights UNLESS it's a special need. THEN, I just hook something heavy on the 3-point) It scales out at around 145 lbs per HP. The next one is used to pull a no-till drill, SOME hay work and some mowing It's a 130 HP tractor. It scales out at around 115 HP per lb. Finally, the biggest one....205 HP, MFWD, used to pull a grain cart, and to do what little tillage work we still do. It will run right on with the 26' disc, or the 29' field cultivator..... 112 lbs per HP. (and MORE THAN ENOUGH)
Bottom line is, MOST people tend to over-ballast a tractor. That is a result of not having one big enough for SOME of the chores that are being done with them. (Weight up and gear down) Modern farming techniques favor "weight down/gear up"
I'm not "preaching" my ideas here, just speaking from my experience's.
Your results may vary.
Bob_Skurka
Super Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 7,615
<font color="green">
Bottom line is, MOST people tend to over-ballast a tractor. That is a result of not having one big enough for SOME of the chores that are being done with them. (Weight up and gear down) Modern farming techniques favor "weight down/gear up" </font>
Just curious here, but I really don't quite get your statement. I've said many times that there is no reason for EXCESS weight on small tractors but that BALANCING the tractor for FEL work, etc, in the form of removable BALLAST is more important. Now I play with smaller tractors than you do, so I've found the need with a heavy implement on the rear to need to leave the FEL on to counterblance, or to have front weights on if the FEL is off. Similarly I've said ballast boxes are necessary in addition to other weights to get the full use out of the FEL.
But I sure don't want the excess weight on the machine when it is not needed, hence my use of removable ballast.
So my question to you for clarificaiton is . . . when you said most people over ballast, did you mean that excess weight carried on the tractor is detrimental for most people? Or did you mean that removable ballast, as used as I describe above, is not necessary?
EDIT :: I totally agree that many of us who have a jack of all trades tractor at the house will use it for ANYTHING and EVERYTHING and we can easily push the units. Lets all be honest, a sub-CUT is not a boulder mover, but we do it because that is what we have!
Bottom line is, MOST people tend to over-ballast a tractor. That is a result of not having one big enough for SOME of the chores that are being done with them. (Weight up and gear down) Modern farming techniques favor "weight down/gear up" </font>
Just curious here, but I really don't quite get your statement. I've said many times that there is no reason for EXCESS weight on small tractors but that BALANCING the tractor for FEL work, etc, in the form of removable BALLAST is more important. Now I play with smaller tractors than you do, so I've found the need with a heavy implement on the rear to need to leave the FEL on to counterblance, or to have front weights on if the FEL is off. Similarly I've said ballast boxes are necessary in addition to other weights to get the full use out of the FEL.
But I sure don't want the excess weight on the machine when it is not needed, hence my use of removable ballast.
So my question to you for clarificaiton is . . . when you said most people over ballast, did you mean that excess weight carried on the tractor is detrimental for most people? Or did you mean that removable ballast, as used as I describe above, is not necessary?
EDIT :: I totally agree that many of us who have a jack of all trades tractor at the house will use it for ANYTHING and EVERYTHING and we can easily push the units. Lets all be honest, a sub-CUT is not a boulder mover, but we do it because that is what we have!
Indydirtfarmer
Platinum Member
Removable ballast, NOT carried when NOT needed is just what the doctor ordered. Most people tend to ballast a tractor for their heaviest of chores. Then the other 98% of the time, they're driving around compacting their yard, wearing out their truck/trailer, or burning fuel needlessly...
Back when we still plowed every year, we would add wheel weights just for that time. As soon as plowing season was over, off came the weights.
Loaders have their own set of "rules".... NON loader tractors don't need tons of weight. If you can't drag that 12 ton tree stump with your 3500LB 25 HP SCUT, GET A BIGGER TRACTOR... Don't add 3000lbs of wheel weights....
Back when we still plowed every year, we would add wheel weights just for that time. As soon as plowing season was over, off came the weights.
Loaders have their own set of "rules".... NON loader tractors don't need tons of weight. If you can't drag that 12 ton tree stump with your 3500LB 25 HP SCUT, GET A BIGGER TRACTOR... Don't add 3000lbs of wheel weights....
Bob_Skurka
Super Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 7,615
<font color="red">
Removable ballast, NOT carried when NOT needed is just what the doctor ordered. Most people tend to ballast a tractor for their heaviest of chores. Then the other 98% of the time, they're driving around compacting their yard, wearing out their truck/trailer, or burning fuel needlessly...
</font>
This what I thought you were saying. No need for extra weight. Maybe that is why the Kubota B series tractors are so popular? I still don't understand why so of the brands of compact tractors are so darn heavy. Don't get me wrong, at some point in size, I think weight become good (the Kubota L3130 on up, the Kioti DK series, are good examples of heavy duty tractors that should be heavy). But for work around a small property, I think the whole issue of weight = traction is overblown bunk. Obviously JMHO. But I want the lightest things on my property that will still do the jobs I need done. When I need weight for traction, I will ballast it up. That is why I leave my EZ Weight brackets on the wheels, but remove the weights!
Removable ballast, NOT carried when NOT needed is just what the doctor ordered. Most people tend to ballast a tractor for their heaviest of chores. Then the other 98% of the time, they're driving around compacting their yard, wearing out their truck/trailer, or burning fuel needlessly...
</font>
This what I thought you were saying. No need for extra weight. Maybe that is why the Kubota B series tractors are so popular? I still don't understand why so of the brands of compact tractors are so darn heavy. Don't get me wrong, at some point in size, I think weight become good (the Kubota L3130 on up, the Kioti DK series, are good examples of heavy duty tractors that should be heavy). But for work around a small property, I think the whole issue of weight = traction is overblown bunk. Obviously JMHO. But I want the lightest things on my property that will still do the jobs I need done. When I need weight for traction, I will ballast it up. That is why I leave my EZ Weight brackets on the wheels, but remove the weights!
