Does the weight of the FEL give you more stability??

[AxleHub]

I was wondering if the weight of the Front End Loader gives the tractor more stability if kept low while mowing the law and othe tasks that don't involve the FEL???

Greetings,

I've read about 18 responses to your questions with some good input in them. But if I can make it an even simpler answer with a couple terms not already used - here goes:

1. If you asked the same question of a race car or pickup truck driver they'd tell you . . . its all about the wheelbase (width and length) and height combination. The most important term is wheelbase because a FEL doesn't improve the wheelbase.

2. Cutting across a hill (side hill cutting) - the FEL instead of holding you down - puts an imbalanced weight on one front tire (the one on the downhill side). Stability comes from exactly the opposite - as a balanced weight load directly over your wheelbase axles gives you the best handling/stability.

3. Again - think of winter driving in a pickup truck. You want to add weight directly over the wheels - not in front - and not behind - for best traction on snow, ice, frost.

Just my input

 

[PhilY]

I would say that more than half of the weight of the FEL is below the tractor’s COG when the bucket is carried a few inches off the ground. This will lower the tractor’s COG. While the FEL will want to rotate the tractor forward, this would lift up on both rear tires equally, move the COG forward, and only make the rear end a little lighter. While the front axle can pivot, I would say this pivot only plays a part in keeping all four tires on the ground on uneven terrain and that the rear axle is what keeps it from tipping over. While the back end may be a little lighter, having a lower COG, it will be a little more stable. I think this only applies to certain conditions like side hilling and not when you are going up and down the hill. Depending upon the angle of the tractor going up or down a hill the it may be front heavy and lose traction. That's why I only said that keeping the FEL low can help rather than always would.



Edit 1: Also I would say that since the front axle has a pivot and connects at a single point, the down force on both front wheels is identical. Because it pivots, the weight cannot be applied more to one side or the other.

 

[94BULLITT]

I would say that more than half of the weight of the FEL is below the tractor’s COG when the bucket is carried a few inches off the ground. This will lower the tractor’s COG. While the FEL will want to rotate the tractor forward, this would lift up on both rear tires equally, move the COG forward, and only make the rear end a little lighter. While the front axle can pivot, I would say this pivot only plays a part in keeping all four tires on the ground on uneven terrain and that the rear axle is what keeps it from tipping over. While the back end may be a little lighter, having a lower COG, it will be a little more stable. I think this only applies to certain conditions like side hilling and not when you are going up and down the hill. Depending upon the angle of the tractor going up or down a hill the it may be front heavy and lose traction. That's why I only said that keeping the FEL low can help rather than always would.

View attachment 281338

Edit 1: Also I would say that since the front axle has a pivot and connects at a single point, the down force on both front wheels is identical. Because it pivots, the weight cannot be applied more to one side or the other.

If you are going across a hillside the lower set of tires are going to have more weight on them than the upper set. Have you ever gone across a hillside and had the tire on the upper side spin because it was getting light.

 

[SPYDERLK]

I would say that more than half of the weight of the FEL is below the tractorç—´ COG when the bucket is carried a few inches off the ground. This will lower the tractorç—´ COG. While the FEL will want to rotate the tractor forward, this would lift up on both rear tires equally, move the COG forward, and only make the rear end a little lighter. While the front axle can pivot, I would say this pivot only plays a part in keeping all four tires on the ground on uneven terrain and that the rear axle is what keeps it from tipping over. While the back end may be a little lighter, having a lower COG, it will be a little more stable. I think this only applies to certain conditions like side hilling and not when you are going up and down the hill. Depending upon the angle of the tractor going up or down a hill the it may be front heavy and lose traction. That's why I only said that keeping the FEL low can help rather than always would.

View attachment 281338

Edit 1: Also I would say that since the front axle has a pivot and connects at a single point, the down force on both front wheels is identical. Because it pivots, the weight cannot be applied more to one side or the other.

You dont account for the reduced proportion of the composite tractor/implement weight that rests on the rears. COG height may be slightly lower but is shifted much more forward. ... Also, yes the front pivot divides weight equally between the 2 fronts -- BUT only on level ground. On a slope a vertical line to the ground from the pivot shows the actual division point. Thus a lower front pivot would cause more equal sharing on a slope.
larry

 

[RaydaKub]

I would say that more than half of the weight of the FEL is below the tractor痴 COG when the bucket is carried a few inches off the ground. This will lower the tractor痴 COG. While the FEL will want to rotate the tractor forward, this would lift up on both rear tires equally, move the COG forward, and only make the rear end a little lighter. While the front axle can pivot, I would say this pivot only plays a part in keeping all four tires on the ground on uneven terrain and that the rear axle is what keeps it from tipping over. While the back end may be a little lighter, having a lower COG, it will be a little more stable. I think this only applies to certain conditions like side hilling and not when you are going up and down the hill. Depending upon the angle of the tractor going up or down a hill the it may be front heavy and lose traction. That's why I only said that keeping the FEL low can help rather than always would.

View attachment 281338

Edit 1: Also I would say that since the front axle has a pivot and connects at a single point, the down force on both front wheels is identical. Because it pivots, the weight cannot be applied more to one side or the other.

Disagree. Let's say you are going across a hill so that uphill is on your right. The pivot point is the outside of the left rear wheel. The COG is at a given height and given position, but certainly inside of the left rear wheel. Now add your FEL. Some amount of weight shifts forward, so the COG moves forward. It may or may not move down, depending on the position and weight of the FEL. But what changes dramatically is the pivot point. It is now up higher and the total COG is going to be downhill from that axle pivot. You moved the COG for sure, but you also moved the pivot much more dramatically by 1/2 the width of your tractor to that axle pivot and made it higher as well. The COG is now to the left (downhill) of the pivot instead of to the right (uphill from the left rear). Now, all of these statements are made assuming 100% of the COG and pivot are made on either the entire rear end or the entire front end, but these are your 2 limits. Anything in between is just a graduation of the effects. The best you can do is 100% weight on the rear end for stability. The worst is 100% on the front axle pivot. Obviously that is not real world. But it's enough to say with 1000% certainty that the physics say to leave it off for sidehill stability.

At some point when you have tipped far enough, the tipping point moves from the front axle pivot back to the outside of the downhill tires, but by that time you'll need new shorts anyway.

I have loaded tires (100lbs each), put on 50lbs of weights on each rear wheel and 275lbs on the 3ph (low enough to almost scrape the ground) of my BX when I put the loader on. The manual says my loader weighs 400lbs and I've clearly got more ballast than that. With the tractor alone sitting on my hillside, with no weights or loader I cannot push hard enough on the ROPS to lift the uphill side rear wheel. If I add the weights and the loader, and put the loader 3 inches off the ground parked in the exact same spot, I can push on the ROPS and lift that uphill rear wheel fairly easily.

 

[Turbys_1700]

Take this for what it is worth...
I put a FEL on my NH 1720 last year...
I mow with a 6' RFM on approximately 3 acres of lawn/pasture that has 1 very steep section...
My RFM is heavy and can swing the rear end of my tractor down the hill even with loaded tires...
I have left my FEL on and have not noticed any adverse effects to stability...
I typically go side hill where possible with the bucket low to the ground...
Some sections I have to go up and down vertically...
I usually run with my bucket up off of the ground around the top of the tires but when I go up a steep incline I will lower the bucket as I crest the hill...

 

[PhilY]

In regards to an axle on a pivot, the two tires on it cannot be experiencing different forces unless it has hit a pivot stop. I agree that the lower rear wheel will have more weight on it and have not said otherwise. Also, I agree the COG will appear to move to the down hill side of the tractor when side hilling, but only because the tractor is in an angle, not because of the FEL. The COG of an object should maintain its position within the object regardless of which direction it is in. It only appears to move with respect to a reference point because the tractor is now on an angle, bringing the COG closer to the lower side.

 

[AxleHub]

In regards to an axle on a pivot, the two tires on it cannot be experiencing different forces unless it has hit a pivot stop. I agree that the lower rear wheel will have more weight on it and have not said otherwise. Also, I agree the COG will appear to move to the down hill side of the tractor when side hilling, but only because the tractor is in an angle, not because of the FEL. The COG of an object should maintain its position within the object regardless of which direction it is in. It only appears to move with respect to a reference point because the tractor is now on an angle, bringing the COG closer to the lower side.

Greetings,

When you wrote "I agree the COG will appear to move to the down hill side of the tractor when side hilling, but only because the tractor is in an angle, not because of the FEL."

I believe you are missing a key point. Gravity not only causes weight - but also causes SHIFTED weight changes when it pulls at an angle. The FEL on a side hill causes a normally balanced 4 wheeled tractor to become a leveraged teeter-totter (SP?). You agreed that the side hill creates a shift in a 4 wheel unit's COG toward the downhill side, but then you'd have to also agree that adding weighted leverage AHEAD of the front axle - not only adds weight in front - but also adds a COG weight shift to the downward direction of the hill just as the tractor itself did. In addition, a single wheel (front wheel on the down hill side) becomes considerably more of a pivoting point (again just like a teeter-totter) - for the whole tractor. The pressure to the ground is greatest at that downhill sided front wheel when sidehill cutting - which is why you mark or impress the ground (and the grass) deeper on the downhill side when sidehill cutting. And the wheels doing the most shifted impacting of the ground "without" the FEL would be both wheels on the downhill side (front and rear) - but "with" the FEL attached it becomes 1 wheel gaining substantially (front downhill wheel).

Think of it this way: you put 10 bundles of shingles in the far back of your bed in your pickup truck - and you immediately notice your steering is much "easier" because you have taken weight off the front end because of a very mild teeter-totter effect because the weight in behind the rear axle. Now imagine if you moved those shingles 3 feet further back beyond the pickup bed entirely - you'd struggle to keep the truck wheels fully tracking because your front end would have little weight keeping it on the road. And if you were on a sidehill with those shingles - your tail end wants to angle down the hill much more than the front all the time (great situation for rear spin-outs or fish tailing on frosty or icy roads).

 

[BXpanded]

It's gonna be more stable w/o the FEL on for this simple reason: No matter ballast or not, the FEL is going to transfer weight to the front end, so the rear end is going to be lighter than w/o the FEL. When you transfer the weight off the back end, you have put it on a pivoting axle that, even if the front wheels stay on the ground, allows the tractor to lean downhill. So you have less weight on that solid up-hill rear wheel and less stability.

Assuming we're discussing sidehill stability, I would agree with RaydaKub. I have a spot on my property that I cannot traverse with the FEL installed. I can drive right across without it. Granted, when the rear wheel lifts, I can drop the bucket and arrest the tilt by removing the loaders weight from the front wheels and pushing the rear wheel back down. Unfortunately, it's kind of tough on the grass to cross the hill with the bucket sliding on the ground. If the bucket is loaded, I can't even make it to the steeper part before the rear wheel lifts. On Rubber tired end loaders, the back axle pivots rather than the front for this reason.

 

[SPYDERLK]

In regards to an axle on a pivot, the two tires on it cannot be experiencing different forces unless it has hit a pivot stop.

Incorrect for the reason stated in post 24. Weight acts straight down - not straight toward the ground.
larry