fill ag tires @ 50% or 75% for lowest Vertical Center of Gravity (VCG)?

[ovrszd]

It is called Paralysis by Analysis and it permeates all of society unfortunately.

But if you want to get technical, to me; you are going about it all wrong. Fluid filled tires might lower the center of gravity somewhat, but that is about all it does.

If you want to get into physics, it is waste of time to discuss fluid-filled tires because the net gain is so low. A tractor owner has a very limited space in which to add weight (fluid), the ability to make that area more dense with liquid is very limited, and it is in a very non-effective area...which is right over the rear axle.

If a person wants to be effective, they want to get weight out PAST the rear axle, this is called leverage, and the weight transfer shifted past the rear axle is going to counteract the weight in the bucket in proportion cubed to the distance moved from the rear axle. It is as simple as, 250 pounds of weight six feet past the rear axle is going to be more effective at counteracting the weight in the front bucket, than 500 pounds of weight in the rear tires.

Look at a tower crane. To lift heavy loads they do not fill the tower base with water, they shift weight further aft to counteract the load.

It is not rocket science, and with adding counterweight to the back, there are so many more options. A tractor owner can add more weight, change the shape of the counterweight, use denser materials for greater weight, or shift it further aft more.

We used to fluid-fill tires too, but it is a very expensive way to get minimal results.

I should have read down before I posted the first time.

Again, your statements sound very inexperienced. I added 1350lbs of weight to my tractor for .15 per pound with tire fluid. The results were way beyond minimal. :confused3:

 

[BrokenTrack]

I should have read down before I posted the first time.

Again, your statements sound very inexperienced. I added 1350lbs of weight to my tractor for .15 per pound with tire fluid. The results were way beyond minimal. :confused3:

A person cannot make much of an argument when it defies the laws of physics.

Adding lots of weight in the wrong location does nothing for performance.

 

[ovrszd]

A person cannot make much of an argument when it defies the laws of physics.

Adding lots of weight in the wrong location does nothing for performance.

Oh wow. For all around tractor use the most efficient and practical weight added is at the rear wheels. Doesn't matter what the tractor size is or what it's used for.

Tractor wheel weight gives you the most benefit while not changing the footprint of the tractor or it's agility.

Very, very rare to see any tractor with an FEL that doesn't benefit from rear wheel weight. I can't think of a single one.

 

[BrokenTrack]

We had a guy on the railroad that was struggling on slippery roads with his SUV. We finally showed him where the Rear D button was to lock in his rear differential so he could go better through the snow. The next day he said he had no problem going through the snow on the way home and was amazed how well it worked.

Sugar Pills for hypochondriac's.

Engaging the rear DEFROSTER on a SUV to go through the snow.

Fluid-Filled tires on tractors working with a loader.

We used to think the same thing regarding fluid-filled tires, but to do anything worthwhile, a person has to get the weight past the centerline of the rear axle. Again, it is the principal of leverage, and distance away from the rear axle is equal to weight cubed.

You have to remember, with fluid-filled tires, half of whatever you add is FORWARD of the rear axle, so that half of the weight is just weight, no counter-balance at all. And the 650 pounds you did add for counterweight (1300 pounds divided by two) is just 650 pounds because it is not past the rear axle any significant length.

 

[ovrszd]

We had a guy on the railroad that was struggling on slippery roads with his SUV. We finally showed him where the Rear D button was to lock in his rear differential so he could go better through the snow. The next day he said he had no problem going through the snow on the way home and was amazed how well it worked.

Sugar Pills for hypochondriac's.

Engaging the rear DEFROSTER on a SUV to go through the snow.

Fluid-Filled tires on tractors working with a loader.

We used to think the same thing regarding fluid-filled tires, but to do anything worthwhile, a person has to get the weight past the centerline of the rear axle. Again, it is the principal of leverage, and distance away from the rear axle is equal to weight cubed.

You have to remember, with fluid-filled tires, half of whatever you add is FORWARD of the rear axle, so that half of the weight is just weight, no counter-balance at all. And the 650 pounds you did add for counterweight (1300 pounds divided by two) is just 650 pounds because it is not past the rear axle any significant length.

That is the silliest thing I've read about tractor weight.

So you think tractor wheel weight is a Sugar Pill???

Somehow we must not be talking about the same thing. I'll just back away and say it's me that's misunderstanding the subject.

 

[RickB]

I'll just back away and say it's me that's misunderstanding the subject.

You have company.

 

[ovrszd]

We used to think the same thing regarding fluid-filled tires, but to do anything worthwhile, a person has to get the weight past the centerline of the rear axle. Again, it is the principal of leverage, and distance away from the rear axle is equal to weight cubed.

You have to remember, with fluid-filled tires, half of whatever you add is FORWARD of the rear axle, so that half of the weight is just weight, no counter-balance at all. And the 650 pounds you did add for counterweight (1300 pounds divided by two) is just 650 pounds because it is not past the rear axle any significant length.

I'm sorry. I can't let this stand. Someone will read this thread and mistakenly think these comments are true. They are not.

For clarity, there is a difference is rear wheel added weight and "counter balance weight added to the chassis behind the axis of the rear axle. No where in this thread has counter balance weight been questioned or discussed except here.

The fluid weight or cast iron weight added to a rear tractor tire doesn't affect the tractor differently whether it's forward of the axle shaft or rearward of the axle shaft. Don't forget that.

Again, we are not talking about counter balance weight or ballast as it's commonly called.

This thread is about adding weight to the rear tire of a tractor. It's not added for counter balance. It's added for wheel weight. Every single pound affects the performance of the tractor.

In regards to the OP's original question about fluid above the axle. For that fluid to accelerate a roll over the tractor would have to already be at a serious side angle. And that small difference would not be noticed. By stopping at 50% you lose effectiveness of rear wheel weight. If you are only adding the fluid to gain stability, then stop at 50%. If you also are wanting to gain traction stability, go for 75%.

This conversation really got sidetracked. I apologize for any contribution I had in that.

 

[aczlan]

I'm sorry. I can't let this stand. Someone will read this thread and mistakenly think these comments are true. They are not.

For clarity, there is a difference is rear wheel added weight and "counter balance weight added to the chassis behind the axis of the rear axle. No where in this thread has counter balance weight been questioned or discussed except here.

The fluid weight or cast iron weight added to a rear tractor tire doesn't affect the tractor differently whether it's forward of the axle shaft or rearward of the axle shaft. Don't forget that.

Again, we are not talking about counter balance weight or ballast as it's commonly called.

This thread is about adding weight to the rear tire of a tractor. It's not added for counter balance. It's added for wheel weight. Every single pound affects the performance of the tractor.

In regards to the OP's original question about fluid above the axle. For that fluid to accelerate a roll over the tractor would have to already be at a serious side angle. And that small difference would not be noticed. By stopping at 50% you lose effectiveness of rear wheel weight. If you are only adding the fluid to gain stability, then stop at 50%. If you also are wanting to gain traction stability, go for 75%.

This conversation really got sidetracked. I apologize for any contribution I had in that.

Excellent post, adding weight to the rear axle (be it with wheel weights or loaded tires) will increase traction and help keep the rear wheels on the ground when doing loader work, but will not reduce the amount of weight on the front axle when you lift up a heavy load with the loader.
Adding weight behind the rear axle (such as with a weight box or a heavy implement on the 3 point hitch) will both add weight to the rear axle to increase traction and reduce the weight on the front axle.
Actually, a short but wide and/or long weight on the three point hitch would probably help you more to lower the center of gravity of the tractor than filling the rear tires halfway with fluid.

Aaron Z

 

[Texasmark]

The speed at which the tilt angle changes while the tractor is moving and the related inertia is never mentioned or accounted for. Dropping the downhill rear wheel in a hole at 6 mph can end very differently than the same tractor and the same hole at .5 mph. This omission, so far as I am concerned, renders all the theoretical discussions somewhat moot.

That folks is the unknown problem that awaits each and every one of us! You nor I know where the CG is going to go because we don't know what lurks out there to upset our balance! Only way to mitigate that impulse is to slow down and keep your eyes peeled, have your rops up and seatbelt fastened on slopes.

 

[aczlan]

That folks is the unknown problem that awaits each and every one of us! You nor I know where the CG is going to go because we don't know what lurks out there to upset our balance! Only way to mitigate that impulse is to slow down and keep your eyes peeled, have your rops up and seatbelt fastened on slopes.

That is one reason the guys who mow the side of the roads can mow such steep slopes, they are going very slowly so they are far less likely to turn over than somebody going along at 10 to 15 miles per hour.

Aaron