Tires Fluid Filled Tires

[countrybumpkin]

How much Fluid will a R4 4.20X70X24 hold. I'm trying to figure the amount of added weight of mine.

 

[BGL990]

Here's a chart I found somewhere. Your tire size numbers don't seem to jive with what's on the chart, but maybe it will be of some use ...

Edit: It wouldn't let me attach the HTML file and I wasn't sure if it would work to just cut and paste the HTML code into this message, so I attached it as a .zip file.

 

[jgh]

20050929

It's on Firestone and Goodyear www sites, possibly among others.

Jim

 

[countrybumpkin]

Sorry for the wrong numbers it sould be 420/70-24

Ran them in a conversion chart cam up with 47.1 x 16.5

 

[botaman2]

I have the same size tires on the rear of my L3010. Not having a direct reading scale,I used the offset method with a bathroom scale planking etc. The figure I came up with is 465#. Hope this helps!

 

[countrybumpkin]

Thanks , That was about what I was thinking after looking around on some other sites.
With the loader , BH and fluid the tractor weighs 6500 lbs.

 

[Roscoe]

Hi, Are you adding fluid in the tyres for better traction?

If the tyres are radials then only dry weights should be added because the traction advantages over a cross ply tyre are lost if a radial has fluid added to it.

I can better explain by saying that , when a cross ply tyre has to go over something like a 2 inch diam stone for example, it will climb up and over it. A radial will tend to fold itself around the object and maintain tread contact with the ground and this is why they have a noticable traction advantage over cross plys.

Adding fluid to a radial stiffens the radial plys so that advantage is lost.

The standard amount of water that is added in this country is up to the top of the rim.

Hope this has been of help.

Cheers
Roscoe

 

[jgh]

20051010

Roscoe, you have just made the case, again, for the value of an international list. Very interesting and informative post! I'm not a tire expert but your reasoning makes lots of sense according to what little I know about radials.

I am told by a retired NH service manager that fluid in tires contributes to impact punctures, too. Guessing tells me this is because the fluid and wt 'hardens' them.

On the other hand, given the dilution, I would not be that concerned about explosive hazards with CH4OH or whatever methanol's chem formula is. Though I am not a pro in it, from my minor hs/univ chemistry training and experience I can tell you that any common alcohol with any significant amount of water is hard to ignite. The diesel fuel in the tractor would under most circumstances be more of a hazard in any situation I can imagine. And leaking methanol solution dissapates more quickly and with less risk for harm from a pet/animal hazard standpoint than ethylene glycol, in the event of a leak.

And, BTW, I just realized that the original poster has the same size radials as my tractor. For methanol, I believe the added wt would be about 525-550 lbs per tire if he fills to the rim, more for CaCl2 solution.

A followup for you or anyone who cares to come in--

I have a TN90F New Holland "narrow" style machine, and very rolling terrain on our farm. It has 420/70-24 rear tires with a current tread width (outside) of 72 inches, fairly small for an 80 HP tractor. I've already turned it over once, though some carelessness on my part contributed.

If stability ("hill-ability" if you will, vs traction) is my goal, would your advice still apply? Would you just dish out the wheels (I can go to about 82-84 inches), add wheel wt/front suitcase wts, or both? Any light you can shed on the whys and wherefores would also be welcome.

Thanks!

Jim

ps--the many better informed on this list are always welcome to contradict me at will, just include your reasoning for my enlightenment if you don't mind.

 

[Roscoe]

Thank you JGH. First of all, width equals stability when going around the sides of hills. You can space your wheels out to a point where you can still fit through your gate ways.

Another good option, especialy if you have a narrow tractor is to fit clip on duals at the rear.

Duals will give you much more stabilty and the obvios traction advantage in one operation.

Just out of interest a narrow tyre can give you better grip than a fatter tyre in some situations, eg, if the top of the ground is soft, the narrow tyre will tend to go down and bite into the harder substance underneath whereas a wider tyre can tend to "Float" on top.

If you fit duals, always allow enough gap between them to stop the gap being bridged by mud etc.

I worked at a Local JD dealer here for a while and I attended a course at Brisbane in Australia run by John Deere and a major part of the course content was on ballasting and weight distribution. This was mostley for Flat, Broadacre farming which we have little of here (very lumpy country).
One very interesting point that came out of the course was that a correctly set up wheeled tractor will out perform a tracked machine of the same power in most situations.

With 2 wd tractors, the front weights are mainly for steering control with heavy hitch loads and/or maintaining safe steering on slopes. The advantage of suitcase weights is that you can easily add or subtract weights as required.

The amounts will depend on your situation, hitch loads and the degree of slopes that you want to work on.

We have a temperate climate here so water freezing in the tyres is not generally an issue but I have heard of engine coolant antifreeze being added to the tyre water in some of our high country areas.

Cheers
Roscoe

 

[jgh]

20051011

Thanks for the nfo. Not sure if my machine is Duals-ready, though that would sure help.

Roscoe, the big shocker in what you just wrote is about wheeled vs tracked. My Bobcat saleman will blow his cool on that one! He says he cannot get enough T model skidsteers, that the tracked ones are outselling others despite higher cost, etc, due to the muddy areas traction, mainly. Landscapers, pool builders, and others love them.

I bought an A300 last year with all-wheel steer. With its turfs (also have rims with r4s) its traction is low but is great on the grass when combined with the AWS. Not sure fluid or other wt would help.

Can you elaborate on why JD says this, ie, what constitutes "properly set up", for example? I might take note that other than big stuff and excavators, JD makes no tracked machines, so....

Jim

 

[Roscoe]

Hi Again, JD most certainly do make tracked tractors, The 8,000 and 9,000 series are available on tracks, (Rubber).
They are the 8,000 and 9,000 "T" series.

I was refering to dry conditions and in draw bar applications.

It was something that they found in some ground conditions or types of soil that a correctly ballasted and weighted/balanced tyred tractor could out perform the same machine on tracks. This was using pull meters on the drawbar and ground speed radar to measure wheel/track slip.

It was just an example of what could be achieved for maximum efficiancy if the time was spent on correct set up.

This of course was with 4wd tractors.

Now imagen a JD Gator with tracks on the back.

I WANT ONE

Over here you can get snap on type dual fittings for conventional rims (Non Row Crop)
Ill try and find a site for them to give you an idea.

http://www.trsagri.co.nz/dualwheels_engineering/

Hope this will give you an idea, may be an option for you anyway

Cheers
Roscoe

 

[Soundguy]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( If stability ("hill-ability" if you will, vs traction) is my goal, would your advice still apply? Would you just dish out the wheels (I can go to about 82-84 inches), add wheel wt/front suitcase wts, or both? Any light you can shed on the whys and wherefores would also be welcome.
)</font>

Disching the wheels ( and swapping tires side to side) should help with stability. especially after hearing that you have rolled your machine. Any weights you can add at axle level or lower ( frame weights.. etc ) should help lower the COG for that machine and make it less tippy.

If you could take duals.. that would add to stability as well.

Soundguy

 

[jgh]

20051011

On my way to check on things after all the rain we've had here in Central Va (5 inches in 2 days or less as of Sunday, more since).

Then off to Play It Again Sports for some weights, 49¢ or less per lb (used to be much less, thank you China /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif).

I'm definitely going to dish those wheels to gain a foot or so. Apparently fitting duals would be hard, no NH solution and Roscoe's third party one will not work for 24 inch wheels. NH dealer has no third party one for our bolt pattern. It's an equilateral triangle with 14 inch sides with the points being centered on the holes.

Probably will make some kind of jig like MikePA, etc.

Help is always welcome! Thanks /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif!

btw, Roscoe, now I recall seeing those tracked tractors on both JD and Cat www sites. We don't use them much in this area to my knowledge, suppose our average farm is too small /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif.

J

 

[John_Mc]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( On the other hand, given the dilution, I would not be that concerned about explosive hazards with CH4OH or whatever methanol's chem formula is. Though I am not a pro in it, from my minor hs/univ chemistry training and experience I can tell you that any common alcohol with any significant amount of water is hard to ignite. The diesel fuel in the tractor would under most circumstances be more of a hazard in any situation I can imagine.)</font>

I don't know what the real issue is with Methanol, I just know that some insurance companies have a problem covering shops that handle it. I can see why they would be reluctant to cover someone who handles the high-concentration stuff... such as ordering a drum of methanol and keeping it around to blend with water as needed. It can be really dangerous, and not just from flamability issues. What I don't understand is why some insurance companies won't cover shops that work on tires which are already filled (and quite diluted). The only thing I can think is that they are worried about the vapor in the part of the tire that is not full of liquid... but that's just a guess on my part.

John Mc

 

[jgh]

20051013

Insurance companies take a risk, what planet are you on /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif?

The vapor thing is something I had not considered. But another factor is the WEIGHT of handling fluid filled tires. It has been pointed out to me that my 420/70-24 tires would be around 750# apiece with full fluid. Apart from vapors, think of the dangers with hoisting those around in any shop. Or in the field!

News flash#1--I just re-read the Goodyear Ag tire manual (downloaded from goodyearag.com in 2000):

"Ballast Type
Liquid ballast should be avoided since it has a stiffening
effect that degrades ride and generally reduces ability to
control power hop. If liquid ballast is used in the rear of
4WD tractors or MFWD tractors, all tires on the axle
must be filled to the same level which should not
exceed 40% fill (4 o’clock valve stem position). Use 50%
fill when desired weight split cannot be met by other
means. Do not use liquid in 4WD fronts unless ballasting
is needed for heavy hitch-mounted ripper or scraper
applications. Up to 75% fill may be used in MFWD fronts
if needed for weight and/or to provide stiffness to assist in
power hop control. [from page 18]"

I have not searched to see if GY has changed anything in new editions, but that is a bit different from what folks on here have said, so take note. The section this comes from is on radials, but it does not seem particular to them(?), except for the fill levels. I believe their fill levels for bias plys are still to the top of rim (70% or so).

Firestone (and others? Titan, et al?) puts out manuals like this for download as well. This one for sure is a WEALTH of ideas on tires, traction, etc, way beyond what I just excerpted. Gonna read it!

News flash#2: Salesman at Theros Eq, NH dealer in N VA, told me yesterday that Titan has squawked on at least one occasion about warrranty claims involving fluid filled tires. They told his customer that they did not sanction fluid fill and would deny any warranty claim where they felt it had played a part. He did not specify what type but we had only discussed methanol (and weights), not CaCl2.

I hope many of you can check tonight's additions to my thread on creating a tire weight carrier:

Home building (rear) wheel wts, under "Build-it Yourself"

Just me talking but I am bypassing fluid fill for sure.

Jim

 

[John_Mc]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Insurance companies take a risk, what planet are you on /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif?)</font>

Perhaps instead of saying they are reluctant to insure, i should have said "they will not insure without jacking up the premium considerably". On the other hand, not all insurance companies are exactly falling all over themselves to insure all risks. My employer has life insurance on me. The insurance company would not cover me when piloting an aircraft while on business. (I'm a pilot and have a Cessna 172). Eventually, after jumping through all sorts of hoops and paying a higher premium, they agreed, but there was an awful lot of hassle and red tape to go through.

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( News flash#1--I just re-read the Goodyear Ag tire manual (downloaded from goodyearag.com in 2000):

If liquid ballast is used in the rear of
4WD tractors or MFWD tractors, all tires on the axle
must be filled to the same level which should not
exceed 40% fill (4 o’clock valve stem position).)</font>

That's interesting. I'd heard (though I can't remember where) that you should definitely fill them to cover the rim... first for corrosion purposes: no exposure to air = no corrosion. Also to minimize the "sloshing" effect. Imagine moving along and then hitting the brakes agressively. In a half (or 40%) full tire, that liquid will keep moving and the "slosh" can bump you forward a bit further. Obviously the more empty the tire is below 50%, the less weight there is to slosh around. Unfortunately, this is also less wieght for ballast or traction. It may not seem obvious at first, but the further as go past 50% full, you also tend to reduce the sloshing effect. The extreme case would be a 100 percent full tire. No sloshing, since there is no where for the liquid to go. This would make an unnacceptable hard tire with no "give", since the liquid inside does not compress. 70% full is a compromise to limit sloshing while still providing some airspace to allow some flexing of the tire (since the airspace is reduced, this reduces the amount of space availabel for compression... one reason many people tend to run filled tires at a lower pressure).

Since I've never drivin a tire that is only 40 or 50% full, I can't say how much of an issue the sloshing really is. I do know that power-hopping has not been much of an issue with my 33 HP TC33D with industrial tires. Maybe more HP and/or R1 tread would make a difference there.

John Mc

 

[jgh]

20051014

John, I hear what you say about sloshing (more reason to use wheel steel), but that manual also talks about how the more you fill the tires, the less cushion you have that the tires would normally provide. They make points about ground pressure, ride, all kinds of things.

In a sentence, Goodyear really comes down fairly hard on fluid fill, and they are specific on limiting radial tire fills as indicated, just so no one misses that (some guys don't read /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif).

Good discussion, gentlemen and ladies (gee, can't always tell from "pen or is that-- wheel" names).

Jim