Front to rear balance

Surge · Nov 26, 2002

No, the suggestion was not mutually exclusive... no two schools of thought, no this vs. that, just two thoughts..... do both, weight and chains... each one will complement each other... both will work in tandem for the best results.

When the weight begins to fail or does not work, the chains will kick in....weight will overcome most traction situations... chains will ensure that all situations are overcome.... well, most anyway. At some point, power will kick in as a variable.

beenthere · Nov 26, 2002

Surge, very well said and right-on. Several conditions to handle in winter.

When the snow is wet and slushy, traction is sometimes difficult to get without chains to disturb that slippery interface between the snow and the tire.

When new (fresh) snow is cold (no slush) and the weather stays cold (no intermediate melting) then traction is usually good without chains, as there is good friction between the rubber tire and the cold snow (cold being below freezing).

When below freezing and the slush and melted snow turns to ice, chains to scratch the surface are needed. I leave mine hang in the shed until the conditions are such that they are needed, or when I know that after the packed snow has melted, it will turn to ice (then I plan ahead to get the chains on before getting stuck).

Often I leave the chains on through the spring when I am in the woods pulling out logs, and fighting spring thaw and mud. Chains help getting over tree roots in the woods (amazing how such a small tree root can stop all that weight and power just because it is slippery and a little higher).

BB_TX · Nov 26, 2002

Ideally, with axles locked, in 4wd, and with equal surface conditions under each wheel, you want each tire to exert the same amount of power per sq in of rubber to the ground as the others so that all 4 would theoretically lose traction at the same time. The easy answer seems to be that you would want the exact same downward pressure per sq in on each tire. That would mean dividing the weight on that tire by the foot print of that tire to get a pounds per sq. in. of downward force. Obviously, that means considerably more weight on the rear. Anything wrong with that theory? /w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif

beenthere · Nov 26, 2002

Makes a lot of sense to me. I figured that was the way to weight the tractor. Thanks for spelling it out clearly.

hazmat · Nov 26, 2002

No, the suggestion was not mutually exclusive... no two schools of thought, no this vs. that, just two thoughts..... do both, weight and chains... each one will complement each other... both will work in tandem for the best results.

As is sometimes the case in a text based communication, maybe my message wasn't clear. The two schools I was refering to are the 50/50 weight balance vs. the majority of weight on the rear end because it is heavier.

Chains definitely will help.

Green_in_MI · Nov 30, 2002

I used to plow snow with a backblade on my 4200. Dragging a full load of snow even on a incline through 6 inches of snow I have never needed chains. You will find that 4300 a beast in the snow because its heavy and the fwd assist will pull you through. Your dealer is correct and is saving you money and hassle. Put some weight on the back for traction and see how it works out.
I too have wrestled with the idea of putting more weight to the front now that I bought a front blade. NOT more than the rear end. Just adding some weight on the front wheels for traction and ballast against the snow pushing the front end sideways. Well I just put 500 lbs of blade out the front I tells myself. Why don't I just use that? I have not had a chance to try this out yet but I think if you let the blade float you remove the weight off the front end and you will lose traction. The secret may be to raise the blade slightly off the ground - weight stays on the tractor and you should maintain traction and resistance to sidesway.

Trev · Nov 30, 2002

Hi Green,

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>

Well I just put 500 lbs of blade out the front I tells myself. Why don't I just use that? I have not had a chance to try this out yet but I think if you let the blade float you remove the weight off the front end and you will lose traction. The secret may be to raise the blade slightly off the ground - weight stays on the tractor and you should maintain traction and resistance to sidesway.

<hr></blockquote>

You may be on the right track, here. I have the two "feet" attached to the blade ... keeping it up off the ground a few inches. When it's muddy, it just digs two tracks in the driveway. I might be better off doing what you do and just dispensing with the feet and keep the blade up and few inches via hydraulics. If only we ever got any snow again, we could figure this stuff out! /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Bob

beenthere · Nov 30, 2002

""...secret may be to raise the blade slightly off the ground - weight stays on the tractor and you should maintain traction and resistance to sidesway.""

GiM That is exactly how it works. Beenthere

JRP · Dec 3, 2002

Trev,

Back to yur 50/50 question, For a front wheel assist, the balance should be about 40/60.

The front axle is not near as robust as the rear axle, and the traction slip is like a "fuse" that protects the driveline. The tractor is designed such that tires should slip in 1st before you break axle parts or stall the engine. If you make the loading 80/20 with a very heavy FEL plus no ballast, then the front traiction and also front driveline loading is high and you risk damage to the front axle. Expensive.

With a heavy front implement involved, such as a FEL, loading the rear tires changes the ratio and adds traction, but it does not reduce the weight on the front axle.

Adding rear ballast such as a heavy box blade, however, changes the balance ratio, adds traction, and also because of the fulcrum effect of the rear tires the box blade weight will actually reduce the weight on the front tires. As long as the end result is 40/60 this is better. The rear ballast can also be easily removed for times when you don't use the FEL or front blade, and doing so will also reduce tire ruts, etc.

rdbrumfield · Dec 12, 2002

I am amazed at how much talk there is about hanging weight on tractors. I have never had anything in my tires or weights hanging on the rims. Of course there has always been an attachment like a tiller or mower back there when doing loader work. Sure I still get a tire or two off the ground now and them, but I have never broken a tractor into either. If you are plowing or pulling great with the weight, but with the loader the tractor has to have a safety valve. If that means lifting a back tire to let you know it has had enough so be it.