Ballast How much ballast is too much?

[Farmwithjunk]

So ... a ballast box ... isn't?
That's an interesting distiction as I'd always thought that ballast was any weight added to the machine to move the CG to your advantage. Sort of the way stones were thrown in the hulls of ships so the owners could send them out, "empty", to pick up a load of heavy cargo.

-Jim

IMHO, ballast is ANY weight added for ANY purpose.

A counterweight is a more specific use/placement of ballast.

Lester Larson was the engineer responsible for the test standards at University of Nebraska tractor testing facility. In his words, "Ballast is mass that can be added or removed for the purpose of changing total load or balance of load, in order make better use of available power or traction."

 

[jenkinsph]

You need enough weight on the wheels for good traction and enough counter weight front and rear to offset the attachments being used at any given time. This seems to come up quite often on TBN and I don't see one answer to this question as to "how much counter weight to have".

I think it is important to remember that having to add too much ballast and counter weight really limits the working ability of the tractor and promotes wear and tear on the total machine. I prefer to use less than maximum ballast on my tractors and choose implements accordingly, this is easier on the tractor when operating on inclines and allows the machine to move at a better pace. If you find yourself adding too much ballast and counter weight to your tractor you might be better off moving up in tractor frame size which will have a larger and heavier drivetrain and added horsepower.

 

[jinman]

Just an interesting note from my Op Man'l. It says that you should always maintain a minimum of 20% of the total tractor's weight on the front wheels to ensure steering performance. If you have ballast on the rear and remove the loader, you can easily reduce front weight to less than 20%. If you have a MF tractor like FWJ's in his avatar and lift a round bale on the 3PH, you may find your front tires become airborne without front suitcase weights or something similar.

As Roy and Steve pointed out. Ballasting is a dynamic thing that should ensure the best traction and steering in all circumstances. It's hard to pin it down to any set standard or formula. My operator's manual says to not tow any trailer with a gross weight more than the tractor's weight without having trailer brakes. If my trailer weighs 1500# more than my tractor, can I load the FEL bucket with 1500# of materials and still be okay to tow the trailer without trailer brakes?

 

[cttractor]

Just an interesting note from my Op Man'l. It says that you should always maintain a minimum of 20% of the total tractor's weight on the front wheels to ensure steering performance. If you have ballast on the rear and remove the loader, you can easily reduce front weight to less than 20%. If you have a MF tractor like FWJ's in his avatar and lift a round bale on the 3PH, you may find your front tires become airborne without front suitcase weights or something similar.

As Roy and Steve pointed out. Ballasting is a dynamic thing that should ensure the best traction and steering in all circumstances. It's hard to pin it down to any set standard or formula. My operator's manual says to not tow any trailer with a gross weight more than the tractor's weight without having trailer brakes. If my trailer weighs 1500# more than my tractor, can I load the FEL bucket with 1500# of materials and still be okay to tow the trailer without trailer brakes?

Perhaps, but I would think only to a point. The reason is that your tractor brakes are designed to stop itself and the weight of a trailer up to some limit -- they have to have a max stopping capacity. At some point as your trailer weight keeps going up, and your tractor weight follows because the trailer's weight is not supposed to exceed that of the tractor, the brakes will be overloaded and need help from other brakes.

Also, as the trailer's weight goes up, if you need to make a panic stop, you never want the trailer to jackknife and come around one side or the other because it wasn't straight inline when you applied the brakes. Having brakes on the trailer itself means it can stop without completely depending on the tow vehicle. My manual says to limit the trailer's weight to 1.5 times the tractor's weight if the trailer does not have brakes and 4.5 times if it does. Because the tractor does have loader and 3pth weight limits, that likely also indicates the limits of the brake's stopping ability.

 

[RoyJackson]

If you have ballast on the rear and remove the loader, you can easily reduce front weight to less than 20%.

If I removed the loader and left my ballast box on the old 790 I had, I wouldn't have to worry about steering (except with the steering brakes). The front tires wouldn't be on the ground...

My operator's manual says to not tow any trailer with a gross weight more than the tractor's weight without having trailer brakes. If my trailer weighs 1500# more than my tractor, can I load the FEL bucket with 1500# of materials and still be okay to tow the trailer without trailer brakes?

I think you'd make the situation worse, all told. Your front tires would be on the ground, but by adding that much more mass to the total load, your tractor's brakes may not be sufficient. I sure wouldn't want to drive it down a slope. Trailer brakes would help slow or stop the tractor/trailer as well as keep everything straight (reduce the possibility of jack knifing) when you do stop.

 

[jinman]

Hey, didn't you guys see my winkie?

 

[Ford tractor]

YES! The additional weight in the uphill tire is as far outboard as you can get w/o modifications and the Center of Mass is below the axle centerline, this helps tremendously in roll stability while operating on side hills.

I think it is important to keep our thoughts on either Ballast -or- counterweight, they are NOT the same thing!

Ballast = in tire or wheel weights that DO NOT add even an ounce of load to the tractor's axle(s) or tires.

Counterweight = hang-on weight that increases the load on the tires and axle(s).

You can add as much ballast as will fit to 75% tire volume or as much weight as you can put on the rims w/o any problem.

You should never add more counterweight than tractor axle capacity will allow with the loads placed on the tractor.

I agree with everything. But there is additional information...

Traction, tire wear, equipment reliability, wheel slip and maximum pulling performance have been studied VERY in-depth. Our jawing will get out many of the points, but there is actually a "best" amount of tire slip at max pull. It's something like 5-7%. If you over ballast and reduce slippage to zero, the risk of breaking something "expensive" in the tractor goes up A LOT. If you are under weighted or the weight is in the wrong locations the tires will slip more and wear unacceptably fast. But again, they are trying to get maximum productivity at the minimum cost factoring in repairs, downtime, etc etc. We are not as sensitive to the down time losses and don't typically need to run on the ragged edge of perfection.

Plus the location of the ballast is changed by the task at hand as others have stated. Some examples of how it changes are;
Max draw bar pulling -- will need more weight on the front to keep the front from lifting.
Max FEL work -- move that weight behind the rear axle.
Max BH work -- move the weight out board of the rear wheels to improve tipping stability while swinging the full bucket and to provide more down force to dig.


For "general utility use" with FEL or draw bar /3pt implement that we do, having 1.5-2x the FEL max lift in wheel fill, wheel weight and 3pt counter balance is the general optimum. About .75x to 1x that as counter weight to keep the weight off the front end. So if you can FEL lift 1000# put 750-1000# on the 3pt and 500-1000# in/on the wheels.

For example our little kubota has 420-70x24 industrial tires. Filled they add about 425-450 pounds per tire or 900-ish total. That's about 90% of the loader lift capacity. Toss on a 800# 3pt implement and it's at 1.75 x the FEL lift. A few times more weight would be appreciated, a few times less. So it's about right.
The above is more jawing, but it hopefully adds a bit to the discussion.

 

[Turbys_1700]

I agree with everything. But there is additional information...

Traction, tire wear, equipment reliability, wheel slip and maximum pulling performance have been studied VERY in-depth. Our jawing will get out many of the points, but there is actually a "best" amount of tire slip at max pull. It's something like 5-7%. If you over ballast and reduce slippage to zero, the risk of breaking something "expensive" in the tractor goes up A LOT. If you are under weighted or the weight is in the wrong locations the tires will slip more and wear unacceptably fast. But again, they are trying to get maximum productivity at the minimum cost factoring in repairs, downtime, etc etc. We are not as sensitive to the down time losses and don't typically need to run on the ragged edge of perfection.

Plus the location of the ballast is changed by the task at hand as others have stated. Some examples of how it changes are;
Max draw bar pulling -- will need more weight on the front to keep the front from lifting.
Max FEL work -- move that weight behind the rear axle.
Max BH work -- move the weight out board of the rear wheels to improve tipping stability while swinging the full bucket and to provide more down force to dig.


For "general utility use" with FEL or draw bar /3pt implement that we do, having 1.5-2x the FEL max lift in wheel fill, wheel weight and 3pt counter balance is the general optimum. About .75x to 1x that as counter weight to keep the weight off the front end. So if you can FEL lift 1000# put 750-1000# on the 3pt and 500-1000# in/on the wheels.

For example our little kubota has 420-70x24 industrial tires. Filled they add about 425-450 pounds per tire or 900-ish total. That's about 90% of the loader lift capacity. Toss on a 800# 3pt implement and it's at 1.75 x the FEL lift. A few times more weight would be appreciated, a few times less. So it's about right.
The above is more jawing, but it hopefully adds a bit to the discussion.

My Stoll FC loader will lift around 1000# give or take...
My rears contain 500# of fluid and my box blade weighs 550#...
That's pretty close to what you are stating here...
I would add though that in most applications I do not lift that much...
I currently have my RFM on the back of my tractor and that unit weighs 650# and has more overhang than the box blade...
My tractor is very stable with either the box blade or RFM on the back...

 

[CTMassey]

new guy here but learning a lot.....Thanks everyone !!

 

[jimmyj]

Very good post. Thanks for all the comments. I use about .5 to 1x the weight in my FEL as a counterweight (i.e. put the BH on) and this post has educated me a lot. .5 makes me nervous as it seems to light. 1x feels much safer so I bet 1.5 to 2x would be even better for the applications I am doing (moving hay bales).

These fellows should have read this post, they have far too much ballast.