Is Lifting Rear of CUTS of the Ground Bad?

CJONE · Mar 8, 2012

I guess my question would be why pull on the tree? Push it out instead. This puts the weight and the drive on the back axle or evenly distributed depending on how you use the loader. I have done this for years on regular loaders, I would assume the cuts will do the same. CJ

Short Game · Mar 8, 2012

I like to pull them over when I don't want a stump there when I'm done. I tie on about 15 feet up, and since I don't have the traction usually, or the clear run-out, I chain the tractor to another tree and use the 12,000 pound Warn winch that is on my box blade. If the tree is too big for a straight pull, I hang a block up on the tree and take the winch cable through the block and back to the box blade to double the pull force. I have tipped over some pretty large trees this way with a small CUT.

SPYDERLK · Mar 8, 2012

Short Game said:
I broke the front drive of my 27 HP CUT in a split second by lifting and pulling from the bucket, using the wheels to pull. I had loaded tires and the box blade with a heavy winch on the back. All that weight back there is nothing compared to the HP load you will put through the gears, shafts, and bearings, when the rears either lift, or simply become light enough to lose traction. As soon as rear traction is gone with all that weight transferred to the front axle, all motive force is being delivered only from the front wheels. Little pinion, little ring gear, little bearings, BOOM!

It's not so much the weight in my mind, it's the Force. I no longer use the Force (at least not that way).

For me, it was five gears, three bearings, and two bent shafts. I straightened the shafts and the 12 pounds of gears and bearings cost $2,000.

I believe!

Reg said:
Depends wotchagot (-:
If it has a fragile front axle, then YES conceivably you COULD break something.
Personally I worry much more about damaging ME than damaging equipment, but in many/most cases that keeps the equipment fairly safe at the same time. Not that blood rusts tractors, though I like to keep MY blood off any/all equipment.

Specifically; Pulling TREES !
REALLY ?
Saplings and shrubs perhaps ?
Anyway, if they have much mass they could/might tweak the FEL frame as they topple - and from your description of lifting the rear tires I am guessing that you are chaining them to the bucket and lifting, perhaps even backing up at the same time in 4WD ???

There is a local dealer who will not sell a tractor with FEL and unloaded rear tires, which I have always taken to mean if the FEL can lift the rear wheels he won't sell it that way. Kinda/sorta makes sense - in the litigious society sense.

I am of the opinion that if you can get the rear tires off the ground with the FEL then you don't have enough ballast back there, just my OPINION (-:

PS GENERALLY Ag tires are NOT rated for heavy lifting, not to the point of balancing the whole tractor and loaded bucket on them.
I have never had it happen, but I imagine blowing a front tire with a full bucket could be disastrous.

SPYDERLK said:
Dont know for your tractor, but I frequently get one or both rear wheels off the ground doing loader work with my 7520. This is with all 4 AGs loaded and usually a counterweight. I have not had a problem from this in its 975 hours of use. I dont worry about it at all except exercising care to be safe. Not all tractors are built to provide reliably for firm use. Im glad mine is OK with that.
larry

I have included a set of posts that I think show the decision points. To me, it is unfortunate that it is a gamble to use a tractor firmly within its capability to deliver force. I mean by that "the slow engagement and use of full force at moderate RPM in any gear except a creeper gear". [There is just too much torque multiplication in a creeper gear. I think that a tractor/factory loader that is designed to be respectful of the consumer rights to expectation of suitability to task should have enuf safety factor to handle this. I consider my use of the 7520 to be sometimes pretty far into that safety factor range. I wont be happy if it breaks, but I will remember that it represented itself well in its functional range. I believe a consumer is right to express disatisfaction to the mfgr of a machine that is fragile within its functional range. Excusing it, on the other hand, will come more and more to ensure it. :confused3:
larry

Short Game · Mar 8, 2012

If there is any doubt what the front drive is meant to do, compare the size of the ring gears, fore to aft.

SPYDERLK · Mar 8, 2012

Short Game said:
If there is any doubt what the front drive is meant to do, compare the size of the ring gears, fore to aft.

Thats the idea. But youll find that some tractors employ significant added gear reduction out at the wheels. This lowers the torque required at the ring gear allowing it to be small but spinning faster. In those cases the differential components can be smaller than you might think. - But when you come off the final reduction at the wheel ... That part is subject to full wheel torque. Kubs have a gear reduction at the front wheels. My Mahindra has one as well - - thru a planetary gearset. I have had trouble with the bearings on 1 Kub - bearing cage failure on the [used] purchase. No problem since, or any with the Mahindra setup that sees much harder treatment than we give the Kub.
larry