Is there any way to determine the proper amount of counter weight?

[Roger66]

As for the beet juice, where can you buy it? Is it a dealer only item or can I do it DIY?

 

[jeff9366]

I don't have filled rear tires. I've been thinking of that.

As you intend building a Three Point Hitch counterbalance, I would put all the weight there. Pound for pound, Three Point Hitch weight, which is CANTILEVERED behind the rear axle, will be more effective than tire ballast on the rear axle. There is really no reason to ballast rear tires too, given your focus on FEL lifts.

With a bare tractor weight of 2,460 pounds and 25-horsepower from an 80 cubic inch engine, you will not benefit from loading rear tires when doing traction intensive Three Point Hich work such as moldboard plowing, box blading, etc. You do not have enough power to spin rear tires doing dirt contact work.

Had you 40-horsepower and planned to plow or do other Three Point Hitch ground contact work regularly, my advice would be load the rear tires and outfit with R1/ag tires for traction. However, your primary focus is counterbalancing FEL lifts.

So for FEL work keep all the weight in the removable Three Point Hitch ballast box.

You may find it advantageous NOT to have ballasted rear tires and NOT to have R1/bar tires if/when you want to run over your lawn landscaping, moving mulch or removing storm debris, anything you once did with a wheelbarrow.



I apply the KISS principle to everything having to do with my tractor. (Keep it simple, stupid.)
Simplicity = less to fail.

 

[Roger66]

Consider loading your rear tires as a separate issue.

As you intend building a Three Point Hitch counterbalance, I would put all the weight there. Pound for pound, Three Point Hitch weight, which is CANTILEVERED behind the rear axle, will be more effective than tire ballast on the rear axle. There is really no reason to ballast rear tires too, given your focus on FEL lifts.

With a bare tractor weight of 2,460 pounds and 25 horsepower from an 80 cubic inch engine, you will not benefit from loading rear tires when doing traction intensive Three Point Hich work such as moldboard plowing, box blading, etc. You do not have enough power to spin rear tires doing dirt contact work.

So for FEL work keep all the weight in the removable Three Point Hitch ballast box.

I apply the KISS principle to everything having to do with my tractor. (Keep it simple, stupid.)

Jeff,
You are right, While I do have a box blade, I do almost no rear implement work. For me it's all FEL, snowplowing & towing. Don't need any extra weight for towing. I'm thinking having all of the weight removable is the way to go for me. For Snow plowing do you think ballast block will help traction? I have a steep driveway to plow.

Do you think the 1,500 Lbs with no weight in the tires will allow me maximum lift of my FEL?

Thanks!

 

[jeff9366]

My Kubota loader and/or tractor manual has maximum front and rear ballast weights listed. Rear is about 2/3 of the loader lift capacity.

Bruce

My experience agrees with BCP's recommendation. I think 900 to 1,000 pounds, all on the Three Point Hitch, would be plenty. Only 1,000 pounds because you intend the weight to be close to the tractor.

You can buy scrap steel at a junk yard very cheap. Consider using scrap steel as your primary weight, concrete to keep steel immobile. Place steel at lowest point.

I am a Floridian. S-N-O-W is a four-letter word here, not used in polite company. I cannot really suggest on snow issues, thank god. Consider rear tires chains, too. Rear tires chains are made in steel and rubber these days for snow traction.


There are about a bazillion threads in the T-B-N archive about ballast box construction.
ballast box project site:tractorbynet.com - Google Search

 

[oosik]

Roger - there are simply too many variables for anybody to give you an exact weight needed for ballast. Check out the TBN archive threads on ballast box construction - build one that allows 1000# to 1200#. That way you can add what is needed and figure out the optimum weight.

 

[plowhog]

Jeff, regarding:

"Counterbalance with ballasted rear tires will be one figure. With air filled rear tires will be another figure."

You have great experience with tractors, which I respect. Knowledge far exceeding mine. But I don't understand why that would be, so I'm hoping to learn something. If the rear axle is the fulcrum point, and the desire is to not overload the front axle, then it seems adding offsetting weight in the rear to counterbalance weight in the front would not be different regardless of the tire situation? Since the tire has equal surface area (and weight) both ahead of and behind the rear axle, it would not move the center of gravity forward or aft whether the tires were heavy or light?

I understand that more tire weight could improve traction and stability. I don't understand how it could affect needed or desired counterweight?

 

[jeff9366]

It is because the rear axle is the pivot point.

Think of a teeter totter, with you over the center pivot.

Hard to move the teeter totter with weight near the center pivot. Easy to move as you shift weight out.......

Cantilevered weight, as above, to the rear of the rear axle is much more effective pound for pound than weight centered on/over the rear axle which is NOT weight cantilevered.

Over rear axle weight does not leverage front end. Behind rear axle weight DOES leverage front end.

 

[Rock Crawler]

It is because the rear axle is the pivot point.

Think of a teeter totter, with you over the center pivot.

Hard to move the teeter totter with weight near the center pivot. Easy to move as you shift weight out.......

Cantilevered weight, as above, to the rear of the rear axle is much more effective pound for pound than weight centered on/over the rear axle which is NOT weight cantilevered.

Over rear axle weight does not leverage front end. Behind rear axle weight DOES leverage front end.

I believe that you missed the point of his question. He is not arguing the ballast being moved from the fulcrum point.

His (valid) argument is that if the tires are filled or not filled, it has no effect on the amount of weight required at whatever leverage point chosen to reduce a given amount of front axle load.

Using your analogy: You are 180 lbs on one side of that see-saw. Your buddy is 180 lbs on the other end. You can equal out your buddy.
Now, I run over and I cross the scales at 750 lbs and I stand on a nail perfectly centered on the pivot point. You and your budy can still see-saw all day long. If I jump off and your 110 lb wife jumps on the nail that is perfectly centered at the pivot, you and your buddy still see-saw all day long.

The tires being weighted is me standing on the pinpoint location of the axis point.
Your buddy is the front loader.
You are the rear ballast at a given leverage distance.
I can move you forward or backwards in your seat area to effect the load at your buddies seat.
No matter what your wife or I weigh, it has no real effect on the outcome.

That is how I see his argument. Loaded tires has no effect on the amount of rear added ballast required at a particular distance from the rear axle centerline to offset a given amount of front axle weight. The loaded tires do not help or hurt this situation.

Now, conversely... If the problem looking for a solution were that the front axle is the pivot point, as in lifting more weight than the tractor chassis can hold down, and you only care to hold the rear tires on the ground.... then you can argue that the rear tire ballast is a part of that equation. But understanding your earlier conversation and the problem being worked on, I see that your efforts are aimed directly at removing load from the front axle primarily to save mechanical failure of a potentially overloaded axle.

Sorry for butting in.

 

[Zebrafive]

Jeff, regarding:

"Counterbalance with ballasted rear tires will be one figure. With air filled rear tires will be another figure."

You have great experience with tractors, which I respect. Knowledge far exceeding mine. But I don't understand why that would be, so I'm hoping to learn something. If the rear axle is the fulcrum point, and the desire is to not overload the front axle, then it seems adding offsetting weight in the rear to counterbalance weight in the front would not be different regardless of the tire situation? Since the tire has equal surface area (and weight) both ahead of and behind the rear axle, it would not move the center of gravity forward or aft whether the tires were heavy or light?

I understand that more tire weight could improve traction and stability. I don't understand how it could affect needed or desired counterweight?

I think Jeff is only considering the amount of ballast needed for safe loader use, I.E. keeping enough weight on the rear tires for safe operation/control.
I will take x number lbs to keep the rear tires on the ground. It "might" be possible to put enough weight in just the tires to do that. Or it may take additional on the 3pt too, but if ONLY on the 3pt, it will be more if the rear tires are not weighted. .
One of the advantages of weight on the 3pt is it does lighten the load the front axle is carrying. Weight only in the rear tires does not do this at all.

 

[Zebrafive]

As for the beet juice, where can you buy it? Is it a dealer only item or can I do it DIY?

RimGuard is the commercial name for beet juice. I am unsure if you can buy it "uninstalled".