Kioti Broken in Half

[ovrszd]

I don't recall much talk about ballast here. If the owner was using that monstrous grapple to the limit, traversing rough ground and had no ballast (or tire ballast which would not help here), the majority of the weight of the tractor and load was on the front axle and transferred through those sections of the frame. While the loader might have lifted the weight, the impact loads of traversing were likely too much. Could proper ballast have helped? I think theoretically, yes.

And if I were a Kioti rep - that's where I would go first.

This is a common debate.

If the FEL can't lift the load without the rear tires coming off the ground, adding ballast actually increases the load on the tractor front end until the rear tires return to the ground, then it begins to decrease the load on the tractor front end and increase the stress on the tractor chassis.

 

[CJONE]

This is a common debate.

If the FEL can't lift the load without the rear tires coming off the ground, adding ballast actually increases the load on the tractor front end until the rear tires return to the ground, then it begins to decrease the load on the tractor front end and increase the stress on the tractor chassis.

Yea, not much of a debate. Simple physics, the more weight on the back the more weight you can pick on the front and the more weight the front axle and frame sees at that fulcrum point. IE where the frame broke on that tractor. Unless you decrease the load on the loader the front axle sees the same load [well + or - a few pounds] Until you move then you see dynamic loads come into play. CJ

 

[MichiganIron]

What we recommend for all of our customers...if you are ballasting the tractor for Front Loader work, put the weight on the 3-point hitch. Get the ballast load behind the rear axle to better distribute the load on the tractor. Doing the statics - taking the moments about the rear axle - the same ballast weight, as tire fill, on the 3-point hitch will reduce the reaction (load) at the Front Axle by 35%. That's significant....

 

[IndyJay]

What we recommend for all of our customers...if you are ballasting the tractor for Front Loader work, put the weight on the 3-point hitch. Get the ballast load behind the rear axle to better distribute the load on the tractor. Doing the statics - taking the moments about the rear axle - the same ballast weight, as tire fill, on the 3-point hitch will reduce the reaction (load) at the Front Axle by 35%. That's significant....

Is that "instead of" or "in addition to"?

Thanks!

 

[MichiganIron]

Either, instead of or in addition to...as long as there is ballast BEHIND the rear axle to offset the moment created by the picked load, the reduction in front axle stress is the same. If the Ballast is intended for traction, which filling the tires was originally done for, tire fill works fine. If you want to pick a heavy load in ahead of the front axle of the tractor (front end loader work), put the ballast behind the rear axle to help distribute the load to both axles of the tractor.

 

[ovrszd]

Either, instead of or in addition to...as long as there is ballast BEHIND the rear axle to offset the moment created by the picked load, the reduction in front axle stress is the same. If the Ballast is intended for traction, which filling the tires was originally done for, tire fill works fine. If you want to pick a heavy load in ahead of the front axle of the tractor (front end loader work), put the ballast behind the rear axle to help distribute the load to both axles of the tractor.

Just remember that you have to deal with that ballast when in an unloaded position. Such as going up a steep hill. Tire fill doesn't create that situation. There's a right place/wrong place for both. I use both.

 

[Boss 302]

Steering wheels are overrated

 

[MinnesotaEric]

Either, instead of or in addition to...as long as there is ballast BEHIND the rear axle to offset the moment created by the picked load, the reduction in front axle stress is the same. If the Ballast is intended for traction, which filling the tires was originally done for, tire fill works fine. If you want to pick a heavy load in ahead of the front axle of the tractor (front end loader work), put the ballast behind the rear axle to help distribute the load to both axles of the tractor.

That is only true while all four wheels are on the ground. The entire load shifts to the front axle the moment the rear wheels leave the ground. Its just like car or motorcycle dynamics on acceleration and breaking. Even with ballast, the weight on the front wheels increases (even as some of it is shared on the rear axle) as the weight on the loader increases which its why when coming into a pile of fill, good wheel loader operators will curl the bucket as they drive in increasing the weight on the front axle to keep the front tires from slipping and to get a good heaping bucket load.

 

[ovrszd]

That is only true while all four wheels are on the ground. The entire load shifts to the front axle the moment the rear wheels leave the ground. Its just like car or motorcycle dynamics on acceleration and breaking. Even with ballast, the weight on the front wheels increases (even as some of it is shared on the rear axle) as the weight on the loader increases which its why when coming into a pile of fill, good wheel loader operators will curl the bucket as they drive in increasing the weight on the front axle to keep the front tires from slipping and to get a good heaping bucket load.

I have met several people, some on here, that will never concede to your point. They think ballast always lightens the load on the front axle. That is only true if you have a weak FEL.

 

[LD1]

I have met several people, some on here, that will never concede to your point. They think ballast always lightens the load on the front axle. That is only true if you have a weak FEL.

There have been a great many discussions about ballast and it's effects on the front axle over the years.

And alot of what is being said....like "ballast always lightens the load on the front"....has to be understood with some context.

I'll use my MX for example cause I am familiar with what it weighs.

I can say first hand that a 500# ballast (along with my loaded tires and wheel weights) is NOT enough to keep the rear planted.

So...without ballast.....I might be able to pallet forks a tote with 75 gallons and the rears lift. (Let's say tractor weighs 6k. So now I have 6k + 75 gallons of weight ALL on the front.

Add rear ballast of 500#....now tractor weighs 6.5k.

Lifting the SAME 75 gallons is gonna put less weight up front

However....with ballast I might now be able to pick 125 gallons before tears lift

Now I have increased front axle load to 6.5k +125 gallons. Which is significantly more than no ballast where it could only lift 6k+75 gal.

So again ...it's all in context of what is being done.

With ballast gives you the ability to lift more up front. And that gives the ability to increase front axle load.

But if you are simply talking about a fixed load up front. (moving pallets or round bales) adding counter weight will Always reduce front axle load with the same given loader load.

The absolute worst case scenario is just enough ballast to max out the loader....but leaving near 0 weight on the rears. Because that is max loader lift...plus max tractor weight all on the front axle.

 

[ovrszd]

There have been a great many discussions about ballast and it's effects on the front axle over the years.

And alot of what is being said....like "ballast always lightens the load on the front"....has to be understood with some context.

I'll use my MX for example cause I am familiar with what it weighs.

I can say first hand that a 500# ballast (along with my loaded tires and wheel weights) is NOT enough to keep the rear planted.

So...without ballast.....I might be able to pallet forks a tote with 75 gallons and the rears lift. (Let's say tractor weighs 6k. So now I have 6k + 75 gallons of weight ALL on the front.

Add rear ballast of 500#....now tractor weighs 6.5k.

Lifting the SAME 75 gallons is gonna put less weight up front

However....with ballast I might now be able to pick 125 gallons before tears lift

Now I have increased front axle load to 6.5k +125 gallons. Which is significantly more than no ballast where it could only lift 6k+75 gal.

So again ...it's all in context of what is being done.

With ballast gives you the ability to lift more up front. And that gives the ability to increase front axle load.

But if you are simply talking about a fixed load up front. (moving pallets or round bales) adding counter weight will Always reduce front axle load with the same given loader load.

The absolute worst case scenario is just enough ballast to max out the loader....but leaving near 0 weight on the rears. Because that is max loader lift...plus max tractor weight all on the front axle.

I use rear tire fluid, cast iron rear wheel weights and a 1,200lb BB on the 3pt. I must use mature caution when using my Grapple.

 

[LouNY]

And I have gone the other way, I use wheel weights, no fluid and no rear ballast.
If I can't lift it without the wheels getting light it's time for a different approach,
but my tractor is not a CUT I have lifted 3600# mafia blocks with her, very carefully.

 

[JimR]

That looks like a massive overload issue or a really big bounce up in the air and a crash down. My guess is that the main bolts holding the machine together were loose and finally let go. Frame fatigue or just a faulty frame. That should still be under warranty? Looking again at the frame break looks like it snapped off right where it was welded to the front section. I emailed him out of curiosity.

 

[JimR]

I did get a reply from the owner. Out of Warranty. The frame is not considered part of the drivetrain. Insurance company deemed failure due to material defect. The loader is rated for 3600 pounds. The frame break is not at a weld.

 

[plastikosmd]

Ugh, if that is true
Fix the frame and claim warranty on rest of drivetrain, lol
I’m sure the truth is somewhere in between

 

[JimR]

The owner told me that Kioti has not returned any of his calls. Same goes for his dealer who also called Kioti.

 

[ptsg]

The owner told me that Kioti has not returned any of his calls. Same goes for his dealer who also called Kioti.

That's to be expected.

Somewhere in the almost 300 posts on this thread, someone mentioned that the guy used to constantly brag on social media about how he abused his tractor. Then the mechanic from his dealer called him out on that and denied any warranty claims.

EDIT: It's post #167: Kioti Broken in Half

"The guy that did is was using the tractor instead of a bulldozer or skidder. His dealer and local mechanic both told him he was crazy and would probably break something but he decided to destroy the tractor anyway! He's posted it on Facebook with several different stories including the some of them about how he high-centered it on a rock, his wife drove into a tree, and the one he got made fun of the most on his how he babied the tractor since new. His local mechanic showed up on that post and called him out!! lol"

 

[JimR]

That's to be expected.

Somewhere in the almost 300 posts on this thread, someone mentioned that the guy used to constantly brag on social media about how he abused his tractor. Then the mechanic from his dealer called him out on that and denied any warranty claims.

EDIT: It's post #167: Kioti Broken in Half

"The guy that did is was using the tractor instead of a bulldozer or skidder. His dealer and local mechanic both told him he was crazy and would probably break something but he decided to destroy the tractor anyway! He's posted it on Facebook with several different stories including the some of them about how he high-centered it on a rock, his wife drove into a tree, and the one he got made fun of the most on his how he babied the tractor since new. His local mechanic showed up on that post and called him out!! lol"

The truth finally came out. I guess it was a matter of more money than brains.

 

[JimR]

It is not uncommon these days. My neighbor cracked a new 75HP New Holland in half while mowing. He hit a ditch at a nice clip and cracked it just like the picture here. he is very hard on equipment. Smaller tractors have become less structurally sound due to price competitiveness. New Holland, Deere, Kubota etc. have had to cheapen their products over the past twenty years to compete with cheap brands.

I looked at New Hollands when I was looking for a new tractor. I got under one and said, not for me. The Kioti and Mahindra tractors were made a lot heavier and rugged.

 

[JimR]

Easier on drivetrain possibly, but the issue appears to be structural, my reference to the grapple was that it's oversized for the tractor which could possibly mean the owner wasn't easy on it. But who knows, maybe he was just transporting it or something else, hard to judge from just a picture.

Sent from my SM-G715U1 using TractorByNet mobile app

Regardless of the size of the grapple. The OP told me that the loader was rated for 3600 pounds. That 3600 pounds also includes the weight of the grapple. Usually the max loader weight is measured at the lift pins.