ME_FOUR_TWELVE
New member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2004
- Messages
- 2
my B2910 sounds just like a ford diesel..pick up...great sound...great tractor.....
Kubota B2910 vs. Case DX29
- Thread starter fivazpond
- Start date
- Views: 18790
-
- Tags
- case-ih dx29
Bob_Skurka
Super Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 7,615
<font color="green"> About six weeks ago I posed a relationship between the weight of the tractor having some bearing on the designed limits of the loader capacity in another thread. This theory was dismissed as having no relationship between the two. Have we now decided the two factors are related?
</font>
Tim, I think they are only mildly related. And their relationship really seems to boil down to total machine strength. Take a look at the Kioti & Mahindra forums, both of those forums talk about the advantage of weight for the sake of weight (something that I dismiss completely, because weight should, in my mind, serve a purpose and some tasks need it and some do not). But those forums are replete with heavy = good = more capacity. And to some extent that is probably true, but not because of the heavy weight, it is because the machine is built to handle the loader capacity. That comes in the form of increased strength of some components which almost by default adds some weight, and that added weight may come as a trade off in other ways.
I think the reason that the theory you posed might have been dismissed in the other thread is that there are examples of lighter tractors with greater capacity and heavier tractors with lower capacity. Those examples, typically seem to be related to one of 2 things, either weaker hydraulics or different types of construction of the tractor.
Now the issue over overall weight is something that I point out on a regular basis as being a false issue for FEL work because proper ballast is more important than overall weight. Ballast being defined as weight in the correct place.
Consider:
#1) Rear Wheel Weights and/or Fluid Filled Tires, these put weight at the rear of the tractor, but they do nothing to lighten the front end of the tractor. Further, rear wheel weight (in either form) allow both the steering mechanism and the front axle of the tractor to take the full force of pressure of the FEL & its load. Not to say this is bad, it is just not optimum for really heavy FEL work.
#2) Heavy overall tractors are typically cast iron machines with cast iron engines, cast iron bell housings, and cast iron rear ends. That means that much of the overall weight is actually in the front of the machine, or at very least spread across the entire machine. These tractors still REQUIRE proper ballast, and there are discussions where even the heavy Mahindra's get their back tires lifted off the ground.
#3) Ballast boxes, as recommended by manufacturers require less overall weight to do the same job as fluid fill because they use the mechanical advantage of geometry (remember Jr. High School math?) and the effort of "lever action" by placing the weight well behind the rear axle, using the rear axle as the fulcrum point to lighten the front end axle so all of the weight of the FEL & its load is not resting on that front axle.
</font>
Tim, I think they are only mildly related. And their relationship really seems to boil down to total machine strength. Take a look at the Kioti & Mahindra forums, both of those forums talk about the advantage of weight for the sake of weight (something that I dismiss completely, because weight should, in my mind, serve a purpose and some tasks need it and some do not). But those forums are replete with heavy = good = more capacity. And to some extent that is probably true, but not because of the heavy weight, it is because the machine is built to handle the loader capacity. That comes in the form of increased strength of some components which almost by default adds some weight, and that added weight may come as a trade off in other ways.
I think the reason that the theory you posed might have been dismissed in the other thread is that there are examples of lighter tractors with greater capacity and heavier tractors with lower capacity. Those examples, typically seem to be related to one of 2 things, either weaker hydraulics or different types of construction of the tractor.
Now the issue over overall weight is something that I point out on a regular basis as being a false issue for FEL work because proper ballast is more important than overall weight. Ballast being defined as weight in the correct place.
Consider:
#1) Rear Wheel Weights and/or Fluid Filled Tires, these put weight at the rear of the tractor, but they do nothing to lighten the front end of the tractor. Further, rear wheel weight (in either form) allow both the steering mechanism and the front axle of the tractor to take the full force of pressure of the FEL & its load. Not to say this is bad, it is just not optimum for really heavy FEL work.
#2) Heavy overall tractors are typically cast iron machines with cast iron engines, cast iron bell housings, and cast iron rear ends. That means that much of the overall weight is actually in the front of the machine, or at very least spread across the entire machine. These tractors still REQUIRE proper ballast, and there are discussions where even the heavy Mahindra's get their back tires lifted off the ground.
#3) Ballast boxes, as recommended by manufacturers require less overall weight to do the same job as fluid fill because they use the mechanical advantage of geometry (remember Jr. High School math?) and the effort of "lever action" by placing the weight well behind the rear axle, using the rear axle as the fulcrum point to lighten the front end axle so all of the weight of the FEL & its load is not resting on that front axle.