Loaded Tires vs. Ballast Box

[robertwhite]

The OP has posted he has no need for filled tires due to his circumstances, so, as good as this "conversation is, we're a bit off topic.

Still pretty interesting though. :thumbsup:

 

[SPYDERLK]

Be sure to train yourself to ALWAYS lower the bucket before the ballast box (-:

I'm not sure why that statement was made because it doesn't really matter which one is lowered first.
However, when rigging the ballast box and loader, alway install the loader before the ballast box and remove the ballast box before removing the loader.
If that ballast box is on and no loader, raising your 3PH wll likely cause your tractor's front end to raise instead (yep...I did it and it wasn't funny)

Im sure Reg was referring to the risk involved in unweighting the rears with the bucket up. If the bucket has a load it may cause the rear to lift and the tractor to side tip some. Much less funny that the fronts lifting.
larry

 

[MichiganIron]

We have done studies on several of our KIOTI Tractor models. Using ballast at the 3-point hitch can reduce front axle reactions by as much as 35%. When doing heavy loader work, this makes a huge difference in the wear on the front axle components.

 

[robertwhite]

We have done studies on several of our KIOTI Tractor models. Using ballast at the 3-point hitch can reduce front axle reactions by as much as 35%. When doing heavy loader work, this makes a huge difference in the wear on the front axle components.

Reduce front axle reactions? As in turn the steering wheel, and the front wheels don't react the same with the steering wheel?

If I understand the statement, the front end is "floating" with a BB on the 3 point hitch. If that is the case, extra weight in the FEL would negate this and not affect wear.

Probably don't understand what you meant though, so please be a little more clear.

 

[arrabil]

Maybe its just me but I seem to think the loaded tires smooth out the ride on rough terrain better than 3pt ballast.

My tractor came with a 72" rear finish mower that was used as ballast. That totally sucked in every possible way. It bounced with every bump, you have to raise it for an initial climb and then lower it when under way, you have to watch it as you back up, etc, etc. I know its not a "ballast box" but the box will still share many of the same problems.

I loaded the tires with Rim Guard and have never regretted it, period. And the only grass destruction is always done with the front wheels.

 

[RoyJackson]

Maybe its just me but I seem to think the loaded tires smooth out the ride on rough terrain better than 3pt ballast.

Filled tires are definitely not as bouncy as tires that are not filled...night and day.

 

[robertwhite]

My tractor came with a 72" rear finish mower that was used as ballast. That totally sucked in every possible way. It bounced with every bump, you have to raise it for an initial climb and then lower it when under way, you have to watch it as you back up, etc, etc. I know its not a "ballast box" but the box will still share many of the same problems.

Yes, but a ballast box's weight is much more forward than a mower and also more compact. I would imagine there is still some bounce, but not nearly as much as a mower used for ballast. I do understand the point though.

 

[arrabil]

Yes, but a ballast box's weight is much more forward than a mower and also more compact. I would imagine there is still some bounce, but not nearly as much as a mower used for ballast. I do understand the point though.

Thinking back on it, the difference is likely much smaller than you'd imagine. The bounce is going to be the same because it was the looseness in the 3ph that caused that. And this mower was within an inch of the tires so it was very close to the tractor. But that there isn't as much weight off-center will change the dynamics some. I can see the one argument for ballast, leverage, but otherwise I think it sucks in every other way based on my admittedly limited experience.

 

[RoyJackson]

Thinking back on it, the difference is likely much smaller than you'd imagine. The bounce is going to be the same because it was the looseness in the 3ph that caused that. And this mower was within an inch of the tires so it was very close to the tractor. But that there isn't as much weight off-center will change the dynamics some. I can see the one argument for ballast, leverage, but otherwise I think it sucks in every other way based on my admittedly limited experience.

Arrabil's mower weighs about 720 lbs which would be pretty good ballast for his Deere 4200. The mower is longer and wider then a comparable weight in a ballast box, so movement could be exaggerated by the greater length and width.
Big advantage of the ballast box is it's compactness...you don't have to be as concerned about hitting something when you're backing up or turning. But that doesn't mean you can forget it's on the 3ph.

 

[robertwhite]

Arrabil's mower weighs about 720 lbs which would be pretty good ballast for his Deere 4200. The mower is longer and wider then a comparable weight in a ballast box, so movement could be exaggerated by the greater length and width.
Big advantage of the ballast box is it's compactness...you don't have to be as concerned about hitting something when you're backing up or turning. But that doesn't mean you can forget it's on the 3ph.

Exactly like I thought. The BB being much more compact than a mower will center the weight much better.

Have you (or anyone else) used a ballast box and found that it bounces?