Publishing Loader Capacity Numbers That Far Exceed The Capacity Of The Axles

[Sid Post]

Good example. But does the tractor not come with a manual stating a specific ballasting plan for this loader, which includes a ballast box + loaded rear tires + reversing the mounting of those rear wheels for better stability?

The tires are filled almost completely with "beet juice" and I use a ~1200lb tiller for ballast most of the time and, specifically for any heavy loader lifts.

Even pulling rusty T-posts out of my old barbed wire fence will lift the rear end of the tractor off the ground.

While generally a great tractor for farm chores and being a real fuel miser, a great loader tractor for heavier lifts it is not!

 

[LD1]

Exactly. My Deere 3303R is lighter than that, and I'm putting 1400 lb. out on the ballast box when doing any serious loader work, in addition to my loaded rear tires. 600 lb. is a joke, on a tractor that size.

Exactly.

I have loaded tires (700#) and cast wheel weights (600#)...and my rear blade at 1250# is what is consider the minimum on my MX

 

[4570Man]

It seems ironic to me, that one can often buy working, used industrial equipment for less than these new, tiny machines. Its not hard to find a decent D6, or payloader for 15k. Mind you, it won't be nearly as comfortable as the new machine.

I have a older Cat 320 excavator and a D5 cat dozer. I also have a much newer skid steer a mini. When the big iron breaks there’s not much to do besides call a mobile mechanic with a crane truck. When you have to move the big equipment you call a low boy. When you get the big iron stuck it’s a bad day. If you want big iron with working ac the price just got drastically higher.

 

[BnRidge]

I always hear arguments about placing ballast in the back to reduce stress on the front axle. However, I just can't wrap my head around how this can be helpful

Rear ballast is measured in number of fatguys. Kind of like t (tons), lb (pounds), fg (fatguys).

 

[metalbender]

Without going through all the posts, I see the tiny front tires on the pic in the original post video and wonder about the load capacity. Some posts elsewhere about bumping up the hydraulic pressure to get more lift on a sub compact. Manufacturers don't overbuild equipment.

 

[Shenandoah MF1760]

This popped up in my YT feed today and I found it quite interesting. The obvious question: Why would a manufacturer build a front axel that is already at capacity before the bucket is even loaded?

It's a marketing ploy to promote the capacity of their loaders.

The difference between sales and marketing is that sales don't realize they're lying.

 

[nova3930]

It's a marketing ploy to promote the capacity of their loaders.

The difference between sales and marketing is that sales don't realize they're lying.

Putting back on the engineering hat I left behind a couple years ago, I'd add a couple things.

1. Without knowing the methodology for determining the axle rating, it doesn't tell us a whole lot. This is just a SWAG but considering you don't see a lot of bent\broken axles they probably use a fairly conservative methodology. Probably B basis material allowables and a high factor of safety. If they consider dynamic loading the result would be even more conservative.

2. Typically neither marketing nor sales understands the difference between component specs and system specs. Just because one component (the loader) is capable of something does not mean the full up integrated system (tractor with loader) is capable of it.

I dealt with that sort of thing a lot in aviation prior. Yes your steel truss pod system for sensors is extremely strong, but breaking the entire airplane is actually worse than just breaking the pod.....

 

[billfires]

My NH 1920 with FEL and 8 1/2 foot BH had calcium chloride in the rear turf tires. I could not figure out why the dealer had loaded the rear tires as the BH weighs about 1000 pounds. I had the tire dealer remove the CaCl when I saw some slight rust around the valve stem. I unmounted the BH to backfill my dad's 24x26 garage foundation and found that a heaped bucket of dry fill would lift the back of the tractor. The solution was to not heap the bucket. The backhoe has only been off about 6 times in 22 years. Also, the factory front turf tires (27x8.50-15 tires were 4 ply with a max pressure of 30 psi) will noticeably bulge with a full bucket. Bill C

 

[eddieirvine]

Interesting to say the least, But a lot of people have problems with the front ends seals, bearings, shafts, and other components in the front end, One of the biggest problems i have encountered is front end bearings, And of course they take all of the load. Here is my take on that, they use ball bearings in this application and this is not the right bearing to use. They should be using timkin tapered roller bearings like they used to use on trucks and cars and gear boxses years ago, these bearings are made to handle heavy loads, not ball bearings.

 

[NewHampJim]

Funny because I have a 555, impossible to overload the front end. My smallest is a 1964 Economy Tractor, a original 9hp Briggs and Stratton for power with a factory Pony Loader rated at 500 lbs. Again, it can and has been handling that maxed out FEL weight for almost 60 years, axels are fine. You shouldn't have a 1/2t FEL on a lawnmower to begin with. Another thought, Maybe they make garbage today.. something to consider

 

[lcalverson13]

This popped up in my YT feed today and I found it quite interesting. The obvious question: Why would a manufacturer build a front axel that is already at capacity before the bucket is even loaded?

I found that my 65 hp Mahindra was just enough to be of use for unloading Semi deliveries. Engage no 4 wheel drive is mandatory and f you want to handle the traction demands. Loaded rear tires are also a must.

 

[manzer7]

This popped up in my YT feed today and I found it quite interesting. The obvious question: Why would a manufacturer build a front axel that is already at capacity before the bucket is even loaded?

What is missing here ? THE BALLAST BOX !!! I never ever use my (2018) 1025R without the ballast box - which is fully loaded with close to 400#s. That differential lowers the front axle amount by a large number.
The only time the box is not on is when I have the tiller on or the box blade. And during that time is when the FEL is not in use. I did not buy a lawnmower !!! To me that is not useful in a tractor in any way.

Have a nice day !

 

[WinterDeere]

Interesting to say the least, But a lot of people have problems with the front ends seals, bearings, shafts, and other components in the front end, One of the biggest problems i have encountered is front end bearings, And of course they take all of the load. Here is my take on that, they use ball bearings in this application and this is not the right bearing to use. They should be using timkin tapered roller bearings like they used to use on trucks and cars and gear boxses years ago, these bearings are made to handle heavy loads, not ball bearings.

Where'd you get this information? I guess I can't speak for other machines, but the front axle stub bearings on my 3033r are Timkens, not ball bearings. They use ball bearings for the floating shafts, where there's zero radial load, and for the steering pivots. But the actual radial load carrying axle stubs are Timken.

 

[Dr_Zinj]

Not one word about proper 3 point ballasting to reduce front axle "static" loading.

Well, I've suspended enough weight off the front loader to pick the entire rear end off the ground, and basically 2-wheeled the load on the front axle to where I wanted it. I don't recommend it though.

 

[troverman]

Neil's videos can be interesting. There's no doubt he's a Kubota fanboy, although his dealer also sells New Holland. As many people have noted, though, larger this or that doesn't necessarily mean stronger. For example, a new Ford 6.7L Powerstroke diesel has a piston connecting rod which is much thinner than the connecting rod in the old International-made 6.0L diesel. Yet somehow the 6.7L survives quite well producing a lot more horsepower and close to twice the torque of the old engine. On very small machines like a Kubota BX or Deere 1025, lighter is very likely better. These machines are going to be homeowner type machines not used in commercial applications; many of them will be mowing lawns or carrying around small buckets of mulch or lifting 500lb loads. Thus, a lighter machine has less impact on the homeowner's lawn and can be transported with a pretty light duty trailer behind a regular half-ton pickup. Shipping these things around the country or from overseas is also cheaper for the manufacturer. Frankly, when the generic SCUT manufacturers start bragging about how their less expensive tractors are also heavier and lifts more compared to the more costly 'name brand' machines, it isn't because of better engineering - its typically because they used less refined castings or less engineered parts, because they are cheaper...and the loaders are made by some third party with a lift rating that isn't specific to the brand of tractor they eventually end up on. Now I'll admit I'm also somewhat of a Kubota fan-boy, largely because I think they are a good quality tractor and a better value than Deere. The other brands are probably mostly fine as well, but with scattered dealer support and parts and components made by any number of companies including engines, transmissions, loaders, implements, and more (hence why I call them generic).

Inflating ratings is nothing new to manufacturers, look at tow rating of pickup trucks. The TV will tell you some huge maximum tow number but you later learn your King Ranch diesel is only rated for 1900lbs of payload, not the 4,000lbs the TV mentioned (for a regular cab 2WD gas engine truck with crank-up windows).

 

[jiggseob]

OP asks "Why manufacturers would...." because they can. Competent, prudent design and manufacture builds and rates an assembly for X pounds of load. That does not mean it fails/collapses when loaded at X+1 pounds. That means there is some undisclosed design margin - for safety/stupidity/litigation avoidance - you pick the reason.

So with the loader on, and the bucket loaded to rated capacity for the loader, and no ballast on the rear, the load on the front axle is beyond the engineer/designer intent, but still within what the static load of what axle will support without failing. Put some dynamics on that situation, such as turning, hitting a bump, stopping a quickly dropping load, etc and the failure of a spindle or kingpin is more likely.

When the failure happens, whose problem (responsibility to pay) it is becomes arguable, both at the dealership service/parts counter and further into the courts.

We like to think that purchasing a reputable brand would get a more robust design margin. The more robust design might be the utilization of drop-forged castings in the high stress points, and an extra eighth of an inch of high strength steel in the spindle or kingpin. As every brand has moved to "outsource" larger portions of a finished product to the low bidder, the concept of "quality" being built into a brand is long gone.

For us end-market customers, that means our multi-tens-of-thousands of dollar purchase is like stepping up to a craps-table and throwing the dice. Gone are the days of buying a product from a reputable brand and having a high level of assurance that it will last long enough to leave with the farm and continue to serve well for your grand children.

Because they can.

 

[aircommuter]

Load balance is always part of a tractor. As far as overloading the rear axle, wheel weights and filled tires don’t load the axle. Second is that the loads change with conditions. Going uphill the balance of the load shifts to the rearward, acceleration also shifts weight to the rear know as weight transfer. While not permanent just an example. Consider axle duty cycle, while not published it does exist. Just like side to side over different terrain may overload a tire. But its not forever. Bottom line is buy a machine that is bigger and stronger than what you need, protect yourself and your equipment instead of splitting straws to convince your wife you need the tractor in the thing in the first place. Also buy older stronger equipment with less shiny paint that doesn’t have to regen and fart around while it could be working. If it’s ugly buy some paint and decals. You will be happier in the long run, or maybe even in the short run.

 

[Ed Weber]

This will continue to happen when they insist on putting compact tractor parts on sub-compact tractors. Most of these things are classified as class 1 but should really be a 0. They simply aren't built to handle the loads stated by the data.
How can your front axle be at max weight capacity with no load?

 

[WinterDeere]

Well, I've suspended enough weight off the front loader to pick the entire rear end off the ground, and basically 2-wheeled the load on the front axle to where I wanted it. I don't recommend it though.

I don't get how this is possible. Every tractor I've ever owned has a pivot with an awful lot of angular travel, between the front axle and the tractor frame. If you stand the thing up on the front wheels, as you suggest, the tractor will invariably fall to one side or the other. The travel in this pivot is sufficient to put the tractor COG (esp. with a load suspended from bucket) way off to the side of your front wheel track. It seems that, unless the load, bucket, or one rear tire remain on the ground, you and the entire rig will end up on your side.

 

[Bentrim]

Where'd you get this information? I guess I can't speak for other machines, but the front axle stub bearings on my 3033r are Timkens, not ball bearings. They use ball bearings for the floating shafts, where there's zero radial load, and for the steering pivots. But the actual radial load carrying axle stubs are Timken.

Not all manufacturers use tapered roller bearings for axle bearing. Even some use ball bearings for the front differential. IH got in trouble when the 460 and 560 came out as they used ball bearing in the transmission and it was a large failure, and cost IH a lot to repair those tractors.
If you were not aware ball bearing can be manufactured as a thrust bearing, to support a load and take thrust.
But being an old timer I as you would rather see tapered rollers to support loads, especially in wheel bearings.