gmsssi
Platinum Member
Good points Bob! One of the reasons I chose the 72" heavy BB was the 74" total rear tire width and 610#!
Question on ballest for new tractor
- Thread starter kcook
- Start date
- Views: 1840
Boomerang1
Gold Member
I need both on my DX33. With only filled tires, the rear end will instantly lift off the ground when digging into a pile of dirt. With filled tires and a 400+ lb BB I still have to be cautious not to stop quick with a loaded bucket or lower the bucket to fast. Also remember when using an implement for ballast, it adds 1.5 times the weight of the implement to the rear axle because of the leverage of the lift arms and length of the implement.
Bob_Skurka
Super Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 7,615
<font color="red"> I need both on my DX33. With only filled tires, the rear end will instantly lift off the ground when digging into a pile of dirt. With filled tires and a 400+ lb BB I still have to be cautious not to stop quick with a loaded bucket or lower the bucket to fast. </font>
Boomerang1, the 14LX loader you have is an exceptional loader for a mid-frame CUT. I find the same thing applies to my 12LA on my small frame CUT. Both are CNH products and really are beasts for their size class. My manual states I need wheel weights + ballast box -or- fluid fill + ballast box. When the loader is well matched to the tractor, there is no question you need both. CNH tractors are fairly heavy, not as heavy as some, but heavier than most, and still they need a lot of ballast to balance the FEL power.
While I am not sure about CUT weight distribution, I recently dug up information that for AG tractors that are 4wd, the ideal weight distribution is 60% on the FRONT axle, and 40% on the rear. For FEL work, that is far from ideal. But as I look at most CUTS, I wonder if that is pretty close to normal. Compare a modern CUT to a Ford 8N or similar older AG tractor and it becomes obvious that the weight distribution cannot be the same. The old iron had huge rear wheels compared to similar HP modern CUTs for traction, our new machines have 4wd for traction and the % difference between the front and rear tire sizes is much smaller on a modern CUT than on an older tractor. I think what it boils down to is that I belive small tractors are inherantly front heavy due to their 4wd design, and regardless of if you have a lightweight B Kubota or a heavy Mahindra, you need proper ballast to balance your load.
Boomerang1, the 14LX loader you have is an exceptional loader for a mid-frame CUT. I find the same thing applies to my 12LA on my small frame CUT. Both are CNH products and really are beasts for their size class. My manual states I need wheel weights + ballast box -or- fluid fill + ballast box. When the loader is well matched to the tractor, there is no question you need both. CNH tractors are fairly heavy, not as heavy as some, but heavier than most, and still they need a lot of ballast to balance the FEL power.
While I am not sure about CUT weight distribution, I recently dug up information that for AG tractors that are 4wd, the ideal weight distribution is 60% on the FRONT axle, and 40% on the rear. For FEL work, that is far from ideal. But as I look at most CUTS, I wonder if that is pretty close to normal. Compare a modern CUT to a Ford 8N or similar older AG tractor and it becomes obvious that the weight distribution cannot be the same. The old iron had huge rear wheels compared to similar HP modern CUTs for traction, our new machines have 4wd for traction and the % difference between the front and rear tire sizes is much smaller on a modern CUT than on an older tractor. I think what it boils down to is that I belive small tractors are inherantly front heavy due to their 4wd design, and regardless of if you have a lightweight B Kubota or a heavy Mahindra, you need proper ballast to balance your load.
flusher
Super Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2005
- Messages
- 7,555
- Location
- Sacramento
- Tractor
- Getting old. Sold the ranch. Sold the tractors. Moved back to the city.
Been reading this thread with great interest.
I have a new B7510HST with LA302 FEL.
Been using the Bota lately to move sand around my place to fill in electrical trenches (about 1100 ft of trench total).
I had about 10 CY of sand dumped along side the driveway.
No rear ballast, no filled tires. Just my 200 lbs in the seat.
Not knowing any better, I just scoop up a heaping bucket of sand and trundle away in low gear with the bucket raised about 3 feet. My place is pretty level. But it was once an almond orchard (only 28 trees left now) and the ground is pretty rough, especially where trees once stood.
So far I've had no problem keeping the rear wheels on the ground, even when going up and down small slopes where the main tractor road cuts across the orchard. Looks to me like the tractor and FEL are very well matched and balanced, at least for the type of service I'm subjecting it to.
Seems to me that what I'm doing with the sand is similar to what landscape guys do with their favorite pulverized materials.
I have a new B7510HST with LA302 FEL.
Been using the Bota lately to move sand around my place to fill in electrical trenches (about 1100 ft of trench total).
I had about 10 CY of sand dumped along side the driveway.
No rear ballast, no filled tires. Just my 200 lbs in the seat.
Not knowing any better, I just scoop up a heaping bucket of sand and trundle away in low gear with the bucket raised about 3 feet. My place is pretty level. But it was once an almond orchard (only 28 trees left now) and the ground is pretty rough, especially where trees once stood.
So far I've had no problem keeping the rear wheels on the ground, even when going up and down small slopes where the main tractor road cuts across the orchard. Looks to me like the tractor and FEL are very well matched and balanced, at least for the type of service I'm subjecting it to.
Seems to me that what I'm doing with the sand is similar to what landscape guys do with their favorite pulverized materials.
