Safety question - forward tipping limits

[Bob_Skurka]

Dave, the more I think about the 40/60 weight distribution, the more I wonder HOW to calculate it? It seems pretty reasonable but how do you know what your weight distribution is with your tractor/loader to begin with? It does not seem reasonable to assume that the raw tractor loader is automatically 40/60 just because the ideal distribution might be 40/60. So if you can't be positive that the weight distribution is 40/60, or for that matter even close to that, then how can you accurately calculate the amount of ballast needed?


As for my manual, It recommeds Fluid Fill AND ballast box . . . or . . . Wheel Weights AND ballast box.

Fluid fill with R4 tires = 173# per tire = 346#
(with Ag tires weight = 103# per tire = 206#
Ballast Box = 442#
Total weight for option 1 = 648# with R1 tires
Total weight for option 1 = 788# with R4 tires

. . . or . . .

Wheels weights = 101# per tire = 202#
Ballast box = 442#
Total weight for Option 2 = 644#


Obviously, different tire sizes yield different weight with fluid fill, also different tire types yield different weight with fluid fill. I use fluid fill on the Kubota and an implement or ballast box. I do not have fluid fill or wheel weight on the New Holland but use a ballast box or heavy implement and find that I do not have enough weight on the back of the NH to effectively use the potential of the New Holland loader. Interesting thing is that the NH is about 18" shorter LOA than the Kubota, but only weighs 300# less in overall weight so the NH is heavier per HP, per inch, or any other way you choose to measure it, and it still needs essentially similar ballast to the larger Kubota.

 

[davesisk]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Dave, the more I think about the 40/60 weight distribution, the more I wonder HOW to calculate it? )</font>

Bob, absolutely agreed. I was starting with the assumption that with no load, the loader and tractor have a 40F/60R weight distribution. That could certainly be a totally wrong assumption. I suppose you could put a scale with suitable capacity under each wheel, but I don't think a bathroom scale would cut it! /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Thx,
Dave

 

[jeepcj7]

Around here we use the scale at the local grain elevator. Drive the tractor on the scale to get total weight, then just drive on the front axles, then just the rear axles. Actually, most places that are in the trucking business have scales and most are willing to let you use them. Concrete trucking companies are a sure to have scales.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Well this whole thing has had me puzzled since I read it. Now all of the numbers below are AG tractor related, and all are related to large tractors with ground engaging implements behind them.

None of this is directly related to compact utility tractors; unfortunately that is too common with tractor numbers. We use minature versions of big machines and we use them for totally different purposes. But we cling to the theories that "real farmers" cling to and apply them (rightly or wrongly) to our CUTs.

So I don't know what of this relates to a tractor/loader ballast issue, but to me it says that a the 40/60 weight ratio number is not really valid to non-ag tractors. As I read through the ariticals, it also became very apparent that tractors are not inherantly designed with 40/60 weight distribution in mind, they are designed so that the weight distribution can be MOVED around depending on the task at hand!



According to CASE tractor's website, with 3pt implements:
Table 3 Weight distribution (F/R)
Tractor Type......Towed/drawbar....Semi-mounted......Fully mounted
2WD.................25/75...................30/70..................35/65
MFD..................35/65...................35/65..................40/60
4WD..................55/45...................55/45.................60/40



According to the Nebraska Cooperative Extention, with 3pt implements:
Tractor Type_____Mounted______Towed
2 WD __________35:65 _______25:75
Front assist _____ 40:60 _______40:60
4 WD __________60:40 _______60:40



According to "Farm Industry News":
In general, the following weight distributions are recommended:
2-wd: 25% of weight on front axle, 75% on rear
MFWD: 35% front, 65% rear
4-wd: 55% front, 45% rear



According to the Nebraska Dept of Ag Engineering, w/implements:
Tractor Type ....... Mounted ......... Towed
2 WD ................. 35:65 ............. 25:75
Front assist ........ 45:55 ............. 40:60
4 WD ................. 60:40 ............. 55:45

 

[davesisk]

Bob:

This is a great discussion...it's certainly better to know what you don't know than to...uh...just not know what you don't know. Right.

Anyway, the loader manual with my CUT says it should be 40/60. Now, it says it *should* be...does that mean that w/no load it already *is* 40/60? I dunno. One would think so, but that could be quite a wrong guess. And does 40/60 mean unloaded or with a full load?

I think the best advice the manual actually gave was to stop quickly with a full load held low. If it tips, add weight, and try it again. You'd think the mfg's could actually publish the recommended ballast weight in the manual, wouldn't you? It's not exactly like there's an infinite combination of tractors and loaders, especially when you're talking about all factory stuff.

Dave

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Dave, this one really had me scratching my head. I looked through 3 loader manuals for 3 different tractors with front buckets that I use and can find no reference at all to weight distribution ratios, if it is there I missed it but not from lack of effort. That is what sent me searching the internet and all I could find there was AG tractor references and none to loader work, all were related to pulling (which I suppose makes a lot of sense). I know I had read somewhere that many modern CUTs were more front heavy than a traditional AG tractor, but now I wonder if that is without fluid ballast in the rear tires?

And there is another thing that is interesting, the AG weight distributions I found showed that 4wd tractors should be front heavy (that is related to pulling not loading) but never the less, if modern CUTs are mini versions of AG tractors, then are 4wd modern CUTs front heavy like modern 4wd AG tractors or are modern 4wd CUTs rear heavy like old 2wd AG tractors? I have never seen a modern CUT that had front to rear tire sizes that are as different as similar size old AG tractors. For example the rear tires of a Ford 8N are much larger than the rear tires of a 30hp Kubota/New Holland/Whatever . . . but the front tires are not all that different in size. So the ratio of difference is greater on the old tractors, so does that mean that newer 4 wd CUTs might be more front heavy? Or does it just mean that the rubber is smaller on the rear?

 

[davesisk]

Hi folks:

Just wanted to update this thread, now that I have a little more seat time in. I moved several buckets of sand the other day (actually, screenings, which is like grey coarse sand). I could lift a full bucket of this material (which is pretty darned heavy) without the MF1220 having any uninduced tendency to tip forward with the bucket held low. Of course, you can't get a real heaping bucket full since the loader isn't self-leveling and doesn't roll back more than just maybe 15-20 degrees past level with the load low, but it was still a decent load. I tried stopping quickly, and it didn't feel forward-tippy at all.

Today, I was using my new clamp-on pallets forks and moving some lightly stacked pallets of slate, and that did take some careful moving. The pallet forks put the load way out in front of the machine, so I'd imagine it only takes 300-400 lb to tip with this configuration (it could be more...I didn't weigh the materials). OK, so I'll have to use many pallets lightly stacked...that's still easier than moving stuff by hand. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif Turns out that I can snag free used pallets from a landscape supply company that's only a few miles away...way cool. I have stacks of retaining wall blocks, brick pavers, etc., that I intend to palletize for neatness and ease of getting it to the right spot on my property (until I finish everything and get it all used up). These clamp-on pallets forks are pretty awesome. However, it might be worth looking at a 3ph pallet fork since that would give me 1200 lbs of load lifting capability, but just to a very limited height. I also used these to carry some firewood to a neighbor's house...fully loaded pallet and bucket. It didn't even think of tipping.

As far as I know, the rear tires are currently only filled with air. (I haven't checked them yet to be sure because the valve stems are on the inside of the wheels rather than outside, so I just haven't parked it right yet... /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif) If the tires aren't already liquid-filled, then it's out of the box balance doesn't seem to be too bad in all honesty. That said, I still am taking things slow and wouldn't want to get on more than a very slight slope with any load in the front. I still plan to add some ballast to the rear so I can get the full lift and breakout capacity though. Just still trying to decide the best ballast choice for my needs versus the most economical choice.

L8r,
Dave