Slopes and tractor tilt

[Jaylegger]

Now if you went there, get your seat belt off, Do not depend on the ROP to save you. You will have a second or so to bail out on the high side. Lot better to watch the tractor go than to ride it. Don't ask how I know this.

Not sure if bailing out on the high side would be my first choice. The high side is the same side the mower blades are raising up to meet you, catch a foot or piece of clothing on the tractor and risk doing a face plant on the wrong side of the mower deck. If you're lucky, with your good eye, you could then watch your tractor along with the other half of your face roll down the hill.

 

[TripleR]

NEBRASKASPARKS has some good older threads on roll over time, reaction time, judging slopes, very well worth the time to look up and read.

Just a general observation, just because you can bail off a tractor successfully once or even twice, don't always count on it. My father in law did and spent several hours trapped under one and tore his foot up another time. I know anecdotes are of little relevance across the board, but something to consider.

I drive cab tractors, so I would just bounce off the glass if I tried.

 

[JoeL4330]

yes, that's what they are saying, but it isn't exactly so ...we probably all agree that raising the bucket higher and higher will raise the CG ...so, why doesn't lowering it lower the CG ...and if loading it and raising it raises the CG even more, then why doesn't loading it and lowering it makes the CG even lower ...

Check out these toys:

 

[RoyJackson]

yes, that's what they are saying, but it isn't exactly so ...we probably all agree that raising the bucket higher and higher will raise the CG ...so, why doesn't lowering it lower the CG ...and if loading it and raising it raises the CG even more, then why doesn't loading it and lowering it makes the CG even lower ...

The masts, majority of the arms and part of the bucket attachment system (Quick Attach or permanently mounted) are always above the CofG.
The only parts of the loader that are stationary are the masts (let's consider the loader mounting brackets part of the tractor for this post, shall we?).
My bucket, a 61" standard duty, weighs between 200-250 lbs (call it 225 lbs). The 430 loader, per Deere, weighs about 900 lbs (what I don't know is if that includes the bucket weight. But for this post, we'll assume it does include the bucket weight). So, 900 - 225 is 675 lbs (we're removing the bucket for this post) . The majority of this 675 lbs is above the the tractor's CofG...permanently. All one can do with this weight is lift it higher...moving the center of gravity higher as well.
IF the bucket was attached and empty, that 225 lbs (at it's lowest yet still allow forward travel of the tractor) would aid in lowering the CofG, but you still have that 675lbs working against you.
I suppose you could put enough weight in the bucket to counteract the weight of the loader masts and arms (when mowing), but that doesn't seem to make much sense when you could just as easily remove the loader.
Make sense?

 

[Wacky]

I suppose you could put enough weight in the bucket to counteract the weight of the loader masts and arms (when mowing), but that doesn't seem to make much sense when you could just as easily remove the loader.
Make sense?

I don't think that would work on side hills, due to the fact the extra weight in the bucket will try to slide the front tires down the hill. I put a Ratchet Rake on my loader and just 65lbs way out in front of the bucket acted much like I had the loader filled with dirt.:ashamed:

 

[RoyJackson]

I don't think that would work on side hills, due to the fact the extra weight in the bucket will try to slide the front tires down the hill. I put a Ratchet Rake on my loader and just 65lbs way out in front of the bucket acted much like I had the loader filled with dirt.:ashamed:

No it wouldn't...just as you wrote. What I wrote was more theoretical then practical. The practical thing to do is drop the loader off. If one does need some kind of front ballast, get suitcase weights (the majority of that weight is below the axle).

 

[SPYDERLK]

yes, that's what they are saying, but it isn't exactly so ...we probably all agree that raising the bucket higher and higher will raise the CG ...so, why doesn't lowering it lower the CG ...and if loading it and raising it raises the CG even more, then why doesn't loading it and lowering it makes the CG even lower ...

Check out these toys:

I do , it does, etc. You are missing the key point tho. Proportionally shifting weight off the rears frontward unloads the rears. When you get them unloaded well you are going to tip on the slightest slope regardless of a low cg. On a slight slope tho the front axle stops wil save you.
larry

 

[JoeL4330]

In an earlier post, Jackson wrote:

"IF the bucket was attached and empty, that 225 lbs (at it's lowest yet still allow forward travel of the tractor) would aid in lowering the CofG, but you still have that 675lbs working against you. I suppose you could put enough weight in the bucket to counteract the weight of the loader masts and arms (when mowing), but that doesn't seem to make much sense when you could just as easily remove the loader."​

My intuition is that proper design of a FEL keeps the CG unchanged when the bucket is in the "carry" positiion ...and adding weight lowers the CG, as you (and I) said. Anyway, without a load in the bucket, on/off wouldn't matter much in lateral stability if kept low in the carry position, IMHO.

As for the subsequent poster, who said:

"...the extra weight in the bucket will try to slide the front tires down the hill."​

That doesn't coincide with the experience that many of us have had that the slide occurs most easily when the tires in question (front or rear) are "unweighted" ...just thinking out loud, if you put a very, very, very lot of weight on the front tires, you probably couldn't budge them sideways on any slope we might sensibly traverse, again, IMHO

I'll experiment...and, if I never post again, you'll know my experiments failed.

 

[JoeL4330]

I do , it does, etc. You are missing the key point tho. Proportionally shifting weight off the rears frontward unloads the rears. When you get them unloaded well you are going to tip on the slightest slope regardless of a low cg. On a slight slope tho the front axle stops wil save you.
larry

Yes, perhaps I missed the point...I thought we were talking about lateral stability, not longitudinal stability (fore and aft) ...speaking of which, you might enjoy:

YouTube - Front End Loader Stoppie

 

[Turbys_1700]

I just purchased a Stoll FC 350 FEL for my 1720 last month. I have mowed my yard 3 times since then and have left it on. I run a 6' RFM, have lived on the farm 51 years, and have driven tractors since I was a little boy. Here are my observations thus far using the FEL attached while mowing.

1. I mow my yard in the same manner as before. No change in direction or procedures. I do have 2 specific areas of concern that are very steep. On those areas I still mow side hill when proper and then up and down when proper.

2. I can actually now mow one of those slopes uphill better with the FEL now as I can counter balance the tractor by lowering the bucket as I crest the hill.

3. So far I have been extra careful watching the front and rear of the tractor as the loader does add quite a bit of length to the unit.

4. Just a personal observation and no scientific data to back it up. I think that the balance and overall safety of the tractor is better with the bucket on since I can control the amount of weight placed forward of the front axle. If the loader was removed I don't know how the handling of the tractor would be affected. I would tend to think that the center of gravity would be higher with the loader off. The loader arms and bucket leverages against the higher center of gravity of the loader frame.

Again, these are just seat of the pants observations from a guy that was raised up on the farm and has driven tractors and run farm equipment most of his life.