Surprised by need for rear ballast with L 4060 in this situation

[rScotty]

SNIP..... I don’t remember my physics lessons.....is there an exponential increase in the leverage exerted as the load gets wider and further away from the fulcrum of the front wheels? Is there a simple math formula that would help me with anticipating when I have too much weight, based on the projection of the load? Thanks.

No, it's simply linear. Making it easy to estimate. If you move the center of mass twice as far from the fulcrum, the force doubles.

 

[k0ua]

Just so you know, according to tractordata.com your bare tractor weighs 3737 lbs assuming gear transmission and NOT cabbed. Mine weighs 3915 lbs. bare. so I was not far off when I guessed yours and my tractor were close in weight with mine a couple of hundred pounds heavier. And as others have pointed out, the loaded tires, while great to have for when you are pulling a ground engaging implement like a blade, do nothing to remove weight from your front axle. And when your rear tires come off of the ground the added weight of the loaded tires is added to the additional weight the front axle must support. Your need rear ballast.

 

[Fallon]

What kind of bait and switch is it if your ballasted so that you can safely lift the weight the FEL and tractor was built (and sold) to do, and this overloads the front axle?

Also, rear ballast takes weight off the front axle.

Which is why all owners manuals say to properly ballast on the 3pt when lifting with the loader.

The axle only gets overloaded if there isn't proper ballast in back.

Loaded rear tires make the back end less likely to lift. But do nothing to play teeter totter to unload the front with the back ballast. Due to the rear not wanting to come off the ground, you can actually increase the load on the front axle lifting heavy by loading your rear tires

 

[JWR]

There is no reason to fret over picking up 1200lb with your 4060 & FEL. The cg of your 4ft plywood is 2ft out from the back edge of the fork frame. The 32" materoial cg would be 16" out from the back of the fork frame. So 24/16 = 1.5x the forward rotational torque relative to the back of the fork frame. We don't know how far from the back of the fork frame the center of the front axle is but we do know going to the 4ft material makes a lot less than 1.5 X the rotational torque around the front axle compared to the 32" stack of material. As the other guy said, it is linear, not exponential.
No reason to see this circumstance in catastorphic terms or being all that dangerous. You are not , so far as we know, moving this stuff around on hillsides or slopes. The rear tires becoming light and lacking traction is a great hint for situational awareness. So as everyone says, put something in back for ballast -- not because of any great danger but because it improves the overall comfiort and good sense of operation. I use a 1460lb 7ft Bush Hog on the back of my MF2660 almost all the time when I am lifting stuff with the FEL, have rear tires loaded, and never have to even think about the balancing issue. If it fits your typical operation, hang a bush hog back there.

Unlike what one of the above posts said, the more ballast you have the less weight there is on your front axle (though the reduction is small.) Your loader is spec'd to handle loads several hundred lbs greater than the 1200lbs so an occassional 1200lb FEL load is not likely to hurt your front axle or bearings.

 

[4570Man]

Overloading the front axel due to inadequate ballast is total bs. It would take way more ballast then feasible possibly to lighten the load on the front. Busting the drive in the front axel due to it doing all the work because there’s no traction on the back axel might be a valid argument. BTW a tractor is the worst loader platform ever designed. You’d be hard pressed to build something worse.

 

[oosik]

Based upon physics and the fulcrum principle - ballast hanging off the 3-point helps the front axle VERY LITTLE. If you are lifting stuff that heavy and added weight on the 3-point saves your front axle - you are ALREADY long gone.

I want somebody to post a section from their tractor Op manual that states - "rear ballast must be used to prevent damage to the front axle".

Come on folks - lets use our heads.

 

[4570Man]

Based upon physics and the fulcrum principle - ballast hanging off the 3-point helps the front axle VERY LITTLE. If you are lifting stuff that heavy and added weight on the 3-point saves your front axle - you are ALREADY long gone.

I want somebody to post a section from their tractor Op manual that states - "rear ballast must be used to prevent damage to the front axle".

Come on folks - lets use our heads.

Not only would it take immense weight on the 3ph to do any good it allows you to load the front axel far more before the tractor tips vs not having any ballast.

 

[SDT]

iTiiT. I fix all our flats on 8 tractors. All have water in all four tires all the time. Plus some anti freeze.

Beet juice equipment is expensive and I have neither need nor intention of buying such.

SDT

 

[oosik]

Beet juice and a heavy rear blade simply keep my rear tires in contact with the ground when I lift a heavy load with the FEL/grapple.

If I thought the front axle assembly was that fragile - wouldn't have the FEL.

 

[kantuckid]

oosik has corrected some miss-information above IMO.
A playground Teeter Totter is a grade school physics problem. Weight toward the back, tires w/fluid, ballast boxes, slope, all do matter.
As for the FEL, there sits in a shop not far from me a much larger tractor than the OP's which has a huge and heavy, broken front axle casting from being used by a logger to pick up large oak logs for truck loading. FWIW, beet juice is heavier than WW fluid & some other tire weight fluids.