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

   / Surprised by need for rear ballast with L 4060 in this situation #31  
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.
Not sure what you are talking about, according to my manual tire ballast is for “traction” and “stability”.
D3ABBE8E-9778-48B9-A579-C218A706522D.jpeg

The loader manual says it may be used in addition to a counter weight on the 3PT but 3PT is the primary.
495BFF31-E474-4240-87AC-205185CB10BD.jpeg
 
   / Surprised by need for rear ballast with L 4060 in this situation #32  
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.
You must be really bad at math if you believe counterbalance on the 3PT doesn’t take significant weight off the front tires.

I agree tractors are made for ground engaging work or PTO work and just happen to be an okay frame to use for lifting things.
 
   / Surprised by need for rear ballast with L 4060 in this situation #33  
I have a small tractor and even with my 700+ lb ballast bucket, which is further out due to the QH (thereby increasing the leverage) I still can feel the strain on the tractor if I lift a large load. I also look at the front tires as I lift to see if they squat.

With the BH attached I can lift large loads without noticing (my manual says the BH weighs 1,200 lbs IIRC). The frame mounted BH actually increases the ballast effect by acting as a giant lever pivoting on the rear mount and levering up on the front mount (under the center of the tractor).

Also, IMO, loaded tires are great for ground engagement/traction and stability but do nothing to reduce weight on the front axel.

And FWIW when mowing with my finish mower it is much more stable and less top-heavy if I remove the FEL. (tires are NOT loaded)
Agreed
Loading the rear tires and or putting wheel weights on will help keep the rear tires planted. But like you said it does nothing for the front axle loading when using the FEL to lift/carry heavy objects. That requires weight on the 3 point behind the rear axle.
A simple proof test for front axle loading. install a heavy implement on the 3 point and put a heavy object on the FEL with the 3 point lowered. lift the FEL slowly so the FEL and object are just off the ground (don-t want to be sued over this) and then look at the front tires side wall bulge, now lift the 3 point and watch what happens to the front tires side wall bulge -it will be reduced, because weight has in fact been removed from the front axle.

I feel bad for the family that lost someone dear,
but, save us from ourselves laws are already far to many. How many new warning labels will be added onto new tractors. I agree that dealers OR corporate will now likely have to get a prospective new owner to do a sign off on liability if the buyers plan to use the FEL just to protect their business.
 
Last edited:
   / Surprised by need for rear ballast with L 4060 in this situation #34  
I can tell you this much, there isn't going to be any Deere tractors sold in the future without there being a ballast plan conversation in the future. Other brands would be wise to take notice.


Last week, a Payne County jury awarded a Stillwater woman $5 million in a civil suit that followed her husband's death in a tractor accident.

The jury found Deere & Company, the manufacturer of John Deere tractors, to be responsible for the May 25, 2014, death of James Beall, age 38, of Stillwater, when the tractor he was driving rolled over, trapping him underneath. Shylah Beall, his widow, was represented by Smolen Law, a Tulsa firm.

The case involved a John Deere 3038 E Compact Utility Tractor with a 305 front loader that was sold to the Bealls by P&K Equipment, Inc., of Stillwater. The tractor and an optional front loader were assembled at the Deere plant in Georgia and then shipped to P&K Equipment.


Shylah Beall's suit claimed that the tractor was unsafe and had not been properly configured by either the factory or the dealership before she and her husband took delivery. Throughout the lawsuit, Deere denied the accusations.

Beall's attorneys said Deere’s manufacturing failed to add additional weight to the rear of the tractor to counterbalance the almost 700-pound front-end loader, before it left the Deere plant in Georgia. The weight was also not added at the local dealership.

Representatives of Deere & Company said the tractor was not defective or unreasonably dangerous and suggested Beall may not have been wearing his seatbelt.

During the trial, the representative for Deere & Company admitted that ballast is supposed to be added to the rear and tires of the tractor. In the instruction manual it said, "To prevent death or bodily injury from tractor loader roll-over, the required amount of ballast must be added to the tractor."

The proper ballast wasn’t added before Beall bought the tractor, and Beall's attorneys argued that evidence shown during the trial suggested that if the weight had been added as recommended, the tractor wouldn’t have rolled over.

Carlton Hearn, a product safety engineer for Deere & Company, testitfied that the tractor was supposed to be configured ready for use at the dealership, and there is a checklist dealers go through to ensure a tractor is ready for use.

Among the checklist items was the installation of ballast to to prevent rollover and injury. At first, it seemed the Hearn was suggesting that it would be up to the consumer to do whatever needed to be done with the tractor, according to a transcript provided to the News Press by Smolen Law.


"So let me ask you this, so when James and his dad, Clyde, showed up to P&K and they – and he had this dream of having his own business and he had this 16-acre property that he needs help mowing," attorney Donald Smolen asked. "You think that they should have thought to themselves, 'Hey, even though I'm buying this thing brand new from John Deere and it's come directly from the factory all set up, I bet it's in an unreasonably safe condition and that I need to go through and make sure that they did everything they are supposed to. Is that the way that Deere sells its equipment?'"

"I'm sorry. What way?" the rep asked.

"Well, you've got here that in order for this tractor to be safe, and properly weighted, and properly ballasted there are certain things that have to be done to the tractor when used with a loader right?," Smolen replied. "I mean, that's what we have been talking about. And these things that are listed, the consumer, James Beall, Clyde Beall, me whoever, the consumer can't even do that, they can't even install the rear tire weights according to Deere, right?"

"It's recommended that they are done by a Deere dealership," Hearn replied.

On Jan. 16, a Payne County jury found after 27 minutes of deliberation that "by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant, Deere & Company, acted in reckless disregard for the rights of others." They awarded Shylah Beall $3 million in actual compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages.

In a statement released Thursday, Shylah Beall said that her main goal was to hold the company accountable and make sure nothing like this happens in the future.

“I don’t want James’ death to be in vain,” she said. “I want proper safety protocols followed in the future.”

Attorney Donald E. Smolen, II, said the compensation will help Shylah raise her young son, who is now left without a father.

“No amount of money will take the place of a loving husband and father, but these funds can help Shylah and her family in other ways,” he said. “Our greatest hope is we can prevent this from happening to another family. We are pleased the jury decided in our favor.”
That’s garbage. I hate lawyers. This is how you get federal licenses created you’ll have to get before operating a tractor because the tractor companies send lobbyists to DC in an attempt to protect themselves from idiots like this.
 
   / Surprised by need for rear ballast with L 4060 in this situation #35  
5 million dollars will garner some attention. Common sense is an oxymoron. There is no such thing any more. The man that died was not a farmer, he was a "new tractor owner", Translation: he didn't know anything about machinery. He ASSumed that the tractor was "ready to use". Of course just re-arrange the word "use" and it becomes "sue".

I guess in this case ignorance was not bliss. Ignorance in this case was death.

But on the "other hand", how is a "new tractor owner" to know anything? The tractor comes with a loader installed, but no loaded tires, no wheel weights, and no 3pt ballast box sold with tractor. Think about that, a loader was sold and installed, but no ballast. The guy is ignorant of the danger, how is he supposed to know? Who told him "hey buddy, you are taking your life in your hands operating a loader without ballast". No one apparently did.
There’s been so many posts here lately by folks asking totally dumb questions (how many grease zeros are on my loader) that are carefully covered in the manual I don’t think many people read them. It’s sad, tractor manuals are generally more useful than most owners manuals.
 
   / Surprised by need for rear ballast with L 4060 in this situation #36  
You must be really bad at math if you believe counterbalance on the 3PT doesn’t take significant weight off the front tires.

.

The tractor loader in discussion was at barley at half capacity before tractor tipped. Once it tips you can’t add anymore weight to the front axel. So you’re saying you should add more weight to the back so the loader can lift twice as much which obviously adds a lot more weight to the front axel. Now I’m not saying you don’t need ballast but taking weight off the front isn’t the reason. About the math part of it. There’s not much distance between the back axel and the 3ph. And there’s a lot of distance between the the front bucket and the back axel. You’re probably talking at least a 5x1 lever. If so you need to add 5 pounds on the back to take 1 pound off the front. If you actually did add enough weight to do any good the front wheels of the tractor would be off the ground with no load on the fel.
 
   / Surprised by need for rear ballast with L 4060 in this situation #37  
So just because. . . I just went out and measured my tractor. The wheels are ~ 5.3' apart.

Ballast weighing 800lbs 4' behind the centerline of the rear axle will have a moment arm of 4ft*800lbs or 3200ft-lbs. To counteract that moment the front axles will have 3200ft-lbs/5.3ft or ~604lbs relieved from them.

It's just math
 
   / Surprised by need for rear ballast with L 4060 in this situation #38  
5 million dollars will garner some attention. Common sense is an oxymoron. There is no such thing any more. The man that died was not a farmer, he was a "new tractor owner", Translation: he didn't know anything about machinery. He ASSumed that the tractor was "ready to use". Of course just re-arrange the word "use" and it becomes "sue".

I guess in this case ignorance was not bliss. Ignorance in this case was death.

But on the "other hand", how is a "new tractor owner" to know anything? The tractor comes with a loader installed, but no loaded tires, no wheel weights, and no 3pt ballast box sold with tractor. Think about that, a loader was sold and installed, but no ballast. The guy is ignorant of the danger, how is he supposed to know? Who told him "hey buddy, you are taking your life in your hands operating a loader without ballast". No one apparently did.

I’m not a fan of lawsuits but they’re about right this time. A tractor with a loader is one of the few things that isn’t safe to be used as intended the way it’s sold. That’s kinda like selling a vehicle without a hood latch and saying if you want to drive over 5 mph you have to add that separate.
 
   / Surprised by need for rear ballast with L 4060 in this situation #39  
So just because. . . I just went out and measured my tractor. The wheels are ~ 5.3' apart.

Ballast weighing 800lbs 4' behind the centerline of the rear axle will have a moment arm of 4ft*800lbs or 3200ft-lbs. To counteract that moment the front axles will have 3200ft-lbs/5.3ft or ~604lbs relieved from them.

It's just math

You didn’t do the math right for starters. The front axel makes no difference. It’s the distance the load on the loader is front of the rear axle that makes the difference. And you along with nearly everyone else are ignoring how much more the loader can lift with ballast vs without. Again I’m not saying not to use ballast it’s essential.
 
   / Surprised by need for rear ballast with L 4060 in this situation #40  
The tractor loader in discussion was at barley at half capacity before tractor tipped. Once it tips you can’t add anymore weight to the front axel. So you’re saying you should add more weight to the back so the loader can lift twice as much which obviously adds a lot more weight to the front axel. Now I’m not saying you don’t need ballast but taking weight off the front isn’t the reason. About the math part of it. There’s not much distance between the back axel and the 3ph. And there’s a lot of distance between the the front bucket and the back axel. You’re probably talking at least a 5x1 lever. If so you need to add 5 pounds on the back to take 1 pound off the front. If you actually did add enough weight to do any good the front wheels of the tractor would be off the ground with no load on the fel.
So legitimate question and I'm not tractoring so may as well get smarter.

So tape measure says my pins on the 3PT are 31 inches behind the axle (give or take me trying to look at two round objects things 31" apart and measure them). Wheel base is 84". So a handy calculator puts it at 10lbs on the 3PT (at the pins) lifts up on the front axle 3.7 lbs so 37% of the weight (at the pins) transfers off the front axles? Not bad. I don't have any ballast boxes so I'm sure all my implements push that ratio even higher pound for pound.
 
 
Top