b249
Bronze Member
Patrick,
I agree whole-heartedly w/ your post! The weight on the ROPS seems to be it.
b249
I agree whole-heartedly w/ your post! The weight on the ROPS seems to be it.
b249
Tire Ballast safety issue?
- Thread starter patrickg
- Start date
- Views: 3999
Dan, I'm afraid you are right. I think the load rating is visible on the sidewalls but is not the issue. There are several different sets of tires listed in the manual but like you, I think the ROPS is the likely culprit. Gee, I guess I gotta try to keep it on 4 wheels more of the time. I have had it on several of the possible combinations of two wheels, some, multiple times. With any load on the FEL, I keep one hand on the FEL stick, just in case. Has saved me from laying it down a number of times.
Mud suction on the FEL while trying to raise puts both back tires in the air. No biggy until the suction starts to break then you better take some up pressure off the bucket.
Going through short radius cylindrical concavities where you have to go diagonally will leave you temporarily on one front wheel and the opposite back wheel and if nearly ballanced will oscillate back and forth between sides as the tires alternately catch traction. Continues until you step on the diff lock.
And of course there is the intentional lifting of both front tires with the FEL like to pour out cement better with the 3PH mixer.
Only twice have I had it on two wheels on the same side, once on the left and once to the right. Once with 200 T posts on the pallet forks and turned the wheel too far to the side. It went up on two wheels but I got the pallet forks down before it went past the point of no return. Two lessons here... Don't overload the pallet forks with respect to rear ballast like an implement or whatever and don't turn the wheel too far. It wasn't a centrifugual force thing but a wheel placement geometry thing. It tends to lay down in the direction you are turning not the other side as it would with centrifugual force. The fix? don't turn too sharply with a heavy FEL load. I guess you could get cute and turn sharply if you went just fast enough to generate enough centrifugal force to ballance the lean-in-the-direction-of-the-turn tendancy. I think I will pass on that experiment.
The time I put it on the left two wheels was because I did not walk the area I was working, I was on a slope, and I stuck both left wheels in a small washout concealed by vegetation. It allowed the two right hand wheels to just skim the surface. I though about this one for a while, got out, walked around it, thought about getting my truck with winch, and when my heart rate went back to sub-relativistic speeds I got in , engaged 4WD and the diff lock and in low range just barely eased down on the hydrostat while leaning my considerable body weight well over to the high side.
In retrospect I wish three things: 1. It didn't happen, 2. there were hard points on the ROPS cab where you could safely tie ropes to the ROPS. I could have run a line to a tree or a vehicle as a deadman and prevented roll over or a full laydown while "driving" it out., or 3. I would have walked out and brought in another vehicle as a safety measure.
Now you know why I am interested in the ballast issue. I would like a lower CG. I may go for foam fill in the tires since I can't have "ballast" That will give just a little improvement to the CG (and cut out ALL flats, the real motivation for foam) but I want to understand Kubota's implementation and their reasoning before I decide how to supply the ballast. Implements are OK, sort of UNTIL you have a tight manuvering situation then a big brush hog is not helpful.
Ponder, ponder,
Patrick
Mud suction on the FEL while trying to raise puts both back tires in the air. No biggy until the suction starts to break then you better take some up pressure off the bucket.
Going through short radius cylindrical concavities where you have to go diagonally will leave you temporarily on one front wheel and the opposite back wheel and if nearly ballanced will oscillate back and forth between sides as the tires alternately catch traction. Continues until you step on the diff lock.
And of course there is the intentional lifting of both front tires with the FEL like to pour out cement better with the 3PH mixer.
Only twice have I had it on two wheels on the same side, once on the left and once to the right. Once with 200 T posts on the pallet forks and turned the wheel too far to the side. It went up on two wheels but I got the pallet forks down before it went past the point of no return. Two lessons here... Don't overload the pallet forks with respect to rear ballast like an implement or whatever and don't turn the wheel too far. It wasn't a centrifugual force thing but a wheel placement geometry thing. It tends to lay down in the direction you are turning not the other side as it would with centrifugual force. The fix? don't turn too sharply with a heavy FEL load. I guess you could get cute and turn sharply if you went just fast enough to generate enough centrifugal force to ballance the lean-in-the-direction-of-the-turn tendancy. I think I will pass on that experiment.
The time I put it on the left two wheels was because I did not walk the area I was working, I was on a slope, and I stuck both left wheels in a small washout concealed by vegetation. It allowed the two right hand wheels to just skim the surface. I though about this one for a while, got out, walked around it, thought about getting my truck with winch, and when my heart rate went back to sub-relativistic speeds I got in , engaged 4WD and the diff lock and in low range just barely eased down on the hydrostat while leaning my considerable body weight well over to the high side.
In retrospect I wish three things: 1. It didn't happen, 2. there were hard points on the ROPS cab where you could safely tie ropes to the ROPS. I could have run a line to a tree or a vehicle as a deadman and prevented roll over or a full laydown while "driving" it out., or 3. I would have walked out and brought in another vehicle as a safety measure.
Now you know why I am interested in the ballast issue. I would like a lower CG. I may go for foam fill in the tires since I can't have "ballast" That will give just a little improvement to the CG (and cut out ALL flats, the real motivation for foam) but I want to understand Kubota's implementation and their reasoning before I decide how to supply the ballast. Implements are OK, sort of UNTIL you have a tight manuvering situation then a big brush hog is not helpful.
Ponder, ponder,
Patrick
EdKing:
Nah, Ed, you are not that far off but consider that there would only be certain positions where a weight/implement on the 3PH would contribute to ROPS failure with the cab. If I would have a brush hog or carryall, or cast ballast on and rolled the tractor over on its side, what contribution to crushing the cab would there be. With the brush hog probably little to none. With carryall and say a box of sand or whatever. It would likely fall off or pour out in a roll over. depending how you built the cast weight it could help crush the cab in certain scenarios. I suppose I should consider a "mechanical fuse" in the design or a gravity latch that would let the counterballance fall off if the rig went toward the inverted position. Either is fairly simple but the gravity latch is a no brainer. Just make the 3PH conection device held on by gravity and tall enough to withstand some pretty rough bouncing but release at some angle of tilt. That angle of tilt should be something greater than the greatest angle of tilt the tractor could achieve and not fall over (with the ballast). Don't want to jettison the ballast that is keeping you upright just when you need it the most! After you are definitely going over, losing the ballast shouldn't be a bad thing if it doesn't end up in the cab with you.
Too late Ed. I own a 2001 model Kubota Grand L4610HSTC. Can't even begin to contemplate changing now. I don't think it is unsafe, per se but I don't want to do anything to take it out of its design envelope. So, I want to understand Kubota's thinking before I start messing with the weight and ballance too much. It is really iritating to me that they make such an exception in their recommendations with no explanation.
Patrick
Nah, Ed, you are not that far off but consider that there would only be certain positions where a weight/implement on the 3PH would contribute to ROPS failure with the cab. If I would have a brush hog or carryall, or cast ballast on and rolled the tractor over on its side, what contribution to crushing the cab would there be. With the brush hog probably little to none. With carryall and say a box of sand or whatever. It would likely fall off or pour out in a roll over. depending how you built the cast weight it could help crush the cab in certain scenarios. I suppose I should consider a "mechanical fuse" in the design or a gravity latch that would let the counterballance fall off if the rig went toward the inverted position. Either is fairly simple but the gravity latch is a no brainer. Just make the 3PH conection device held on by gravity and tall enough to withstand some pretty rough bouncing but release at some angle of tilt. That angle of tilt should be something greater than the greatest angle of tilt the tractor could achieve and not fall over (with the ballast). Don't want to jettison the ballast that is keeping you upright just when you need it the most! After you are definitely going over, losing the ballast shouldn't be a bad thing if it doesn't end up in the cab with you.
Too late Ed. I own a 2001 model Kubota Grand L4610HSTC. Can't even begin to contemplate changing now. I don't think it is unsafe, per se but I don't want to do anything to take it out of its design envelope. So, I want to understand Kubota's thinking before I start messing with the weight and ballance too much. It is really iritating to me that they make such an exception in their recommendations with no explanation.
Patrick
EdKing
Platinum Member
<font color=blue>Too late Ed. I own a 2001 model Kubota Grand L4610HSTC.</font color=blue>
I hear what you're saying there. If there was room in the cab, you could add an internal rollbar, thus allieviating the strength problem of the ROPS. You would thing Kubota would have thought this out a little better, especially with a ROPS system.
<font color=blue>It is really iritating to me that they make such an exception in their recommendations with no explanation.</font color=blue>
Once again I hear what you're saying. Kind of like when you were a kid and asked why not, and got the "Because I said so" reply.
I hear what you're saying there. If there was room in the cab, you could add an internal rollbar, thus allieviating the strength problem of the ROPS. You would thing Kubota would have thought this out a little better, especially with a ROPS system.
<font color=blue>It is really iritating to me that they make such an exception in their recommendations with no explanation.</font color=blue>
Once again I hear what you're saying. Kind of like when you were a kid and asked why not, and got the "Because I said so" reply.
Soundguy
Old Timer
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2002
- Messages
- 51,575
- Location
- Central florida
- Tractor
- RK 55HC,ym1700, NH7610S, Ford 8N, 2N, NAA, 660, 850 x2, 541, 950, 941D, 951, 2000, 3000, 4000, 4600, 5000, 740, IH 'C' 'H', CUB, John Deere 'B', allis 'G', case VAC
The only problem I see here.. is any attatchment on the 3pt hitch will add weight to the rops in a rollover situation... Imagine a 6' mower hanging more or less rigidly to the 3pt.. in a sideways roll over, some of that weight will be xfered to the rops... I still cant see how a few hundred pounds of tire ballast would hurt the rops either.
One issue that we havn't looked at is.. this is hydrostat right? Perhaps the extra tire ballast adds some rotational weight the manufacturer doesnt on the final drive? Still cant see that being a problem.... by design.. tractor like weight and use it for traction... course they were all gear drives back then.
Soundguy
"" bet a dollar against a doughnut (over time that is becoming an even money bet rather than the original "long odds") that it is a ROPS strength/safety issue. The cab on the L4610 is quite a "green house", mostly seamless glass with almost "no visible means of support." If that is true then it probably isn't a problem until you turn it over. Then your estate could sue them. When I find out and if it is a ROPS strength/safety issue I will comply and not use ballast or wheel weights but will opt for a 3PH cast concrete ballast or a HD carryall to haul external ballast.
Patrick "
One issue that we havn't looked at is.. this is hydrostat right? Perhaps the extra tire ballast adds some rotational weight the manufacturer doesnt on the final drive? Still cant see that being a problem.... by design.. tractor like weight and use it for traction... course they were all gear drives back then.
Soundguy
"" bet a dollar against a doughnut (over time that is becoming an even money bet rather than the original "long odds") that it is a ROPS strength/safety issue. The cab on the L4610 is quite a "green house", mostly seamless glass with almost "no visible means of support." If that is true then it probably isn't a problem until you turn it over. Then your estate could sue them. When I find out and if it is a ROPS strength/safety issue I will comply and not use ballast or wheel weights but will opt for a 3PH cast concrete ballast or a HD carryall to haul external ballast.
Patrick "
SoundGuy, My best ballast is my brush hog but it makes the tractor tough to manuever in the tight spaces I seem to spend a good deal of time manuevering through since it sticks back so far. The way it is mounted, kinda articulated, if the tractor rolled over it would probably lay on the ground and not put too much strain on the cab/ROPS. It is almost as wide as the tractor so if the tractor ended up on its side the brush hog would probably have most of its weight on the ground again. Ballast action is pretty good, lotsa leverage. The big downside is it just limits manueverability.
The L4610HSTC is a fine piece of equipment, a great compromise between size and power BUT... It can easily pick up so much with its FEL or pallet forks that it will stand on its nose, if you are lucky and don't fall over sideways due to turning or whatever. It really needs counter weight at the back end to take advantage of all the lifting ability. This isn't just the cab model, the regular ROPS version is essentially the same.
I suppose I will wait a while on Kubota to answer my or anyone elses email regarding their manual entry prohibiting tire fill and then build a counterweight. Maybe I should look further into the idea of making the attachment of the counterweight self releasing after a certain angle of tilt. As I said in another post, that release angle will have to be a good deal past the max degree of safe tilt so as not to give up the stabalizing weight just when its needed the most.
Patrick
The L4610HSTC is a fine piece of equipment, a great compromise between size and power BUT... It can easily pick up so much with its FEL or pallet forks that it will stand on its nose, if you are lucky and don't fall over sideways due to turning or whatever. It really needs counter weight at the back end to take advantage of all the lifting ability. This isn't just the cab model, the regular ROPS version is essentially the same.
I suppose I will wait a while on Kubota to answer my or anyone elses email regarding their manual entry prohibiting tire fill and then build a counterweight. Maybe I should look further into the idea of making the attachment of the counterweight self releasing after a certain angle of tilt. As I said in another post, that release angle will have to be a good deal past the max degree of safe tilt so as not to give up the stabalizing weight just when its needed the most.
Patrick
Soundguy
Old Timer
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2002
- Messages
- 51,575
- Location
- Central florida
- Tractor
- RK 55HC,ym1700, NH7610S, Ford 8N, 2N, NAA, 660, 850 x2, 541, 950, 941D, 951, 2000, 3000, 4000, 4600, 5000, 740, IH 'C' 'H', CUB, John Deere 'B', allis 'G', case VAC
Still though, the tractor , if laying on its side unless the mower is perfectly balanced and standing on its side, the assembly will add load to the rops as a side load.
I believe that rops engineers probably alloy for this.. after all... how many people roll their tractor.. with no impliments on?
Soundguy
I believe that rops engineers probably alloy for this.. after all... how many people roll their tractor.. with no impliments on?
Soundguy
