Toughest Material To Move With FEL

[nwbearcat]

Ya Roy, the BB is for Ballast Box. It really helps with traction (I've got Ag tires) and it relieves the stress on the front axel and wheels. Love the JD ballast box.:thumbsup:

That's a funny thought process that I see a bit of around here...why would adding a ballast box remove any of the stress of using a front end loader from your front axle? As I see it, having one would ADD to that stress. Follow me for a moment. You have a tractor with limited or no ballast on the rear, you pickup something heavy on the front, it lifts the rear a little, then you have less traction, so you remember to not lift so much the next time...OR you add a ballast box, now you can lift more and not realize the impact on the tractor's traction. What you are doing is holding the rear down...somewhere there's a fulcrum...you hear of people w/ cracked transmissions and bell housings? Ever wonder why? They're only built to hold up so much, if you add capacity by adding a counter weight, expect something to give in between. Just the thoughts of an amused observer...

 

[RoyJackson]

That's a funny thought process that I see a bit of around here...why would adding a ballast box remove any of the stress of using a front end loader from your front axle? As I see it, having one would ADD to that stress. Follow me for a moment. You have a tractor with limited or no ballast on the rear, you pickup something heavy on the front, it lifts the rear a little, then you have less traction, so you remember to not lift so much the next time...OR you add a ballast box, now you can lift more and not realize the impact on the tractor's traction. What you are doing is holding the rear down...somewhere there's a fulcrum...you hear of people w/ cracked transmissions and bell housings? Ever wonder why? They're only built to hold up so much, if you add capacity by adding a counter weight, expect something to give in between. Just the thoughts of an amused observer...

Read the tractor's manual about ballasting your machine.
Tractor manufacturers sell ballast boxes for a reason, and they've been around for many decades.
One reason is, of course, to improve rear wheel traction when necessary.
Another is to improve stability
and another is to reduce the load on the front axle by acting as a counterweight. Otherwise, when using the loader to it's capacity (the relief valve in the system will let go before the system is excessively taxed), there is a substantial load on that front axle, even when worked within it's capacity. As you wrote in your post "somewhere there is a fulcrum"...that's the rear axle.
Before you respond hastily, give that some thought or do some research. You might learn something.

And here's one for you...that FEL should be removed when not using it. The intent is to reduce wear on the front axle, pivots and such.
Deere recommends ballast (both front and rear, depending on the task at hand). Deere also recommends removing ballast when not necessary to extend drive train life. Since many of us do use that extra weight of the loader for front ballast (bush hogging, for example), one should remove that extra weight when not using it. As an example, my loader is off from Spring until Fall unless I have a specific need for it. I'll also drop the bucket off to reduce weight (buckets are heavy!!) when I have the loader on (if I know I'm going to be needing the loader in the near future).
Of course, not all loaders are removable or quick attach.

As far as cracked castings...I've never read of or heard of someone breaking a casting using rear ballast (there was a relatively recent thread (Deere forum) which discussed an owner breaking the upper link attaching point, but that wasn't due to ballasting). I have read (on all the dedicated tractor forums on TBN) of folks breaking their tractors using 3ph backhoes (easy to overstress with a backhoe that isn't tied to the frame like the front end loaders are).

 

[Wheatland KB]

You tried watering all those newly planted trees?

Good memory. That's exactly what happened. Got about 1/4 of a bucket on the first one then left it up to Ma nature.

 

[RoyJackson]

Good memory. That's exactly what happened. Got about 1/4 of a bucket on the first one then left it up to Ma nature.

Sorta like this?

That picture came off TBN years ago...I don't recall who the owner is. That's a 70 loader, so the machine is pre-2003.

 

[rjkobbeman]

That's a funny thought process that I see a bit of around here...why would adding a ballast box remove any of the stress of using a front end loader from your front axle? As I see it, having one would ADD to that stress. Follow me for a moment. You have a tractor with limited or no ballast on the rear, you pickup something heavy on the front, it lifts the rear a little, then you have less traction, so you remember to not lift so much the next time...OR you add a ballast box, now you can lift more and not realize the impact on the tractor's traction. What you are doing is holding the rear down...somewhere there's a fulcrum...you hear of people w/ cracked transmissions and bell housings? Ever wonder why? They're only built to hold up so much, if you add capacity by adding a counter weight, expect something to give in between. Just the thoughts of an amused observer...

Without ballast behind the rear axle OR wheel weights (weights or loaded tires), it really doesn't take much weight in an FEL to do an endo (nose forward on the front axle). When nosing over, the entire weight of the tractor (front, rear, fel, load) is on the front axle and wheels/tires. This clearly makes it easy to over load the front end. Without ballast or weight, one would never get to use the FEL to rated capacity if you just "remember to not lift so much the next time...".

Adding weights to the rear wheels -- in the form of weights or loaded tires -- does allow you to scoop more with the FEL... without nosing over. However, those weights do not take any weight off of the front end. This can result in overloading the front axle. Depending on what type of tires you are running, you can overload them too. Based on tire specs, it is EASY to overload R1s. This is especially true if you are doing FEL work on hard ground where the lugs take the brunt of the load. (When in soft ground, the lugs can sink and allow all of the tire to take the load.)

Adding a ballast box, not only do you add weight to the rear end... but you also take some weight off of the front axle.

Often times, wheel weights AND added ballast are required to get enought weight in the back for FEL work. It is not a tractor defect, it just is what it is.

Ballast is used by most all (if not all) equipment. Skid steers have it. Excavators have it. Whether built in or just permanently attached, you have to weight on one end of the see saw to not tip over on the other end of the see saw.

 

[Iplayfarmer]

...why would adding a ballast box remove any of the stress of using a front end loader from your front axle? As I see it, having one would ADD to that stress. Follow me for a moment.

I followed you. I got lost.

Your logic applies to ballast in or in front of the rear tires. Any weight behind the rear tires will reduce the weight on the front axle. I have empirical evidence of this from running a tractor without power steering. Adding some weight to the 3 pt. hitch significantly reduces the effort needed to steer. On the flip side, the first box blade I got was WAY too big, and the front of the tractor would bounce lightly on the ground (even with the FEL installed). In this case, the weight on the front axle was reduced to almost nothing.

 

[gwdixon]

Back to the topic..

A FEL works much like a standard shovel when moving material. If you want to compare the ease of scooping and hauling something try the shovel test first.

In my experince the hardest thing to load is a pile of rocks varying in size from softballs to basketballs.

 

[Reg]

Somewhen ago there was a post of a Kubota that "broke in half" with a ballast box and FEL.
IIRC it was during my first membership of this forum and within the first year of the opening of TBN.
and yes, it was at/around the bell housing.

WRT Fulcrum(s) - yes, but DO think about BOTH of them.
The most important one is the front axle.
If you have sufficient lift force in the loader it is possible to get the rear wheels off the ground, at which point the tractor typically does a side hop until they land - if you're lucky, if the ground to that side slopes DOWN, and that is the direction it will most likely spin, Ya gotta problem.

Up sizing loader cylinders is a popular topic here, though I don't check back to see how many of the folk asking about more ballast were previously asking about bigger loader cylinders.
(-:
Anyway, loaded rear tires can usually balance what most (un-modified) loaders can lift.

Then there is the rear axle as a fulcrum (pivot point) and the belief that front axles need some sort of "relief" from their chores.
{Ahh, back to bigger loader cylinders ? maybe.}
It is my OPINION (FWIW) that front axles SHOULD be able to carry across reasonably rough ground whatever the loader can lift, without undue wear or premature failure.

Exceptions: fragile front axles, fragile steering parts, loaders with up-sized cylinders, loaders too big for their tractors.

My OPINION is that the above cases pose unacceptable risks.

Again, FWIW and the market price for my opinion is about $4 less than a $4 cup of coffee at Starbucks.

 

[magicheater]

I would say logs or trees due to the maneuvering you have to do to get through tight quarters.

 

[Egon]

Good memory. That's exactly what happened

Oh I wish! my memory fails me quite often.

But yours was sorta specific case, you were looking for a two bottom threepoint plough in an area where there would have been very few originally. Then you planted trees. And I'm familiar with the area and was wondering if the rains would come or winds blow and how the trees would fare.