water ballast and bh-90

   / water ballast and bh-90 #41  
You just demonstrated what amazes me on the L series restriction on loaded tires with a BH. Granted your machine is a whole different class for strength, but the fact that we can pick unloaded tires and chassis off the ground with a front loader and pivot it about the front axle but not load tires still amazes me. Remember no subframe in that instance to distribute loads. The stick is one piece at that point and all compression and tension must transfer thru the motor, trans, and differential. The 753 loader I have would fairly easily lift the rears with unloaded tires. The larger loader on the 5030 can certainly do it easier yet. That machine isn't that much heavier than mine and the loader is an absolute brute for our class of tractor. So we are piroetting the entire machine with unloaded tires about the front axle and that's Kool. But we truss the entire frame from the loader frame to the rear and we may over-tension the top of the transmission case or the connection bolts to the next piece? Hard to imagine or calculate. I still believe the only potential failure point with loaded tires and a BH is the loader mount at the front of the subframe. That could be catastrophic I admit. But busting a trans or axle housing just isn't going to happen IMO. The trans is primarily under compression while lifting on the stabilizers and not digging. Digging (pulling up) adds tension to the trans area and balances things our a bit (compression gets removed from the top/trans and transferred to the subframe) Add the loaded tires and you recompress the trans area and tension is added back to the subframe. So there is a balancing that the effort of digging normally exerts. All this with a bucket with large rip forces in a small area about a secondary pivot. The loader has more guts than the BH by far on lift capacity and can be supported, untrussed on the front axle. Nobody is suspecting the BH 90 is lifting an empty loader off the ground which would seem a reasonably fair equivalent to this lay guy. Is anybody starting to get this or am I /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif? I really do want to see Kubota's response to this. It ought to be quite interesting where their failure analysis points. Bet it's the loader frame mount if it's anywhere. That's the weakest link, to me anyhow.
 
   / water ballast and bh-90 #42  
You just demonstrated what amazes me on the L series restriction on loaded tires with a BH. Granted your machine is a whole different class for strength, but the fact that we can pick unloaded tires and chassis off the ground with a front loader and pivot it about the front axle but not load tires still amazes me. Remember no subframe in that instance to distribute loads. The stick is one piece at that point and all compression and tension must transfer thru the motor, trans, and differential. The 753 loader I have would fairly easily lift the rears with unloaded tires. The larger loader on the 5030 can certainly do it easier yet. That machine isn't that much heavier than mine and the loader is an absolute brute for our class of tractor. So we are piroetting the entire machine with unloaded tires about the front axle and that's Kool. But we truss the entire frame from the loader frame to the rear and we may over-tension the top of the transmission case or the connection bolts to the next piece? Hard to imagine or calculate. I still believe the only potential failure point with loaded tires and a BH is the loader mount at the front of the subframe. That could be catastrophic I admit. But busting a trans or axle housing just isn't going to happen IMO. The trans is primarily under compression while lifting on the stabilizers and not digging. Digging (pulling up) adds tension to the trans area and balances things our a bit (compression gets removed from the top/trans and transferred to the subframe) Add the loaded tires and you recompress the trans area and tension is added back to the subframe. So there is a balancing that the effort of digging normally exerts. All this with a bucket with large rip forces in a small area about a secondary pivot. The loader has more guts than the BH by far on lift capacity and can be supported, untrussed on the front axle. Nobody is suspecting the BH 90 is lifting an empty loader off the ground which would seem a reasonably fair equivalent to this lay guy. Is anybody starting to get this or am I /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif? I really do want to see Kubota's response to this. It ought to be quite interesting where their failure analysis points. Bet it's the loader frame mount if it's anywhere. That's the weakest link, to me anyhow.
 
 
Top