Way out in lead, er, left field

[Rob41]

I'm new to all this so take anything I have with a grain of salt

The liquid weight in a tire at least below the level of the rim is about as low a center of gravity there is. With rears filled and if need be, wheel weights added also, isn't that a hell of a lot of weight already? On top of that, couldn't suitcase weights be added also?

Is there a need for even more weight than that?

 

[California]

I'm new to all this so take anything I have with a grain of salt

The liquid weight in a tire at least below the level of the rim is about as low a center of gravity there is. With rears filled and if need be, wheel weights added also, isn't that a hell of a lot of weight already? On top of that, couldn't suitcase weights be added also?

Is there a need for even more weight than that?

These Yanmars are narrow, and 1/4 to 1/2 ton lighter than say a Ford 8N that they are often compared to. They were designed to till rice paddies and not compact the soil unnecessarily with excess weight. They don't have the traction to pull ground-engaging implements like an American row-crop tractor until you ballast them up to comparable weight.

Weight added at the wheels doesn't stress the chassis like weight added onto the tractor itself, its harmless in terms of long term wear, so wheel weights are the best way to add ballast. And they help add rollover stability. Yes water (with antifreeze) in the tires is even lower down but it doesn't add that much weight.

In my experience, maybe my imagination , wheel weights added rolling inertia to get past a slippery spot while water ballast sloshed unpredictably and didn't help as much, for equivalent weight.

Not mentioned here but wheel ballast on the front tires can help a 4x4 pull, but does nothing for rollover stability because the front axle is hinged and won't hit its stops before a rear tire is well off the ground.

YM240 (US version of the Japan-market YM2000) is one of the best-documented (in English) Yanmars. U-Nebraska tests tractors under standardized conditions. The YM240 Nebraska Test (Linked from TractorData, TractorData.com Yanmar YM240 tractor tests information) has a photo showing the comical amount of extra weight Yanmar put on the tractor they offered for the test. Not just wheel weights but every option you can imagine - running boards for one example. Even after ballasting up to match the bare weight of a US tractor, the pulling performance was nothing special. If Yanmar thought all these extra wheel discs @ 25kg each were ok, then this should be harmless on Etpm's YM2310, a tractor of similar size.

 

[etpm]

These Yanmars are narrow, and 1/4 to 1/2 ton lighter than say a Ford 8N that they are often compared to. They were designed to till rice paddies and not compact the soil unnecessarily with excess weight. They don't have the traction to pull ground-engaging implements like an American row-crop tractor until you ballast them up to comparable weight.

Weight added at the wheels doesn't stress the chassis like weight added onto the tractor itself, its harmless in terms of long term wear, so wheel weights are the best way to add ballast. And they help add rollover stability. Yes water (with antifreeze) in the tires is even lower down but it doesn't add that much weight.

In my experience, maybe my imagination , wheel weights added rolling inertia to get past a slippery spot while water ballast sloshed unpredictably and didn't help as much, for equivalent weight.

Not mentioned here but wheel ballast on the front tires can help a 4x4 pull, but does nothing for rollover stability because the front axle is hinged and won't hit its stops before a rear tire is well off the ground.

YM240 (US version of the Japan-market YM2000) is one of the best-documented (in English) Yanmars. U-Nebraska tests tractors under standardized conditions. The YM240 Nebraska Test (Linked from TractorData, TractorData.com Yanmar YM240 tractor tests information) has a photo showing the comical amount of extra weight Yanmar put on the tractor they offered for the test. Not just wheel weights but every option you can imagine - running boards for one example. Even after ballasting up to match the bare weight of a US tractor, the pulling performance was nothing special. If Yanmar thought all these extra wheel discs @ 25kg each were ok, then this should be harmless on Etpm's YM2310, a tractor of similar size.

View attachment 722712

Comical indeed! That picture is hilarious. My Yanmar YM2310, that I bought to replace my 9N, does not have the traction of the 9N. Which affects pulling power. It is so much better though in so many other ways that it is hands down the better tractor for me. It goes faster, it goes slower, way slower, it has a front end loader, the 3 point hitch hydraulics work better, and the PTO can be be in neutral while the 3PH is raised or lowered. That 3PH, working the way it does, is for me a huge plus. I thought about liquid in the tires but I think new tires are in my future and draining liquid out would be a hassle. I know because I dealt with this on my 9N. Wheel weights plus some lead down low will really help with traction and stability.
Eric