Whats with you guys and ballast boxes and rear weight implements.

[JD755]

I'm not being sarcastic here, but can someone explain how adding rear weight (ballast) actually reduces the load on the front axle?

With an un-ballasted rear end, the loader (if it has high enough lift capacity) can simply pivot the whole tractor around the front axle. The stress on the front axle is limited to how much tractor weight is behind the axle.

To my way of thinking, when you add rear ballast you increase the weight behind the front axle, and you increase the load on the front axle (provided the loader has more capacity than is required to lift the tractor before you added ballast).

Am I missing something here?

PS.. I have loaded rear tires and wouldn't be without them. I simply don't have enough tractor weight without them for either traction or loader work.


Sean

When you put too much weight in the FEL without using rear ballast, does that not try to lift the rear tires? In that case the pivot point with all the weight is the front axle. Likewise too much 3PH ballast with no weight on lthe front of the tractor tries to lift the front. In that case the pivot point with all the weight is the rear axle. So ballasting can move where the pivot point with all the weight is. Proper ballasting will place the pivot point between the front and rear axles and there will be no pivoting. Load will also be equalized on both axles.

 

[North Country]

I'm not being sarcastic here, but can someone explain how adding rear weight (ballast) actually reduces the load on the front axle?

With an un-ballasted rear end, the loader (if it has high enough lift capacity) can simply pivot the whole tractor around the front axle. The stress on the front axle is limited to how much tractor weight is behind the axle.

To my way of thinking, when you add rear ballast you increase the weight behind the front axle, and you increase the load on the front axle (provided the loader has more capacity than is required to lift the tractor before you added ballast).

Am I missing something here?

PS.. I have loaded rear tires and wouldn't be without them. I simply don't have enough tractor weight without them for either traction or loader work.


Sean

"The stress on the front axle is limited to how much tractor weight is behind the axle" *plus* the weight of the loader and the load in the bucket.

 

[jinman]

. . . Do people do it every day? Sure. Does it shorten the lifespan of the front axle & bearings? I don't see how it can't.

So, if I put a ballast of 1500# on the 3PH and drive around without anything in the loader, does it also shorten the lifespan of the rear axle and bearings? Why is the rear axle immune? Would the increased front axle life in your example outweigh the added constant weight and wear on the 3PH lift cylinder? Is the 3PH immune to wear? If I only have a 500# weight box on the 3PH, how much weight is lifted from the front axle? Think about suitcase weights on a tractor without a FEL. If I take the implement off the 3PH, am I wearing my front axle bearings by driving around with the suitcase weights? Do I have to take the weights off everytime I remove an implement on the 3PH to "save" my front axle? Hmm. . .

All I'm saying is the idea of extra wear on the front axle by loading the 3PH with constant ballast is not the strongest argument for using ballast. The safety of keeping your rear tires firmly planted on the ground is by far the most important reason for using ballast in my opinion. The dynamic loads on a tractor's axles when driving on rough terrain or anything but glass-flat land makes trying to offset axle loads with ballast a weak argument in my opinion. Being able to add rear ballast without loading either axle is the best and why loaded tires and wheel weights are the best types of ballast.:thumbsup:

 

[North Country]

So, if I put a ballast of 1500# on the 3PH and drive around without anything in the loader, does it also shorten the lifespan of the rear axle and bearings? Why is the rear axle immune? Would the increased front axle life in your example outweigh the added constant weight and wear on the 3PH lift cylinder? Is the 3PH immune to wear? If I only have a 500# weight box on the 3PH, how much weight is lifted from the front axle? Think about suitcase weights on a tractor without a FEL. If I take the implement off the 3PH, am I wearing my front axle bearings by driving around with the suitcase weights? Do I have to take the weights off everytime I remove an implement on the 3PH to "save" my front axle? Hmm. . .

All I'm saying is the idea of extra wear on the front axle by loading the 3PH with constant ballast is not the strongest argument for using ballast. The safety of keeping your rear tires firmly planted on the ground is by far the most important reason for using ballast in my opinion. The dynamic loads on a tractor's axles when driving on rough terrain or anything but glass-flat land makes trying to offset axle loads with ballast a weak argument in my opinion. Being able to add rear ballast without loading either axle is the best and why loaded tires and wheel weights are the best types of ballast.:thumbsup:

I totally agree that the "axle wear" issue is not the strongest reason to use proper ballast. However, some SCUT owners have reported earlier-than-expected front seal replacements, and I think it's reasonable to infer that it comes from FEL heavy use without ballast. The manufacturer came up with a front axle rating somehow, and it's reasonable to use that as a starting point for the word "overload" when describing the front axle. The OP has reported 1000 hrs of loader use on a tractor that's apparently well within limits when he uses it as described. I doubt a SCUT owner who's constantly using the FEL's full capacity without ballast with get 1000 FEL hrs out of his front axle for two reasons: 1) it won't last that long in that overloaded condition, and 2) he won't live that long.

 

[megaboz]

There are several good posts here, but I don't think anyone has put it together.

Wheel weights and filled tires do add ballast, and they do help. But they don't help as much to counter the forces of the loaded FEL. And as you raise the FEL you shift the balance back towards the rear while also raising the center of gravity.

FEL full of anything add counter ballast (loads the front end, maybe a little or lots depends on the load), have rear weight in response will help. I don't think anyone said always run around with a ballast box, the owners manual for the CUTS basically say for loader work to run ballast.

Ballast off the rear (3pt) extends the counter balance of the tractor just like the FEL sticking out two feet past the front of the tractor. Probably not an issue if you are running the FEL at capacity. The smaller tractors seem to be able to lift more weight then it should and thus the counter weight of an implement will help. Also, take this into consideration when dealing with hills, going down a hill with a full bucket will tend to give you a lighter rear end and one good bounce will put you on your FEL bucket. Flat ground not so much of an issue.

When do you need a ballast off the back, when you see your front tires going flat and binding when making turns.


Heavy loads on the front end will affect the seals a lot more because the axles don't just go straight. The rear seals, while they are not immune to failure, the weight isn't as hard because of several reason, tractors are generally designed for the added weight on the rear, the wheels only go straight, the axles and seals are bigger.

Spreading the pain of a load over the entire tractor is definitely better then all of it on one end. Also, a balanced tractor is a happy tractor and usually will contain an operator with clean tightie-whities. LOL

How much ballast a person needs, that is a whole different story. I know my 2520 will lift the rears off the ground even though they are filled more often with a full heavy bucket than not. I have also been in places where I couldn't back up a hill because I didn't have any rear traction and I didn't even have the FEL on. In that case the extended rear ballast would have done me more good then the loaded tires.

 

[cttractor]

I think we're not looking at the whole picture here. Whatever tractor(s) we're using, if it has a FEL made for it by the tractor manufacturer, that manufacturer has designed the tractor with both front and rear axles to handle the loads and stress forces of using that FEL up to its lift capacity. The more we use the loader, the more wear and tear will occur to that tractor -- that's completely normal. It's no different than driving 300,000 miles in most any car or truck -- the doors will sag when opened, the hood may not stay up, etc. Essentially, it's lived its life and the parts have worn out. A loader will be the same.

The primary reason for ballast, filled tires, and any other form of weight added to compensate for a FEL or other implement is to promote traction and keep a low CoG for tractor stability. That means the front and rear axles can handle those loads if we follow the tractor manual's specifications on loader lift capacity, tire filling, and ballast. Of course, everything will wear more and sooner than if we work our tractors to a lower level, but that's just normal.

Let's face it, there's no point in buying a tractor and then being afraid to properly ballast it or lift loads for fear of wearing things down sooner -- that's why we bought it -- to do real work. The key that we've pretty much agred on is following the manufacturer's weight and ballasting recommendations and just using good judgment while operating.

 

[Turbys_1700]

I think that we tend to over analyze things here on TBN...
I just purchased a FEL for my NH 1720...
The rated psi of my tractor is 2133#...
I calculated that my tractor can pick up ~ 970# @ that psi rating...
Funny thing...
My front axle is rated for 930#...
I don't think that we give the manufacturers enough credit for not overloading our tractors with too much psi in the hydraulic system...
I would assume that the rear axle capacity of my tractor is well within the specified rating with the current psi of my tractor also...
My point being is that it is very difficult to overload your front or rear axles with your factory psi settings...

As far as ballast is concerned, I always use ballast with my 1720...
It only weighs 3300# with loaded rears...
Other tractors that are heavier may not need ballast but I would still use it out of habit for safety...

 

[megaboz]

The one other item being overlooked is the tire rating is often less than the axles.

Personally, do whatever works for you.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

The one other item being overlooked is the tire rating is often less than the axles.

Personally, do whatever works for you.

This is very common with AG tires, not so much with R4s.

 

[Edward. S]

I really didnt know that this would get over 30 posts.