You need balast or you will trash your front axle!!!! really?

[jenkinsph]

If you lift 1000 pounds with the FEL your adding a 1000 pounds to the front axle regardless how much weight you have on the rear.

Ballast on the rear helps with keeping the rear tires in contact with the ground but it doesn't take any load off of the front axle.

Curious whether you read this thread or did you post without reading it?

 

[aczlan]

If you lift 1000 pounds with the FEL your adding a 1000 pounds to the front axle regardless how much weight you have on the rear.
Ballast on the rear helps with keeping the rear tires in contact with the ground but it doesn't take any load off of the front axle.

If you are just talking about weight on/in the tires (ie: wheel weights or loaded tires), you are correct.
If you are including 3 point counterweights, you are incorrect and you need to read the thread (especially the examples showing a toy tractor on a scale).

Aaron Z

 

[k0ua]

If you lift 1000 pounds with the FEL your adding a 1000 pounds to the front axle regardless how much weight you have on the rear.

Ballast on the rear helps with keeping the rear tires in contact with the ground but it doesn't take any load off of the front axle.

And the earth is flat, correct?

 

[LD1]

Curious whether you read this thread or did you post without reading it?

Was wondering the same thing.

If you lift 1000 pounds with the FEL your adding a 1000 pounds to the front axle regardless how much weight you have on the rear.

Ballast on the rear helps with keeping the rear tires in contact with the ground but it doesn't take any load off of the front axle.

Wrong no both accounts.

First, if you add 1000# to the FEL, you are adding MORE than 1000# to the front axle. You would be adding 1000# + whatever weight is transferred off the rear axle. How much that gets transferred depends on loader design. (Moment arm length)

Second, and has been said more times than I can count in this thread alone, weight behind the rear axle DOES take weight off the front axle. No if by ballast you had it stuck in your head that we were only talking about wheel weights and/or loaded tires then you are correct, that wont unload the front axle. But for the sake of this thread, the ballast we have been talking about is a ballast attached to a 3PH behind the rear axle, and that most certainly takes weight off the front axle.

 

[sd455dan]

This reminds me of a fire, every time you think you finally have it put out - it starts up in another place!:laughing:

 

[LD1]

This reminds me of a fire, every time you think you finally have it put out - it starts up in another place!:laughing:

Aint that the truth.

I dont see what is so hard about the concept. Its a pretty freaking simple lever.

Everone wants to try to make things like the parallelogram and very dynamic 3PH and the arc of a FEL lift into a simple lever.

Yet when actually presented with a simple lever, everyone wants to WAY over complicate it

 

[Snowback]

I think Old Pilgrim's point is that moving the loaded loader CG from in front of the front axle closer to the actual front axle by lifting it up higher will indeed help put some of the weight back on the rear axle. It would simply be the weight that was lifted off the rear during the initial loading when load CG was extended out past the front of the front axle. In doing this, (raising the loader), he was able to move his loader's CG backwards and get enough traction on the rear wheels again to back up the hill. It was not loader force transfering the weight to the back as much as it was the loader putting some of the weight back that it had originally taken off. Even if that was not his point, it is a point that we have all pointed out now a few dozen times. I acknowledge that I muddied the water as I was not clear about differentiating between the net CG effects and the physical path of the forces getting from the "load" through the loader arms and back through the frame to the front axle. It reads very poorly when I go back and look at my post again. In reality that is only important when understanding the potential failure mechanisms in our machines. My apologies for that. These discussions should probably just stick to free body diagrams like were presented in an earlier thread link and scale model tests which are really useful. The simple ones don't perfectly account for the vertical effects and impacts on moments when shifting load up and down, but they're still really useful.

So quick question: Who has even had sufficient counter balance weighting to do this when in a fully raised position when backing up? The video can be found at this link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WHrXlgGnSs

Also - these guys have some CG balancing skills! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bg...Qzx917eUkVk-aGdnCNgWs8vGB0MgJTwUsa4gheD_1KS9A

Stay safe all!

 

[SPYDERLK]

Yeah it was crawling up hill on its front tires, with the entire tractor weight, the ballast weight, and what ever that big ole rock weighed. All on the front axle. It is a wonder something didn't go POP.

From support of weight alone this is true. When backing up tho your abusive situation is limited in a couple ways: 1] directional tread does not grip as well, and 2] front overbalance occurs easily because drive tries to rotate the tractor onto its nose, touches down the load and decreases the supported weight and traction. -- Drive torque is thus limited.

,,,Going forward presents a situation that can easily cause more abuse to the front axle and drive. ... Of course the directional tread gives more traction so more torque can be transmitted. ... But, building on this is the greater stability of the tractor/loader assembly for lifting and pushing. - Lift/curl while pushing at ground level will elevate a load that the loader is unable to lift, and that the physics of the platform is not able to hold up except while pushing. Platform balance and drive countertorque on the chassis add to cause the load to come up. Every time you decelerate or stop the bucket goes back down and the back wheels come up. Start forward again and the tractor climbs under the load. Usually the back wheels touch down and "some steering" is possible, but in essence all weight/traction/drive is on the front. ... The entire weight of the platform and more than the loader will lift. When 4wd tractors are built without an eye for this case you start seeing the drive and axle housing failures.

 

[k0ua]

From support of weight alone this is true. When backing up tho your abusive situation is limited in a couple ways: 1] directional tread does not grip as well, and 2] front overbalance occurs easily because drive tries to rotate the tractor onto its nose, touches down the load and decreases the supported weight and traction. -- Drive torque is thus limited.

,,,Going forward presents a situation that can easily cause more abuse to the front axle and drive. ... Of course the directional tread gives more traction so more torque can be transmitted. ... But, building on this is the greater stability of the tractor/loader assembly for lifting and pushing. - Lift/curl while pushing at ground level will elevate a load that the loader is unable to lift, and that the physics of the platform is not able to hold up except while pushing. Platform balance and drive countertorque on the chassis add to cause the load to come up. Every time you decelerate or stop the bucket goes back down and the back wheels come up. Start forward again and the tractor climbs under the load. Usually the back wheels touch down and "some steering" is possible, but in essence all weight/traction/drive is on the front. ... The entire weight of the platform and more than the loader will lift. When 4wd tractors are built without an eye for this case you start seeing the drive and axle housing failures.

Well, it seemed that Kubota builds a tough enough axle to survive the abuse I heaped on it that day. Nothing broke. Interestingly my Kioti axles are larger still. But I have learned a few things since that day, I take things a little easier, and try to work safer.

 

[GolfAddict]

If you lift 1000 pounds with the FEL your adding a 1000 pounds to the front axle regardless how much weight you have on the rear.

Ballast on the rear helps with keeping the rear tires in contact with the ground but it doesn't take any load off of the front axle.

If you haven't read the whole thread yet, keep reading. Once you get to where you see tire squishing comes in to play it will all become clear.