[AT] weighted tires or not???

Tue Sep 3 18:55:22 PDT 2019

I was just now wondering if "any" other tractors produced in America before
about 1952 or 53 had a safety starter interlock (won't start in gear)
besides Ford and Ferguson? Ford/Ferguson 9N had it in 1939 back when many
tractors didn't even have a starter let alone a safety interlock. Of course
even those don't work when using a crank as many farmers did during WW-II.
Lots of guys were ran over while cranking and many more had close calls.
That is one time when you might wish that it would not start with the first
quarter turn of the crank. :-)

My own father who insisted that I do everything right was himself guilty of
cutting corners and taking chances or just getting a little too casual with
equipment. He was nearly crushed one time starting a tractor from the
ground in the barn without shaking hands with the gearshift first. He
wasn't truly injured beyond a great deal of bruising and a lot of pain but
it could have easily been far worse. The NF Allis C pinned him between the
left rear wheel and a barn post.

.

.

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 8:56 PM Aaron Dickinson <a_dickinson at att.net> wrote:

> Story is Harry Ferguson was demonstrating one of his tractors, reached
> over to start it while standing next to it, tractor was in gear and nearly
> ran himself over. He turned to his engineers and told them don’t let that
> happen again. The gear shift starter was their solution.
>
>
>
> *From:* Indiana Robinson <robinson46176 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* ‎Tuesday‎, ‎September‎ ‎3‎, ‎2019 ‎10‎:‎32‎ ‎AM
> *To:* Antique Tractor Email Discussion Group
> <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
>
> There are literally hundreds of factors involved in tractor stability. I
> believe that the most frequent cause of roll-overs is dropping a wheel in a
> hole or off of a ditch bank. Next is hitting an unseen object. My sister's
> husband rolled one by hitting a stump in tall grass. He wouldn't normally
> have hit it with the rear wheel first since the small tractor was wide
> front but he was in mid turn and the front wheel missed it. He was also an
> "inexperienced operator". That term, "inexperienced operator" is a giant
> factor in tractor accidents of all kinds. I constantly see my non-farming
> neighbors doing all sorts of really scary things.
> One factor I have looked at is what is commonly called "offset" tractors.
> My Farmall Cub is one as is a Farmall A or Super A. Ford sold a number of
> offsets in the later 1950's.
> Another variation is a centered tractor but where the operator sits off to
> one side. Allis WC, WD and WD-45 are in that class as is the Farmall B.
> Some 12 year old kid isn't much of a factor on those but some of us
> "FATG's" can be a big factor.  :-)
> A similar factor can be how high the operator sits on the tractor. My Ford
> 8N's and Ferguson TO-20 sit the operator very low astride the transmission.
> Others like my old Case VAC and a Farmall C / Super C sit you up high with
> your feet on a platform above the transmission and your butt up at chair
> height above that.
> High clearance tractors can be a whole other scary thing on rough ground
> with some at nosebleed levels.
> Another factor is ground that can set up a rocking motion. A rock or hole
> is usually a one time thing but I can recall back in the old days when we
> cultivated several times and threw a lot of dirt in the rows to cover
> weeds. Then we would later be disking the same field diagonal for wheat and
> it was possible to get a tractor rocking pretty hard.
>
> Here is a factor that has come up in the background in these discussions.
> Ford was mentioned as a roll-over tractor... Frankly I personally have
> never seen or heard of one rolling in my life except for the old Fordsons
> back flipping. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it isn't so, I just
> haven't seen any. Maybe people just sit them back up and keep quiet about
> it. There is a sort of a "Ford factor"... There simply were more Ford N
> series tractors made and sold in North America than any other tractor,
> period. Not only were there more of them but as a light tractor with three
> point hitch they are highly versatile and near ideal for small acreages.
> You can also walk in most farm stores and buy equipment and accessories for
> them. As a result large numbers of them have fallen into the hands of the
> above mentioned "inexperienced operators". Even on the farm they were
> considered to be pretty safe and often ended up with very young operators.
> I recall a lot of discussion years ago among farmers about the starter
> safety interlock that kept it from being started in gear. It sticks in my
> head that the interlock was Harry Ferguson's idea.
>
> These are mostly pretty small factors but sometimes a small factor is the
> difference.
>
> I have been extremely lucky over a lot of years. ANY of us can slip up at
> any moment... I try to increase my level of caution along with my birthdays
> but there are no guarantees.
>
>
> .
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 8:19 AM Stephen Offiler <soffiler at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In 3-dimensional space, the CG of a tractor is likely to be very close to
>> the center in terms of left-right; closer to the rear in terms of
>> front-back; and some height from the ground.  When you add ballast to the
>> tires it does not change that left-right CG location (assuming you add
>> ballast equally to both rears), and moves CG even farther to the rear and
>> closer to the ground.  It is intuitively clear that a tractor on the verge
>> of a side rollover will be aided by weight added to the uphill side.  But
>> from a free body diagram perspective, the difference comes from the changes
>> in CG rearward and downward.
>>
>> SO
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 7:56 AM Jim Becker <mr.jebecker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The added 500# on the high side has more effect than the 500# on the low
>>> side.  It is farther away horizontally from the bottom of the low side rear
>>> tire (or the magic triangle/trapezoid) and thus has more leverage.  As far
>>> as it “having a greater effect than any change in CG”, it is the same
>>> thing.  Looking at the 500# by itself is just selecting one component of
>>> the CG to look at (a valid way to look at it).
>>>
>>> Adding fluid to the tires definitely lowers the CG.  How much depends on
>>> a bunch of factors, including how tall the tires are, how high the CG is to
>>> begin with and the relative weight of the fluid vs. the weight of the
>>> tractor.  The taller the tractor, the more effect it has.  When we first
>>> started using mechanical grape pickers (1960s), many of them were built on
>>> a very high clearance tractor (6 feet+ under the axles).  The things were
>>> plenty heavy enough as delivered, but everyone loaded the tires to help the
>>> stability.
>>>
>>> Jim Becker
>>>
>>> *From:* Dennis Johnson
>>> *Sent:* Monday, September 02, 2019 5:46 PM
>>> *To:* Antique Tractor Email Discussion Group
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AT] weighted tires or not???
>>>
>>> Static rollover happens when the CG moves outside of the pivot point
>>> which is the bottom of the downside tire (or tires of pivot is against
>>> stop). As long as the CG is “inside” of the down side rear tire the vehicle
>>> will not roll. As soon as the CG moves outside of the pilot point the unit
>>> will rollover.
>>> Dynamic rollover when turning at speed changes things because it adds
>>> centrifugal force to help shove the CG sideways and make the unit roll
>>> sooner.
>>>
>>> With weighted tires, the downside tire has an extra 500# outside of the
>>> pivot point trying to tip it, in addition to the 500# or the upside tire
>>> holding it back.
>>>
>>> Dennis
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Sep 2, 2019, at 5:22 PM, Howard Pletcher <hrpletch at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Wouldn't the extra 500# or so holding the high side down have a greater
>>> effect than any change in CG?  It seems it would be more stable.
>>>
>>> Howard
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 5:54 PM Dennis Johnson <moscowengnr at outlook.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The weighted tires would lower the center of gravity slightly. Assuming
>>>> the tires were 100% full the CG of the added fluid would be on the axle CG.
>>>> If less than 100%, then the CG would be slightly lower. The CG of most
>>>> tractors will be slightly above the axle center. Tractors with offset final
>>>> drives would have CG a little higher than those with the final drive in
>>>> line with the engine crankshaft. Combining the CG of the tires and tractor
>>>> would lower the overall CG a little bit, making the tractor more stable.
>>>> Adding low mounted implements or weights would change this.
>>>>
>>>> Dennis
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> > On Sep 2, 2019, at 2:37 PM, John Hall <jtchall at nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > All this talk about wide front vs. narrow front got me wondering
>>>> about something else. Are tractors with fluid filled rears more stable on
>>>> hills or in quick maneuvering on uneven ground? The reason I ask is that I
>>>> replaced the tires on a IH utility tractor we have had since new (1972
>>>> 454). It has over 8,000 hrs and we have always had weighted tires on it.
>>>> Well I didn't have time to fill the tires with fluid before I began using
>>>> it this spring. So far I am liking the less weight for treading on wet
>>>> spots in fields. I recently reduced the air pressure (it was at 25, I
>>>> dropped it to 20) because it was shaking me to death while spraying a
>>>> field. The only time the loss of weight has been an issue is moving one
>>>> load of hay--it was digging pretty bad. We do all of our bushogging with
>>>> this tractor so there are quite a few banks and hillsides to get into.
>>>> Wonder if it would be more stable with the fluid in?
>>>> >
>>>> > John Hall
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > AT mailing list
>>>> > AT at lists.antique-tractor.com
>>>> > http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> AT mailing list
>>>> AT at lists.antique-tractor.com
>>>> http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AT mailing list
>>> AT at lists.antique-tractor.com
>>> http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AT mailing list
>>> AT at lists.antique-tractor.com
>>> http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AT mailing list
>>> AT at lists.antique-tractor.com
>>> http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AT mailing list
>> AT at lists.antique-tractor.com
>> http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com
>>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Francis Robinson
> aka "farmer"
> Central Indiana USA
> robinson46176 at gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> AT at lists.antique-tractor.com
> http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com
>

-- 
-- 

Francis Robinson
aka "farmer"
Central Indiana USA
robinson46176 at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.antique-tractor.com/pipermail/at-antique-tractor.com/attachments/20190903/e54689e5/attachment.htm>