[AT] weighted tires or not???
Cecil Bearden
crbearden at copper.net
Wed Sep 4 07:09:06 PDT 2019
I use methanol/water 50/50 in mine, not as heavy as beet juice, but not
sticky either, and it evaporates.
Cecil
On 9/4/2019 6:43 AM, Stephen Offiler wrote:
> Dean, I recommend beet juice. Yeah, people say it's expensive (a
> relative term). On a little sub-compact utility tractor, it might
> cost a couple or a few hundred bucks. It will probably be comparable
> money to the cheapest implement you've acquired. And the thing is,
> it's an "implement" that you will use every single time you run the
> tractor, and it's an "implement" you don't have to install or remove
> (after the initial installation of course).
>
> Steve O..
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:51 AM Dean Vinson <dean at vinsonfarm.net
> <mailto:dean at vinsonfarm.net>> wrote:
>
> Dean VP, completely agree—the loader moves the COG forward as you
> said, and rear weights move it back rearward and downward as Steve
> had said. Only quibble I’d add is that you may have meant to say
> adding ballast in the rear reduces “the relative proportion of”
> weight on the front axle, not the absolute weight on the front axle.
>
> I’ve never rolled a tractor but have a little sub-compact utility
> tractor with a mower deck and loader. I should get a rear
> counterweight for the 3-point hitch (or an implement, as you’ve
> done) for use with the loader, but just having the mower deck on
> helps a lot. (Although it can be in the way sometimes, limiting
> the usefulness of the loader). But without at least the mower
> deck on, the loader is all but useless… little tractor is just too
> tippy.
>
> Dean Vinson
>
> Saint Paris, Ohio
>
> *From:* AT [mailto:at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com
> <mailto:at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com>] *On Behalf Of
> *deanvp at att.net <mailto:deanvp at att.net>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 4, 2019 2:04 AM
> *To:* 'Antique Tractor Email Discussion Group'
> <at at lists.antique-tractor.com <mailto:at at lists.antique-tractor.com>>
> *Subject:* Re: [AT] weighted tires or not???
>
> Steven
>
> Here is why I think adding rear counter weight to a tractor with a
> loader helps stability against roll-over.
>
> When a loader is added to a tractor the COG moves forward. With a
> load in the bucket it moves further forward almost over the front
> axle causing less traction or weight on the rear axle/tires.
> Note: adding ballast in the rear reduces weight on the front axle
> with more on the rear. Most of the roll over stability comes from
> the rear tires. One does not want the tractor stability coming
> from a rotating WFE or a NFE. The rear wheels need to have a
> dominate role. This may be an intuitive response but I think the
> physics will verify it.
>
> Dean VP
>
> Snohomish, WA 98290
>
> *From:* AT <at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com
> <mailto:at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com>> *On Behalf Of
> *Stephen Offiler
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 3, 2019 5:19 AM
> *To:* Antique Tractor Email Discussion Group
> <at at lists.antique-tractor.com <mailto:at at lists.antique-tractor.com>>
> *Subject:* Re: [AT] weighted tires or not???
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.antique-tractor.com/pipermail/at-antique-tractor.com/attachments/20190904/fdf056e6/attachment.htm>
More information about the AT
mailing list