[AT] weighted tires or not???
Cecil Bearden
crbearden at copper.net
Thu Sep 5 06:53:43 PDT 2019
Steve:
I would make a small wager that your rims would have been 50% less if
you could have ordered them before Fiat got so involved in new holland.
I am just not a fan of Fiat. After they bought out Allis Chalmers
construction equipment, parts were either non-existent or platinum...
Unfortunately I have a few pieces of Allis construction equipment here.
None are operable due to a repair parts cost of over $2000. This is the
reason I went to Caterpillar. There are enough aftermarket parts
available for Cats. Cat tried to stop the aftermarket parts supply many
years ago by buying Surplus Tractor Parts of Fargo North Dakota. 3
years after buying them Caterpillar shutdown the facility and scrapped
all the machines in order to make everyone buy new Caterpillar
machines. It did not work as they planned. The overseas manufacturers
started supplying parts and small salvages started up all over. I
recently traded my old D6 8U series dozer for a 112 grader. My old D6
had sat for about 10 years since I parked it. We loaded it without it
not running. The fellow I traded with is a real mechanic. We dropped
the dozer off at about 1pm Sunday and loaded the grader and headed
home. He had the dozer running before dark!!!!! I wish he was closer
to my place, we could have some great times with all of our toys. That
trade has turned out to be a great deal for both of us. I have another
112 grader, and also another friend in the brotherhood.....
Cecil
On 9/5/2019 4:55 AM, Stephen Offiler wrote:
> Hi Dean:
>
> My non-antique chore tractor is a Ford 1520, which is a 23hp 4x4
> diesel built by Shibaura in Japan, 1995ish. Rear tires are 13.6 x 16
> R-3 turf. It has a loader. I got it used in 1999 with 396 hours and
> calcium in the rears. Rims finally rotted through last year. Got new
> tires from Simpletire dot com at Cecil Bearden's suggestion. But it
> turned out that the rims aren't common. Could not find a generic
> equivalent, and I had to go to the CNH dealer (Messicks, in fact).
> The cost was staggering (no fault of Messick's, it was the same or
> higher everywhere else). I hate to say how much but it was deep into
> four digits to get the tractor rolling again. So apparently it held
> off the calcium for about 23 years assuming the original owner had it
> delivered loaded. I'd like to think I'm young enough (57) to see
> another 23 years on this tractor and I chose to spend the money on the
> beet juice.
>
> SO
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 12:36 AM <deanvp at att.net
> <mailto:deanvp at att.net>> wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> I have CC in my rear tires on my Compact Tractor. Don’t like CC
> but it was in there when I bought the tractor and I’ve only had
> one leak in 20 plus years. The tractor would be completely
> useless w/o it. As long as I have owned the tractor, now over 20
> years, I have tried to find compatible rear wheel weights. No luck
> so far.
>
> 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:* Wednesday, September 4, 2019 4:44 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???
>
> 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 <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/20190905/fdfbdf5d/attachment.htm>
More information about the AT
mailing list