[AT] weighted tires or not???

[Indiana Robinson]

About rear ballast... I've held off on mentioning this until I had a quick
chance to ask son Scott a question. I was recalling something he had told
me some time ago but wanted to be sure I wasn't dreaming it.  :-)  He
remembered it and said the the source was our close neighbor to the west
who bought a new John Deere Compact Utility Tractor (I "think" it is about
35 or 40 HP with a nice loader and hydro-static transmission). He couldn't
recall if it was something in the owners manual or advice from the dealer
but supposedly he was not to install tire ballast in that tractor. They
sold weight for behind the tractor or it was OK to hang an implement behind
it but there was some reason to not ballast the tire or add wheel weights.
I have no idea what the reason was...  My first thought was that maybe they
felt that the rear axles might be a weak spot but I seem to recall some
mention of the hydro-static transmission. I'll likely see that neighbor
this week end and I will ask him about it. I had never heard anything like
that before.

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 5:01 PM Cecil Bearden <crbearden at copper.net> wrote:

> 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> 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> *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>
>> *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> 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] *On Behalf Of *
>> deanvp at att.net
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 4, 2019 2:04 AM
>> *To:* 'Antique Tractor Email Discussion Group' <
>> 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> *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>
>> *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> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AT mailing list
>> AT at lists.antique-tractor.com
>> http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing listAT at lists.antique-tractor.comhttp://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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.antique-tractor.com/pipermail/at-antique-tractor.com/attachments/20190905/203c190a/attachment.htm>