[AT] weighted tires or not???
Cecil Bearden
crbearden at copper.net
Thu Sep 5 20:04:57 PDT 2019
Farmer:
I would bet the factory does not want the rear tires ballasted so the
hydrostat can slip if needed. I recall a small new holland hydro
tractor a doctor friend had. They weighted the rear tires and were
pulling loaded small trailers of cut firewood over the ranch with a lot
of steep hills. The hydrostat did not last long. A lot of those true
hydrostat transmissions cannot take the load. I think that is the
reason for the constant variable transmission and the large number of
gears on the old power shift transmissions.
Cecil
On 9/5/2019 8:54 PM, Indiana Robinson wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>> <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 <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
>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Francis Robinson
> aka "farmer"
> Central Indiana USA
> robinson46176 at gmail.com <mailto:robinson46176 at gmail.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/fc2c99b6/attachment.htm>
More information about the AT
mailing list