[AT] weighted tires or not???

Fri Sep 6 04:49:09 PDT 2019

But they say it's OK to add weight to the 3pt, either ballast or an
implement.  That effectively does the same thing as loading the rears,
traction-wise.

SO

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 10:32 PM Dennis Johnson <moscowengnr at outlook.com>
wrote:

> One factor in vehicle design is the use of wheel slip as a kind of relief
> valve in the drive train. Adding rear ballast may increase the traction
> where to takes more torque to slip the wheels than the drive train can
> handle.
> Not sure this is the reason, but with lawyers and warranty issues this
> could be an excuse to have a policy against ballast.
>
> Dennis
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 5, 2019, at 8:55 PM, Indiana Robinson <robinson46176 at gmail.com>
> 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> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.antique-tractor.com/pipermail/at-antique-tractor.com/attachments/20190906/ec3416c1/attachment.htm>