Go Bottom Go Bottom

counter weight

View my Photos
Kevin Squires
Join Date:
Posts: 1
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2001-09-21          31944

I own a JD 4100. I need to get/buy a counter weight block for the rear 3PH. Is it better to buy the box from JD and fill it with concrete or have one welded up at my local shop? (I'm wondering if there is any advantage to buying one from the dealer that I am not aware of). Thanks, Kevin

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
Bird Senter
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 962
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2001-09-21          31945

Kevin, there have been a number of discussions and descriptions of home-made counterweights on this, or other, discussion forums. I can't see that it makes any difference whether you buy from John Deere, make one yourself, or have one made, as long as you have about the right amount of weight. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
Kevin Squires
Join Date:
Posts: 1
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2001-09-21          31946

By "right amount of weight" do you mean the heavier the better? Is there a typical amount that I would want? I have a 4100, gear and need the counter weight mostly for bucket work. TIA, Kevin ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
Bird Senter
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 962
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2001-09-21          31948

Kevin, the right amount of weight will depend on how much you are picking up with the front end loader. I'm not familiar with all the specs, or the owner's manual for your tractor, but some use a weight box that they can put small amounts of weight in, or they can add more weight when desired, while others have done such things as taking a small barrel, run a piece of pipe or rod through it to stick out on both ends to use for the lower links, then pour it full of concrete and put a metal bracket in the concrete (before it dries) for the top link. That way the weight is always the same. As long as you have enough weight to keep the back wheels firmly on the ground, without being too much for your 3-point hitch to lift and hold . . ., in other words it ain't an exact science. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
charlie
Join Date:
Posts: 1
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2001-09-21          31951

my dad made one 40 years ago out of a barrel.he cut the top 1/3 off of a 55 gallon drum,put a draw bar thru it and poured it full of concrete.i still use it but never did wieght it.good luck ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
glennmac
Join Date:
Posts: 1
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2001-09-21          31954

If you go to the expense of buying a commercial weight box, you may not want to fill it with concrete. That would prevent you from using the box for anything else, such as carrying tools when you arent using the loader. Using gravel or sand allows you to empty the box, but loose gravel or sand is messy. When I had a weight box, I used 80lb. sand tubes that I bought at the hardware store. I could then put in as much weight as I wanted, from nothing up to at least 8 tubes. Another approach is Kasco's weight box, which has a water spigot at the bottom. You can fill it with as much water as you want for weight and then drain it. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
cutter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 1307 The South Shore of Lake Ontario, New York
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2001-09-22          31964

Kevin, I used a 6' rear blade for counterweight on my 4100 and will use it on my new Kubota. It is a fairly heavy one and not only did it provide excellent balance on that manchine, it is usefull. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
Jim Youtz
Join Date:
Posts: 1
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2001-09-25          31996

I too own a 4100. I use a 54" box blade, with an additional 200# of steel weights on top of the blade. That way I have 500# of weight, which seems fine to me. Another thing I do when moving loose material like soil or gravel: I use a rear scoop on my 3 ph. That way I fill the scoop with the same material I am moving with the loader bucket, and I can move nearly twice as much material per trip. I just make sure that I empty the loader bucket first before dumping the scoop. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
DRankin
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 5116 Northern Nevada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2001-09-27          32081

My 410 loader manual for my 4100 gear has a chart that lays out how much rear weight is needed to safely operate the loader. I would be happy to post it if anyone needs it. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
cutter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 1307 The South Shore of Lake Ontario, New York
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2001-09-27          32082

One thing I didn't mention on this subject, and perhaps the experts here know better than I, but the old rear blade I use for a counterweight extends out farther than some of the newer ones I have seen. This use of leverage allows me to use less weight due to its' relationship to the rear axle. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
exhech
Join Date:
Posts: 1
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-06-30          39940

I use my JD770 with a 54" loader bucket. It really needs a counter weight even with fluid in the tires. I built my own using two 16" by 32" pieces of 2" steel plate and a welded up angle iron frame. I made a bracket on it that holds the 5 ea 40 lb front end weights which adds a removable 200 lbs to it and saves storing (and losing?) the weights some place else when the loader is installed.

While I was at it, I welded some loops on the back to make pulling things (like stumps) with a chain easier. I also welded on a standard 2" receiver tube so that I can use sliders from my PU truck hitch, or the universal 3 ball slider from Northern, to pull trailers and the cement mixer.

The difference in performance with the 750 lb counterweight has to be experienced to be believed. It really makes a difference. I have pictures of it that can be E-mailed if someone is interested but no WEB page to post them on.

Fitch ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
MRETHICS
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 190 Star City, Indiana
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-01          39953

There is one advantage to the Deere ballast box.

The new ones are I-match compatable. This means you can use it with a quick coupler and maounting and dismounting the heavy box is one heck of alott easier ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
Peters
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3034 Northern AL
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2002-07-01          39960

I guess I am different than most. I am not to big on buying a single use item.
I think I would be more inclined to purchase a set of 3pt forks and then build a box into which you can pile ballast.
I have a large heavy 3pt blade and normally carry that when I am using the loader. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
MRETHICS
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 190 Star City, Indiana
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-02          39998

pallet forks, pallet, something heavy on the pallet will work just fine.

The I match hitch will mount and dismount the ballest box ......fast. even Deere's new claw hitch is a speedy way to mount and dismount.

The faster the better. we are talking less than 500 bucks here, I know cost is important, I sell the stuff, I've lost some deals over cost,,,,,it happens.

The ballast box I use myself is a multi use item. I fillied it with concrete, added the deere extenion but did not fill to the top. This gave a handy little space to store chains a shackles for lifting, i can mount and dismount that box from the seat, and not miss a beat. If time is money, it's a heck of a deal. If you don't mind loading and unloading ballast, then many other ways will work just as well.

I've talked and talked to my customers about the importance of rear ballast, it seams kinda funny, the ones who are worried about a few hundred bucks for a ballast box and pass on the merchandise, are usually the ones who end up tipping one over, then paying more for damage repair than the initial cost of the box, or any other means of rear ballast.

Just a few weeks ago, an engineer who works at a factory that makes a type of crane in my hometown passed on just the item n question because he could nake something himself cheaper, and he did. He even weighed it, the weight was adequate. I agreed that it was. (looked like a pain in the butt to hook up thgough)

Then......he didn't use his own device because it was to hard to attach and his estimate of the rocks "mass" was too low. This resulted in $1800 bucks damage (hood, loader boom, busted light on rops, rear tire repair).

Go figure!!! This guy builds cranes!!! He has a diploma, people think he is smart.

I'll let you folks try to defend him. I can't. I've seen his work.

I can still hear the arrogance in his voice when he told me my ballast box was "too expensive".

Guess I learned my lesson. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
DRankin
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 5116 Northern Nevada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2002-07-02          40002

Like Peters, a ballast box seems too one dimensional to me. My answer is a set of carryall forks with a 24x48 platform and a receiver hitch built into it. I use cement blocks as a quick to load and unload ballast. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-03          40005

I passed on a ballast box myself in favour of either my box scraper or forklift (each weighs 600 - 700 pounds). But then I have more time than money. I guess I can see an advantage to something that mounts without getting out of the seat, has storage space and maybe mounts for other things.

Storage space is a very attractive idea. I've twice buried chain, binders, clevis pins etc. that were sitting on top of loads of stone in the loader. Gee, you just sort of forget it's there. Oh well, guess I’ll dump that dump that bucket now and finish up. Once I even had the tractor shut down and was looking for the chain to lock things up. Retraced my routes several times and finally realized I buried it under septic stone somewhere in a leeching pit. Digging through septic stone with a shovel at the end of a hot day is time I don't need to spend--late for supper too.

Oh well, at least I haven't yet dumped a chain saw and then run over it. That one is somebody else's story. Guess a ballast box with storage is sounding better all the time. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
MRETHICS
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 190 Star City, Indiana
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-06          40091

I gotta be honest Tom, The concrete in the ballast box was several months cured before I bought the John Deere extension and added the x-tra storage. I had to chip out the concrete where the bolt holes were located.

The series of events that led to the added storage is as follows:

Step 1: Throw chain in loader bucket and head for the
creek to pull out some lodged logs.

Step 2: On the way to the creek, use loader to fill
groundhog hole in pasture, forgeting about chain
in bucket.

Step 3: Getting to the creek and thinking you forgot the
chain back at the shed.

Step 4: Going back to the shed and getting a chain.

Step 5: Two months later, the pasture needs clipped.
(Finding your chain with a rotary cutter, and
useing a cutting torch to dislodge it)

Step 6: Girl freind repeats steps 1 - 4, I repeat
step 5.

Step 7: Add ballast box extension for storage.


Expeirience is a good teacher, but a mad woman will make you want to improve your grade.


....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
Fitch
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 23 Southern California High Desert
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-06          40092

The picture for which the URL is given below (counter-weight-1-RS72-C) is of the counter weight that I built for my John Deere 770. It made a huge improvement in both the stability of the tractor and its ability to push into a pile of dirt and fill the bucket.

Looking at picture counter-weight-1-RS72-C (rear view) the two slabs of metal stacked on top of each other on the bottom are 16" by 32" by 2" steel plate. They arrived as a 32" square piece that I cut in half with the gas axe. The angle iron for the lift frame is 3 x 3 x 3/8".

The weights in the center are 40 lb front end weights hung on a 6" x 3/8" bar cross beam. They are retained by a cross rod in a manner similar to the retention bar used when they are on the front of the tractor. When the cross rod is removed the weights can lift right off to be installed on the front end of the tractor when mowing. Storing the front end weights on the counterweight made it 200 lbs heavier with out adding any more material, and gave me a place to put them when the loader is installed.

Since this weight is on the tractor most (like 99%) of the time, I added three towing eyes along the back edge, and welded a receiver on top of the plate slabs that will take a standard 2" square trailer hitch slider. I nearly always carry a couple of short chains on it with a slip hook on one end and a grab hook on the other.

The result is a counter weight that is within about 50 lbs of the max the hitch can lift.

Not shown in the picture is the hitch slider I bought from Northern Tool that has 3 different sized hitch balls on it (1-7/8", 2", and 2-5/16"). Very handy since I have things to tow with the tractor that have all three sizes. Saves slider changes. Next improvement will be to weld a bracket on to store the slider so it is always where it is needed - the tractor won't fit in the storage building with the slider sticking out the back.

BTW: There is a post attributed to "exhech" above in this thread which I actually made, right after registering on the board. I have no idea how it showed up under someone else's name. Does this happen often?

Fitch ....

Picture Link
John Deere Tractors counter weight
Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-07          40108

Hmm; maybe a chain guard on the cutter would have saved the day twice, although I sort of think they're intended for something else. A lot of tractor work seems to be sort of a meditation. You get so far into concentrating on the task that the rest of your mind disserts you. I have to remind myself to take more breaks, and then maybe I'll have fewer mindless stunts to talk about.

Oh, late for dinner doesn't do anything for a woman's attitude either. I recovered my wits fast enough to save myself from being real late. I realized that the bucket of septic stone I dumped was the last one and I had kept it in the bucket a couple of hours for ballast. 'AHHA' I say, the last bucket would be dumped with the damp sides of the stone up. Yep, there was one part of the pit where the stones were damp. That's where I fished around and managed to find everything. It's possible to get real clever after recovering one's wits, but taking more breaks is a better idea I think.

Fitch: That's a good-looking box. Every time I see something like that I think about getting my welding equipment back together. That sure is healthy looking chain and hooks. They might be good for ballast in themselves. When I tow something, I keep a 1" clevis that fits nicely in a pinhole on my drawbar (I have the top plate off). I just grab hook one end of the chair through the clevis loop and run the chain under anything on the 3ph. Pulling from the drawbar may be a little safer in some situations but those loops on the box sure would be convenient. I do think I'll have to rig up a ball hitch receiver 'cause there just too many times I want to use a utility trailer to move light bulky stuff and end up using the loader and making too many trips. All the more opportunity for me to bury something I'm carrying in the bucket.

The name thing happens rarely. Dennis usually straightens it out quickly
....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
cutter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 1307 The South Shore of Lake Ontario, New York
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2002-07-07          40112

And all this time I thought it was only me that did those kind of things. I was carrying a yard rake and shovel in my loader some time ago to clean up a mess from trimming tree limbs. As I approached the pile I thought hmmm.. let me push that pile of limbs over to the brush pile before I clean the smaller stuff up. Still have not replaced the rake, it works but the handle is loose. A good reminder to be more careful and THINK before I make a move with machinery. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
Fitch
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 23 Southern California High Desert
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-07          40114

TomG: Thanks. You are absolutely correct, it would be safer/best to use the drawbar and a clevis when hooking a chain to something to tug on it - that is what the drawbar is for.

I've not had a problem using the rings on the back for pulling but it is not a good idea except for things like skidding a pile of brush (limbs trimmed off trees being hauled to the chipper - not much weight). I grew up on a farm, lived in a tractor seat doing about everything with a tractor for years, so I should know better. Pulling stumps after digging around them with the excavator it would be "much" better to be using the drawbar.

Driving to the Agua Dulce Hardware to pick up such a clevis (wonderful old fashioned non-chain-store hardware that has odd stuff like this - and about any bolt you can imagine) was just added to today's To-Do list. I'll also make a mounting tab with a 1+" hole in it and weld that to the counter weight to make a place for storing the clevis so it will "be there" when I need it.

Fitch ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
DRankin
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 5116 Northern Nevada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2002-07-07          40118

Fitch, That is a nice clean unit. I built a similar deal but since I am welding retarded, it is all bolted together. My 2 inch receiver is mounted under the platform and the platform is larger, 24x48 inches. It has removeable sides so it can act as a basket to carry stuff, but I usually carry cement blocks as a counter weight. It takes less than a minute to load or unload the blocks. It will also fit two 55 gallon drums for watering or spraying tasks. Two rows of blocks (18 total) give a 650 lb counter weight, a barrel of water results in about the same weight. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-08          40135

Thanks for the kind words. All my cousins grew up on tractor seats. I was the kid whose folks fled from farm to the big city during the depression. My uncles let me do simple tractoring stuff during family visits when I was a kid. However, my comments here are mostly based on book learning and listening to contributors who have real experience.

Since I am educated rather than experienced, I overdo safety stuff from time to time. I know my cousins just worked the tractors without thinking much about it. They just had an instinct for what worked and what didn't. I lack their instincts and have to stick close to the published safety principals.

I have no doubt that Fitch and my cousins would use the loops just fine, and then one day throw a chain around something and think 'No I don't believe I'll do that.' The rest of us have to think our way through things.

I wish I had an old-fashion hardware store around. The closest I can come is about an independent about 40 minutes away. The retirement aged owner still works in the store and keeps 'things farmers need' around because as he says, 'where else are they going to get them.' True enough. I found some large turnbuckles on the shelves that chain store clerks couldn't even find in their catalogues. Well, the owner says 'farmers use them to pull their barn walls back together.' Hopefully such an application never becomes a mass-market item. I guess chain stores don't bother even letting people order items that aren't going to sell a gadzillion a year anymore.

Mark: I did think of your box when I saw Fitch’s picture. I guess you’ve managed the traction problems and got the water drums up the hill. Hope there’s been no call to use them. A lot of fire’s out west lately.
....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
MRETHICS
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 190 Star City, Indiana
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-08          40149

HEY FITCH!!!!!

Just looked at your rear ballast attachment. I like it. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
DRankin
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 5116 Northern Nevada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2002-07-08          40153

Hey Tom. That (#$%@^%&*) Northern Tool STILL has my PTO pump on back order status. Uhg! We have only had one thunderstorm so far, but three fires within eyesight of the smoke plumes, and the Carson River has just about dried up. Old-timers said last year that they couldn't remember that ever happening and now we are getting it two years in a row. The forest people (not the ones who can't hear trees fall) say that our July dryness quotient is on a par with a dry October.
From what I have read, El Nino is in full swing off the coast of Chile, and we have floods from weird stationary storms in Texas. This may be a real interesting year. I want my pump!
....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
matt_barb
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25 Loveland CO
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-08          40162

Fitch,
Nice counter weight, nice looking tractor too! Quite a setup you got. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
Fitch
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 23 Southern California High Desert
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-08          40177

Thanks folks.

BTW: Went to Agua Dulce Hardware. They didn't let me down. So I have a nice orange clevis, 3/4" pin with a 1/4 twist pinned to the 770's drawbar. The spacing between the eyes just slips over the end of the drawbar with a light push - perfect. I will get a 3/4" bolt of the right length with a nylon lock nut to replace the pin next weekend. That way any up or down loads won't spread the eyes apart - and with the nylon lock nut I don't have to tighten it to the point it won't pivot easily to keep the nut from vibrating loose - yet I can get it off easily enough if I have to.

I figured that since it has plenty of clearance (can pivot in any direction and not snag anything including the counter weight), and the paint in the drawbar hole was unscratched (never used), it could just live there ready to use at any time.

The 1/4 twist clevis has plenty of clearance for the grab hooks on the 3/8" chain to be threaded through with room to spare and then some.

Fitch ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
Mat W>
Join Date:
Posts: 1
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-09          40189

Being a little tight with the penny I couldn't justify buying a weight box from my dealer. I used the barrel idea also. I found a plastic 55 gallon drum in the dumpster at work, bought a draw bar, long eye bolts (long enough to go down thru the draw bar & bolted), end 5x80lb bags of cement.
I cut the top 1/3 off the barrel, cut holes in the side if the barrel at the 1/2 way point for the draw bar, bolted the eye bolts to the draw bar and added the cement. Left a 6inch lip from the top of the cement to the top of the barrel and notched the barrel to afix to the top link. This has been working rather nisely on my Ford 1310. Gives me the weight I need to keep all 4 wheels on the earth. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-09          40214

That's a neat trick using a bolt on a clevis to keep the loop from spreading. I'll have to remember that one.

Mark: I have heard other rumblings about Northern’s service. Too bad about your pump. It's no fun living in a high-risk situation and realizing that there's really no good defense.

Firebreaks seem to be more important than water around here even though we’re got lots of water. Perhaps it’s because it takes quite a bit of time to transport equipment and run hoses. I've heard that discs are pretty good at making firebreaks, and I might try my box scraper and scarifiers--but I've have to use equipment for if I was on my own. Although I went through fire training, I know that hand tools wouldn't do me much good. Fire lines are places for persons younger and stronger than I am.

We went through a serious drought last summer. People's dug wells dried up and drilling companies are got a lot of business this year. This year has been strange but at least we're getting rain. Maybe your conditions will turn around as well. We’ve had quite a bit of smoke here this week, but the fires are across the river in Quebec where there’s been a lot of lightening but not much rain.
....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
Doug McGregor (mcspr
Join Date:
Posts: 1
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-15          40383

Wow! Who knew that counterweights would generate so much discussion? Anyway, it's one of my favorite topics, since my A-C 5020 has a flimsy front axle that can't take much abuse; it must have a counterweight. Here's a hint: dried concrete weighs about 0.084 pounds per cubic inch. So, calculate the volume of your container, and multiply by 0.084 to get the weight. Fresh water weighs a little under 8 pounds per gallon, so a 55-gallon drum full of water weighs a little over 400 pounds.
....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
DRankin
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 5116 Northern Nevada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2002-07-15          40386

The number we usually find for the weight of water is about 8.33 pounds per gallon. The concrete numbers are good to have. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
Doug McGregor
Join Date:
Posts: 1
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-16          40418

Yes, that's right, water is 8.33 lb per gallon. I must've been thinking of something else. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-17          40440

From somewhere I recall that water weighs 66 lbs. a cubic foot. I get 145 lbs. per cubic foot of concrete if I take .084 x 12 cubed. That sounds about right, and I can believe it since I was moving 2' square paving stones around a couple of days ago. If my recollections and arithmetic are right, that would make concrete a real space saver for ballast compared to water.

As an alternative to a concrete 3ph ballast box, I recall Roger's comment about a roller made from the tank of an old gas water heater. I imagine it would have to be a small water heater to keep from seriously challenging the 3ph on many tractors discussed here. That might be a useful idea for people who roll yards frequently. Me, I buy into a comment I heard once that 'worms leveled the prairies.' I don't know the truth of the comment but it does keep me from rolling the yard while I'm waiting to see if works.
....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
DRankin
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 5116 Northern Nevada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2002-07-17          40450

I remember reading the 66/cu.ft. number too, but is it possible to get nearly eight gallons into a one foot cube? ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
DRankin
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 5116 Northern Nevada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2002-07-17          40451

This website says water weighs 8.3453 pounds per gallon and a cubic foot holds 7.48 gallons. Good web site... have a look. Mark ....


Link:   

Click Here


 
Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-17          40453

Mark: I was wondering the same thing about how many gallons to a cubic foot and don't have an immediate answer. My calculation of weight per sq. ft. of concrete does square closely with my recollection that gravel weighs around 2-ton a yard. My recollection comes a short time when I tried became frustrated with gold panning and made a rocker cradle. You could put through enough gravel in a day so you'd start wondering how much the stuff weighted. There also were bunches of cubic feet of water ladled to operate the cradle. That's a lot of work and I was much younger then. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
DH83
Join Date:
Posts: 1
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-17          40476

going by your number a 55 gal barrel filled with concrete
weights around a 1000 lbs.? is that too heavy for my 4310?
i havent put it on the the 3pth yet because i havent needed
it yet,but i did try to pick it up with the 430 loader and
back wheels came off the the ground.thanks ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-18          40480

I just scanned my Ford 1710 owner's manual. Might be there, but I didn't see a spec for 3ph capacity. I believe I asked my dealer and was told it is almost 1900 lbs. I'd be surprised if a 4310 wasn't speced over 1000 lbs.

Despite any ratings, it's good to keep in mind that factors other than hydraulic power affect the rated capacity. Tractor weight, wheel base and weight distribution affects the rating. Safety is another factor that is of increased importance in recent years. Ratings have become more conservative in recent years due to safety issues. Most 3ph's can physically lift more than their rated capacity (the capacity usually is defined as weight centered 2' behind the lower link pins). Rated capacities should be interpreted as: 'lift with relative safety under general operating conditions in the opinion of the manufacturer.' Doesn't sound like much of a guide for what actually can be done with a tractor. However, such is life when conditioned by the precedent of liability law I guess.
....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
DRankin
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 5116 Northern Nevada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2002-07-18          40483

My 4100 (20 HP) is rated to lift just under a thousand pounds on the back end. It will easily hoist two 55-gallon drums filled with water plus the 150# hitch/platform. I figure the total weight is 1100 pounds or so and I have NOT tried to drive with this load yet. In terms of lifting the rear end with heavy loads on the FEL, that is why we must counter weight the rear.
Even that will not totally prevent the rear axle flapping in the breeze. The other day I tried to pull up a stump and I got the rear end off the deck with a 650# counter weight, loaded tires and, of course, the XXL operator on board. I do not understand exactly how a 1000# rated loader does that…… but we are currently discussing on another thread how the hydraulic cylinders exert more power in one direction then the other. Be safe out there. Mark ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-19          40504

Mark: The answer probably has to do with loader geometry. Now all we have to do is figure it out over in the squishy tire thread.

I think maybe my loader is small for my tractor because pulling up with my loader won't lift the unloaded rear wheels, at least when a box scraper is on the 3ph. Could be a small loader or maybe the relief pressure setting is a bit low. Either way, it's probably safer that the loader doesn't have greater capacity, and I still get all the work I want out of it.

For stump pulling, I'd probably try pulling it from the drawbar. It might be a little easier trying to pull it over than up. Pulling from the side might break a lateral root of two, but all of them have to break to pull a stump straight up. I think there are some old type pullers that lift and twist at the same time.

My 3ph forklift has a 4” lift cylinder and the florks will out lift the 3ph. I’ve had well over 1000 lbs. on the forks and the lift weight about 650 itself. With the forks lift cylinder, I don’t need use the 3ph much but I do know it will lift more than its rating. Not very fast and only at PTO RPM, but it does go up. I’ve never tried to lift loads of that size without weight in the loader bucket. However, I have started to drive and realized that the front was so light that I had very little steering. I take my cues well and stop long enough to put more weight in the bucket.
....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
DRankin
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 5116 Northern Nevada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2002-07-19          40509

I guess I am having my learning curve. I learned one thing a 1600# tractor is not; it is not a stump puller…. from either end. I am clearing out some old, overgrown juniper bushes. This baby was the mother root for about 200 square feet of brush and didn’t look that sturdy. I couldn’t even persuade it with a 5000# 4wd truck in low range and a tow strap. So I will have to get out my shovel and hatchet and axe it politely to go away. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-20          40525

I believe you've experienced the reason why conventional wisdom is to call the dozer guy when the job is land clearing. Tractors work for a small number of stumps and a backhoe saves a lot of shovel work. Digging down and cutting enough lateral roots until the stump call be pulled over seems about the only alternative. I’d take heart, because I don’t think a 3,500-lbs. tractor does it much better. Cutting the tree to leave a long stump does help give more leverage to the pulling. I seem to be stuck in a leverage rut lately but I'll get over it.

Of course the job probably was more interesting back when farmers had access to black power or dynamite—at least more interesting than leverage. However, I think that stump pulling always has been a problem, and getting rid of them now is even more of a problem.

The mother of roots comment brought a thought to mind. Poplar and aspen propagate mostly from root shoots. There are some really huge areas in the east where all the aspen (or poplar I forget which) came from single plants that started growing just after the glaciers receded. By some ways of thinking that would make these stands the largest and oldest living organisms on earth.
....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
Fitch
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 23 Southern California High Desert
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-21          40559

Speaking of densities of materials - ordinary steel plate, like A36, is about 0.25 lbs/cubic inch per Machinery's Handbook, or ~432 lbs per cubic foot. i.e. it is a lot heavier than either water or concrete.

The way I understand the stability of the compact tractors, like my JD770, and others of similar style, the benefit of the counter weight is to move the CG back, and hopefully down there by significantly increasing the roll stability of the tractor.

For compact 4 wheel (as opposed to tricycle) tractors, lateral stability, prevention of sideways roll over accidents, is greatly enhanced by a counterweight that is low on the rear of the tractor. Why is this one might ask? I will offer my opinion about the answer to that question.

The compact tractors are supported at three points, the rear tire contact points on the ground and the pivot trunion in the middle of the front axle. That defines a triangle of support that is wide and low at the rear and high (at the front axle beam middle or top usually) and tapered to a point at the front.

So what does this mean?

Consider the bare tractor unloaded - no loader, no counter weight. It has a center of gravity - a point at which the tractor weight can be thought of as acting from for purposes of this discussion. Where ever it is, hopefully aft of the tractor center and not to high, the tractor has some reasonable stability. Any time the tractor is in a situation where the effective force vector through the center of gravity falls outside the triangle of support, the tractor will roll over. No warning (it doesn't have suspension), it just rolls.

The things that determine the effective force through the CG are both static and dynamic. Lets consider static first.

The effective force vector (in this case only gravity) is some place close to the axial centerline of the tractor and directly downward if the tractor is parked on level ground, and clearly falls within the triangle of support. If the tractor is on a side hill (parked across the hill so it is tilted sideways), the force vector (again gravity), which is still along the tractor axial centerline where it passes through the CG, and down through the CG, points closer to the triangle of support. On a steep enough side hill, it goes out side the triangle of support and the tractor rolls.

Note: the compact tractors are a bit more stable (all other things being equal) than their familiar agricultural row crop brothers because the front point of the support triangle is higher off the ground (center or center top of the front axle beam) than on the tricycle tractors which have their support ground level.

Picture the tractor on a side hill where it is just stable - the force vector through the CG is right at the edge of the triangle of support. Now raise the CG slightly, the force vector moves outside the triangle of support, and the tractor will roll. Picture the tractor on a side hill where it is just stable again, and move the CG forward, the force vector will move outside the triangle of support and the tractor will roll.

Bottom line, moving the CG forward and up will make the tractor easier to roll, moving it back and down will make it harder to roll. We aren't talking about forward and aft (keeping the front wheels on the ground), just roll, for the moment.

One easy thing to do that improves the roll stability of the tractor is to partially fill the rear wheels with fluid.

OK, that is the basic framework upon which to base the rest of the discussion.

Now add a front end loader.

This does three things, all bad, with regard to roll stability while at the same time tremendously increasing the usefulness of the tractor. First, it adds more weight to the front of the tractor than it does to the rear - which moves the CG forward toward the narrow part of the triangle of support - a roll de stabilizing change. Clearly, if the CG is in a narrower part of the triangle, it is less tolerant of conditions that will cause the force vector to move left or right and possibly outside that triangle of support. It helps that the triangle moves up as it moves forward, but not enough to keep the stability constant with the loader added. Second, it makes it possible to add a lot of weight, the full loader bucket, way out in front of the tractor which moves the CG even farther forward. Third, and worst of all, it makes it possible to put the heavy load way up high and forward which raises the CG significantly and makes it a whole lot less stable in roll. As was shown above, moving the CG forward, or raising it, both tend to reduce the roll stability of the tractor - the loader does both. Make no mistake, I love a loader - having one is a really good reason to have a tractor - but it does have its downside that needs to be compensated for.

Adding the counter weight tends to move the CG back, and depending on the design of the counterweight, down. Back and down (both within limits) are good. One doesn't want the CG back of the rear axle, or even too close to the rear axle, obviously, or the tractor will have a different stability problem - it will tend to raise its front wheels to easily.

Now consider the dynamics of the situation - the force on the tractor is really a combination of the forces generated by accelerations - where gravity is only one. Turning, for example, can generate a force of its own. Its much easier (some might say really easy actually) to roll a tractor making a turn with a full loader bucket up high than it is with the bucket down low, for example.

In practical terms related to designing a counter weight, if it is possible to get the weight down low that is better than having it up high. i.e. a horizontal 55 gallon drum full of concrete at hitch pin height is better than a vertical 55 gallon drum full of concrete with the base at or near hitch pin height.

The forgoing reasoning is why I put the pair of 256 pound 2" steel plate slabs horizontal and relatively low when I made my counter weight.

Fitch ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
DH83
Join Date:
Posts: 1
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-21          40560

VERY GOOD POINTS FITCH,I SEEN A VERY GOOD LESSON AT THE AGE
OF 17 BUT IT COST THE LIFE OF MY DADS BEST FRIEND.THIS
GUY (55 YRS OLD) WAS MOWING WEEDS WITH A JD 2020,LOADER AND 5FT BUSH HOG,HE WENT TO TURN AROUND ON THE LOCAL
PAVED ROAD AND DROPED THE RIGHT FRONT WHEEL OFF INTO THE
DITCH AND BECAUSE HE HAD THE LOADER 5FT UP IN AIR FOR
VISABLITY IT ROLLED DOWN THE DITCH WITHOUT WARNING.IT WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAD EVER SEEN MY DAD CRY AS THE CORONER
PRONOUNCED HIM DEAD AS HE LAID IN THE DITCH.THE LESSON
HERE IS TO ALWAYS TEACH PEOPLE TO PUT THE LOADER AS LOW
AS POSSIBLY WHEN TRAVELING WITH IT LOADED OR EMPTY.
AS FITCH SAID,SINCE TRACTORS HAVE NO SUSPENSION THERE
WILL BE NO WARNING WHEN IT GO'S OVER.GOOD LESSON AT A
EXPENSIVE PRICE..... ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-22          40568

Real good analysis. It hadn't occurred to me that the pivot point is the effective front support, which creates a triangle. In a roll, a front axle probably eventually hits a stop and then one wheel would be the support point. However, even if the axle did hit a stop, I imagine the tractor's momentum would continue the roll.

I think I got the point about raising and lowering the pivot point. The support triangle is on a plane that hinges on the rear axles. As the front support raises from ground level, the plane rotates closer to horizontal. The front support goes forward and a wider part of the triangle is moved around the CG to increase stability. I think that stability when the plane is horizontal and would decrease if the pivot is either raised or lowered. Of course, if the tractor is attached to the pivot, then raising the pivot also raises the front end, which would also raise the CG. This stuff does get complicated, but it's good to think about.

The squishy tire thread raised the question of whether front axle load decreases when a loader is raised above horizontal. I looked at my loader frame and found that the frame attaches to the tractor at points just forward of the front axle and about mid-way back. The lift cylinder supports and pivot points are much closer than I remembered and are above the rear attachment to the tractor. It looks like the lift arms will 'leverage' load onto the front axles when the bucket is at horizontal, and the load would decrease when either raising or lowering the bucket . Load on the front tires should be reduced. In the context of this discussion, raising the bucket probably moves the CG back and up. Back would be toward the wider part of the triangle, which would increase stability. However, the loss of stability from the upward CG movement probably is greater than what is gained from the backward movement.

This visualizing stuff may be difficult, but it’s good to remember that it has to do with developing a sense why some operating techniques are safer than others.
....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
Fitch
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 23 Southern California High Desert
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-22          40572

TomG wrote:

"Real good analysis. It hadn't occurred to me that the pivot point is the effective front support, which creates a triangle. In a roll, a front axle probably eventually hits a stop and then one wheel would be the support point. However, even if the axle did hit a stop, I imagine the tractor's momentum would continue the roll."

Fitch replies:

Thanks.

The stops on the front axle allow a lot of movement. I'm not sure they would do any good at all in stopping the tractor from rolling.

On a side hill - the axle is already tilted at the hill angle so the tractor has to have already rolled through quite an arc to hit the stops.

If only one front wheel dropped off something so far that the axle hits the stop there is a big problem. At that moment the support triangle is the bottom of the two rear wheels and the ground level point of contact of the remaining front wheel. This is a bad situation since one edge of the support triangle has now moved over to pass under the main body of the tractor, and it may be lower, thus farther below the CG at the same time. You can look at a plan view of the tractor and see where the line between the rear wheel ground contact point and the opposite front wheel contact point would cross the tractor center line. If the CG is forward of that point the tractor will roll - right now. With a loaded loader bucket and no counterweight the CG probably would be forward of that intersection, even with the bucket at ground level - so its very important not to drop the front wheel in a big hole with a loaded bucket - bad things can happen real fast.

In the tragic accident reported above, this may have contributed to the problem - along with having a loader bucket very high - when the front wheel dropped into the road side ditch.

TomG Wrote:

"I think I got the point about raising and lowering the pivot point. The support triangle is on a plane that hinges on the rear axles."

Fitch replies:

The way I see it, the support triangle has corners on the ground where the rear wheels touch, and in the front at the axle trunion. The rear support points are on the ground, the front one is up (estimating from memory here - didn't measure it) 18 to 24 inches. Thus it is inclined upward. This is a feature - because it raises the edges of the support triangle towards the front of the tractor which significantly improves its stability when compared to a tricycle tractor which has the triangle at ground level at all three points. The smaller the vertical distance of the tractor CG above the edges of the triangle, the better. If the CG were below the triangle, the tractor would be much harder to tip over.

With regard to the loader's effect on the CG as it rises - the important things are the location of the lift arm pivot and the CG of the loaded bucket itself. The bucket (and thus the CG of its load) moves on a radius from the rear arm pivot point to the loaded bucket CG. It is farthest forward when the bucket is at the level of the pivot point which on my tractor is pretty high up - about at steering wheel level. It is farther to the rear when it is on the ground, and starts to move back as it rises above the pivot point.

To see this easily, take a side view picture of your tractor with the loader on it and print it out. Then use a compass - place the compass pivot at the loader arm pivot, place the pencil on about the center of the bucket side view (about where the loaded bucket CG will be. Then draw the arc that the loader bucket will follow as it rises up. You will see it move forward till it is level with the loader arm pivot, and then start to move back. Its really high (4' plus) when it moves back. At that point, it the bucket is full of dirt (~750 lbs of load in the case of my 770). That mass 6' to 8' in the air has a very de stabilizing effect on the roll stability of the tractor.

When the bucket is lifted the front tires see all the load in the bucket plus the load transferred from the rear axle to balance the bucket load. Thus the front tires see a load increase that may be nearly twice the bucket load. This results in squishing down of the front tires (lowering the front of the support triangle slightly) and the rear axle moving up (because rear tire load decreases due to transfer to the front tires). Thus, when there is a load in the bucket it has the effect of tilting the tractor forward which moves the bucket forward - not a feature but unavoidable.

If a tractor with a loader doesn't have a hitch counter weight, it absolutely should, for safety reasons, have the rear tires full of fluid and rear wheel weights up to the max rear tire loading. Rear wheel weights are expensive, but they are very cheap life insurance.

If I used a box scraper on my tractor in place of the counter weight, I'd have to add 3 rear wheel weights to each side.

My Ford 2600 doesn't have a front end loader. It does have some huge rear wheel weights and the tires full of water. I do have front end weights on it to keep the front end down when I load up the 3pt fork lift attachment.

In reply to the stump or tree removing messages above. I gotta agree - use a dozer, or a big excavator - Dozer prefered. I was at my Brother-In-Law's in PA last week to help him get started on a major construction project involving clearing trees and brush off well over 100 acres. Spent the better part of two days on a CAT 953B track loader (32,000 lbs, 110hp) taking out trees, stacking brush, and stockpiling top soil. And about 5 hours on a CAT D9H (72,000 lbs, 410 hp) knocking down trees, pushing out big stumps, and building part of a road. If you have never run one of those machines and get the chance - take it! I predict you will grin from ear to ear. I sure did. The D9 is an E-Ticket ride (but wear ear plugs).

Fitch ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
MR ETHICS
Join Date:
Posts: 1
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-22          40576

Man, counterweights, what a topic this has become.

Seems you folks are starting to get the right idea. A couple hundred bucks is a small price to pay.

I tell this to customers all the time, there reaction is jaded due to the fact that I am a salesman. However, reality will always rear it's ugly head and the ballast boxes sell. Usually a few days AFTER the tractor is delivered. On some occasions, that is too late.

I have never sold anything to a dead person, but remeber this guys............I have sold things to the dead mans widow. And her and her new man, armed with the cash from her deceased's insurance policy, have purchased things she could not afford while he was dead. Such as a ballast box.

Now, another man is raising his children. He will not see his daughter's wedding, nor his first grandchild.

We all get caught up in the dollars, we seem to forget our cents (or sense, wichever applies).

Let's all be safe!!! Now you folks are getting the picture.
and I have some info to refer customers who need to read all these posts.

This is a great board, lot's of info, but more importantly, it's couple with expeirience. One without the other can be dangerous. Thanks all!! ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-23          40595

Yes, of course the rear supports would be the tires on the ground and not the axles.

I remember a child's physics demonstration. A teaspoon and toothpick are sort of forced between the tines of a fork. The spoon and fork form an acute angle bisected by the toothpick. The end of the toothpick is then placed on the rim of a water glass. The toothpick not only stays on the rim but it almost sticks there. The explanation is that the handles of the spoon and forks move the CG behind and below the support point of the toothpick on the rim, which makes the whole thing extremely stable.

I see that raising the front support point angles the plane closer to the CG and improves stability. I believe I also see that the analysis is for lateral stability. The pivot is the front support point because the front tires are free to swing around the pivot point and don't support lateral force. The front tires probably provide the support for longitudinal forces.

I'm not clear on front axle loading as the bucket raises. My thinking is that if the lift arms were vertical (of course a loader doesn't lift quite that high) then the entire load would be straight down on the pivot point. The cylinder support would take no load. Since the pivot points are on brackets attached to the tractor mid-way back, I imagined that the bucket load would be somewhat distributed between the front and back axles. I also imagined that the cylinder support would take more of the load as the bucket lowered. The cylinder supports attach to the same bracket as the pivot points but a few inches forward of the pivots. I suspect load on the cylinders places torque on the bracket and force is transferred through the side frame members to the front attachments on the tractor, which are ahead of the front axles.

I can see how frame geometry magnifies the load onto the front axle. I still can't see how the entire load is entirely on the front axles irrespective of bucket height. This is an 'I can't see it' comment rather than a dispute.

All very interesting to me, but I think I should focus on getting my posts shorter, but it’s tough to write about this stuff in a few words.
....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
Fitch
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 23 Southern California High Desert
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-24          40632

TomG wrote:

"...I suspect load on the cylinders places torque on the bracket and force is transferred through the side frame members to the front attachments on the tractor, which are ahead of the front axles.

I can see how frame geometry magnifies the load onto the front axle. I still can't see how the entire load is entirely on the front axles irrespective of bucket height. This is an 'I can't see it' comment rather than a dispute."

Fitch replies: TomG, you and I are saying the same thing in different words. Your description of the loader exerting a torque on the mounting bracket is correct - or at least it agrees with how I see it. The whole thing is easy to see if you sum the moments around some convenient point, like the line between the rear wheel contact points, to see incremental changes for two or three loaded bucket positions.

It would be fun to have the front and rear axles on separate scales with the loaded bucket sitting on the ground or a third scale (but not on the scale with the front wheels). Then record the front and rear axle weights as the bucket is initially just picked up, when it is level with the loader arm pivot point, and when the loader raised to maximum bucket height.

Anybody have access to a set of farm or truck scales? I don't know if there are any in the Palmdale/Lancaster area that would tolerate running this experiment. It would take some time, but I will look. With some fussing around this experiment can be done with just one scale, like a truck scale, if the loader bucket can be supported above the scale while the front axle is on the scale. I won't list all the steps to do it that way here, but it can be done.

My prediction of the outcome:

1) With the bucket on the ground (or a third set of scales), with the exception of the loader frame weight, the axle loads would be just about the same as if the loader wasn't on the tractor at all.

2) When the bucket is raised just enough to clear the ground, the front axle load will increase by more than the loaded bucket weight. The rear axle load will decrease by about the difference between the front axle load increase and the bucket weight. i.e. the front axle load increase that exceeds the bucket weight is load transfer from the rear axles caused by the geometry of the situation - i.e. by the bucket being forward of the front axle.

3) When the bucket raised to the point where its CG is level with the loader arm pivot point, the front axle load will be the maximum and the rear axle load will be the minimum.

4) At maximum bucket height, the front axle load would be decreased and the rear axle load increased from what they were when the bucket CG was level with the loader arm pivot point. How much depends on how far to the rear the bucket has moved from its max forward point when the bucket was level with the loader arm pivot point. If the bucket is behind the front axle when it is fully raised (unlikely - at least it doesn't get behind the axle on my 770 or it would dump on the hood!) when it is fully raised, then some of the bucket load would be on the rear axles. As long as the bucket CG is forward of the front axle, the front axle carries more than the bucket weight - it carries the bucket weight plus the load transfer from the rear axle.

Clearly, as you say, the load the bucket places on the front axle will depend on where the bucket is. The bucket moves toward the rear when it is above the loader arm pivot point or below it. Farthest forward is most front axle load, as it moves towards the rear the front axle load decreases and rear axle load increases.

Up is bad for roll stability even though going above the arm pivot point reduces front axle load because the loaded bucket is quite heavy, a significant percentage of machine weight, and having it up high significantly raises the CG with a corresponding negative effect on roll stability.

This is getting too long, but it occurs to me that some sort of operational definition of roll stability would be useful. So I'll make the following offering to which I haven't attached any indispensable ego. :) Roll stability is related to the tractors ability to keep all four wheels in contact with the support plane (where the wheels touch the ground or what ever the tractor is sitting on). One could load a tractor in different conditions, place it on a plat form that can be tilted sideways in a controlled fashion, and measure the angle at which giving it a slight push would cause it to roll over. A practical experiment would of course limit the roll with a safety chain to the roll bar or something similar!

With that thought experiment in mind, a tractor is more stable if it can be tilted sideways to a larger angle from horizontal with out rolling in a given configuration (load, loader bucket position, counterweight position, etc.). So my offering of a roll stability definition would be: Roll stability is a measure of the tractors tendency to resist over turning forces. It could be measured as the maximum angle of roll (tilt sideways) for which the tractor is just able to recover from a small purterbation in the direction of least roll stability. I.e. the angle of tilt at which if you gave it a slight push with your hand, it just recovers back to where it was before you pushed. Tilt it more, it rolls over when you push. Larger angles are more stable than smaller angles.

There are other situations that cause radical de stabilization of the tractor - such as dropping one wheel off the plane of support (discussed in earlier posts) which will nearly always result in a radical reduction of roll stability - frequently to the point the tractor rolls immediately.

Fitch ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-25          40659

It might be time to start matching theoretical with practical. I remember once when I had sort of painted myself into a corner by dumping the hoe where I needed to drive back out. I ended up between two slopes so I drove very gently. So, the left front wheel goes up one slope and the right rear wheel goes up the other. I looked down and saw the right front wheel completely off the ground. Oops, I say and turn the tractor into the slope the front was on VERY GENTLY until both front wheels were on the ground.

I still don't know if the front axle rotated against a stop or I had managed a balance trick similar to the children’s physics demonstration. I'll have to think it through in terms of the support plane idea.
....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
DRankin
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 5116 Northern Nevada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2002-07-31          40870

Ok. Now I am confused. My manual says the “required minimum ballasting” is liquid filled tires and 895# hanging off the three-point hitch in the form of a ballast box or similar device. I always thought minimum meant, well, minimum. Meaning more is ok and get more on it if you can. If I get anywhere near the minimum weight the front wheels come off the ground on uphill starts. My ballast is maybe three inches further aft than the pictures of the ballast box in the manual. I have come to the conclusion that steering is kind of important too. What am I missing here? ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
MRETICS
Join Date:
Posts: 1
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-07-31          40872

Mark,

The old ballasting formula problem, where every answer leads to another question. It remindes me of a course my stepson struggled with at PURDUE, Thermodynamics. I remember helping him with this class when he was home on holidays. Proper ballasting is like thermodynamics,,,,,,
all bets are hedged!

The proper rear ballast requirments are more in tune with total lift capacity of the F.E.L., and stability of the tractor and attacment at full lift hieght.

That is not to say that the ballast will be correct when the loader is on the tractor, with no weight in the bucket.

Saftey, is usually the main concern here,(although a tractor that does not steer seems a little...say...precarious).

Whenever you mention the word "saftey" to a manufacturer, sooner or later, the lawyers are involved and "saftey" is changed to "liability".

Given the competitiveness in the marketplace today, there is great attention given to the lift capacity and breakout capacity of loaders. The Stronger they are, the better they will sell. (Makes sense to me....trust me...it's a man thing).

Which leads us to another issue. Compacts are probably the most versatile tractor class in the marketplace, so these tractors need to be as light footed for lawncare as they are strong for F.E.L. and tillage work.

Hence the problem:

If we make this tractor light enough to mow the lawn, and put a F.E.L. on the front of it that will make "Atlas "look like a wimp, we will need to add some ballast.

How much? Well, that depends on what John Q. Customer is trying to lift.

Now....the lawyers step in.

"Better tell your engineers to overdue the rear ballast a bit lest we be "liable", and put the recomendations in print, lest we be worse than "liable".

"And what is worse than "liable"? you ask.

"Neglagence" the lawyers sing, in four part harmoney.

Sooooooo. What does this tell us????? Not much really. But that's the beautifull thing about lawyers.

My rule:

Your best defense is common sense.

Make the ballast weight easy to adjust, and easy to attatch and remove.

A few of Murphy's laws come to mind:

1) If you make something "Foolproof" only fools will use it.

2) To know yourself is the ultimate form of aggression (fraidian phsycoligy).

3) My loader will lift more than your loader.

I'm sorry to make light of all this, but I am in a particular good mood today, and we all do not smile nearly enough.

Have fun/use your head.

MrEthics

....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-08-01          40886

The thought of somebody else, but not me, taking a course in thermo is enough to put me in a good mood too.

I'd add that the lightweight version of a grass-cutting compact led to almost universal 4wd and greater front-heavy weight distributions. Hanging a drive train and loader on the front also has made PS almost universal. Well, I guess the almost universal loader also makes HST almost. I suppose it runs up the purchase prices, but I do like them.

I guess I've never thought in terms of a ballasting formula. I just apply front or back weight until the steering feels normal. However, the steering on my Ford is old-fashion 'power-assisted steering' rather than 'power steering' (which is a distinction my dealer made). My steering may be more sensitive to load than other systems, but it’s a good guide to ballasting for me. I've heard that on farm tractors, it's not uncommon for the steering to be entirely hydraulic--no mechanical link between the steering wheel and the ground at all--maybe the steering is like pushing a spoon through oatmeal.

I do relieve myself of all steering from time to time when I compact gravel with the loader. With a fairly flat bucket down pressure is used to put all weight on the bucket, and then I drive along the drive in reverse. Yippy I think, I’m out of control as I go back and forth, tapping left or right brakes trying to stay on the drive. Of course, if I use the brakes too much a wheel locks and I undo my gravel smoothing job, so my control sometimes is less than desirable.

Actually, it’s a good technique, but I do it in a pretty low gear (HST is one near-universal I don’t have). Gravel compacting is good, but I’d be less happy on a grade or rough ground if I had a very light front and little steering.
....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
Fitch
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 23 Southern California High Desert
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2002-08-04          40975

Mark,

Although I've managed to work around it after some frustration, I absolutely understand the confusion. The John Deere (and likely other vendors as well) furnished manuals do not provide the data required to do a detailed job of configuring ballast - lots of missing data.

My manual for the 70 loader on my 770 tractor says:

3. Add weight to rear of tractor:
- put fluid in rear tires. See tractor operators manual.
- Install wheel weights. See Rear Wheel Weights in this section.
- Fill ballast box with sand. See Ballast Box in this section.

At the bottom of the page is says in a box "When you add ballast, DO NOT (sic - caps are in the manual) exceed the maximum tire carrying capacity shown on the sidewall. This is an interesting statement. John Deere clearly thinks this is an important safety issue. OK, thanks for the warning. But they do not, anyplace, provide the data so a guy/gal can sit down with a pencil and paper, add up the weight, compare it to the number on the tire - even if only John Deere furnished stuff is used - and get even a rough estimate of whether or not we are complying with this safety warning. The missing data:

Weight of loader is not in the manuals for the tractor or loader. One can go to the marketing brochure and find the "shipping weight" with includes the crate and presumably the standard bucket - which is 645 lbs for the 70 loader.

Weight of rear wheel weights is not in any of the manuals I have - although if you have a parts manual (I don't) that might say what they weigh.

Bare tractor axle weights are not in any of the manuals - or at least I couldn't find it. The 770 manual says the weight is 2,150 lbs.

Sigh ...

At the moment my estimate for the total weight of the 770 tractor, 70 loader (with bucket off the ground), fluid in the tires, and my home made fully loaded counterweight is 4,045 lbs. I have no way to estimate the individual axle loadings though. At this weight it sure has some significant ability to pull and push. I think it is comparable in weight with my 2600 Ford.

In the wheel weight section of the loader manual it says to use 3 on each side with the 12.4 x 16 R1 tires I have, but not how much they weigh.

In the tractor manual on page 39 it says "Do not overload tires. Add no more weight than indicated in chart." Then the chart has a number that is Maximum Load Per Wheel (not the amount that can be added per wheel), and no place in the manual does it say what the normal tractor operating load on the wheel is, so unless one goes to a scales, calculating the safe ballast addition with out overloading the wheel is impossible given the data in the manual! Sigh ...

While the load carrying capacity of the tires (1,590 lbs) is most probably not adequate for 3 rear wheel weights (weight not specified in either manual that I could find - but if my memory is right it is around 80 lbs per weight), fluid (200 lbs per tire), and the John Deere 712 lb ballast box (356 lbs per tire plus weight transfer from front end, which is easy to calculate, because it is out behind the axle) - the data to figure that out is not included in any of the manuals. I'm not surprised you are confused. The manuals are both incomplete and confusing. If I ever get access to a scales, I'm planning to do a lot of weighing of the tractor in different configurations. Alas, since the loader frame is already installed, and fluid is already in the tires, I won't have good "bare tractor" axle loads.

So one has to pick and choose the ballast to match the job with out any real confidence that no safety limits are being violated - sort of in the dark - unless a scales is handy. I have the tires full of fluid - not easy to change.

The weight strategy depends on the tasks, and equipment, and what is easy to change.

The factory rear wheel weights are not easy to change either (although one could probably fabricate a weight handler attachment for a floor jack that would greatly simplify the task), but probably easier than fluid. Easiest to re-configure rear wheel weight system I've seen is the home made one on the WEB page with the barbell adaptor - at least for the smaller compact tractors like my 770 - 25 lb weight plates would be to small to be useful on my 2600 Ford.

When I'm using the brush cutter, I have 200 lbs of suitcase (lunch bucket?) weight on the front, the mower on the back, and of course the fluid in the tires. When the loader is mounted (the suitcase weights have to come off the front to mount the loader), and I'm doing general stuff around the place, including moving trailers, etc. I have my home made counter weight installed but don't have the 200 lbs of front end suit case weights on it. If I'm doing a lot of dirt moving with the bucket, I add the suitcase weights to the bracket made for that purpose on the home made counter weight.

The counter weight with the suitcase weights on it is right at the limit of what the 3pt can lift. If the loader isn't on the tractor when that weight is on the back, the tractor front end, like yours, is very light and will dance lightly leaving the ground a bit in long gentle arcs given any provocation at all. I take off the counter weight, then the loader. In put on the loader, then the counterweight.

If I used the tractor with a loader and box scraper I'd have the recommended 3 rear wheel weights on each side (assuming that didn't violate the max loading on the tire) and just leave them there when using the brush cutter (but still add the front end weights when using the brush cutter).

I don't use the tractor for finish mowing - but if I did, the rear counterweight which is easily removed for finish mowing would be the way to go. The turf tires are not compatible with the rear wheel weights - at least the manual says use zero of them so I "think", but don't "know" for sure, they physically don't fit on the turf tire rim.

Its clearly a good idea to have a weighting strategy that lets the tractor be easily ballasted (ballast easily reconfigurable) to match the variety of attachments used and tasks to be attempted. Ballast that isn't easy to use will at some critical time, sooner or later, not be on the tractor when it is needed.

Fitch ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



counter weight

View my Photos
DRankin
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 5116 Northern Nevada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2002-08-04          40977

I sent Deere the same question as I posted above. Here is their reply along with my misspelled name.


Dear Mr. Hustinger,

Thank you for contacting our website, Unfortunately, we are not a technical
center so we are unable to provide you with the technical assistance that
you requested. However, we do have a network of dealers that are specially
trained to handle technical questions.

If we can be of further assistance please call us at 1-800-537-8233. Our
center is open Monday through Friday 8:00am-7:00pm and Saturday 9:00am to
5:30pm.

Sincerely,
Bailey
Communication Advisor


Presumably, these people have nowhere to forward such questions except back to the dealer network. I have spoken extensively with Lou at my local Deere shop and we have flipped through hundreds of pages of material and have come to the conclusion that the factory does not publish the data Fitch has outlined. There is no listing for the weight of a complete loader assembly. When I told Lou that the recommended minimum counter weight pulls the front end of my tractor off the ground with the loader attached, he could only shake his head.
So we are in an endless loop. The factory sez contact the dealer. The dealer can’t get the information. I guess we are on our own.
Tractoring by the seat of our pants.
....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo


  Go Top Go Top

Share This
Share This







Member Login