Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
kwschumm
Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 5764 NW Oregon Pics |
2003-11-10 68445
Since I'll be getting new tires I wanted to check into ballasting requirements to possibly avoid loading the rear tires. Looking at the 430 loader manual, it says that IN ADDITION to having calcium loaded rear tires and six wheel weights a 43x0 series tractor requires an additional 1210 lbs of ballast on the 3ph. Can this be right? Yowsa - how on earth can you get enough ballast WITHOUT loading the rear tires?
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
DRankin
Join Date: Jan 2000 Posts: 5116 Northern Nevada Pics |
2003-11-10 68446
Your three point will pick up more than you think. I snatched 1500# off the ground with the BX, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.
Double check the verbiage though, my 4115/410 manuals specify EITHER wheel weights OR loaded tires (not both) plus 725 to 900 pounds rear ballast.
The 420 loader for your tractor needs liquid ballast plus 550# on the three point or wheel weights plus 770#. ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
kwschumm
Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 5764 NW Oregon Pics |
2003-11-10 68448
The 4310 3 point is rated at more than 2000 lbs, so picking it up isn't an issue.
Mark, I see in the loader manual where you got those numbers. The columns for the 430 loader are different - one column is for unloaded tires with no weights and the other is for loaded tires with weights. It may be a typo. As printed it calls for 1320 lbs for unloaded tires with no weights and 1210 lbs with weights and loaded tires.
Thus my confusion. The loaded tires with weights would weigh, what, 1400 lbs already - why would you need another 1210 lbs on the 3-point? ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
Art White
Join Date: Jan 2000 Posts: 6898 Waterville New York Pics |
2003-11-11 68458
To really make your tractor feel like a dog, burn a lot of fuel so you can get upset and come to your favorite Kubota guy me, and swap! Sounds like you could be very secure and stable but beyond that, I wouldn't do it. Ag tractors go for 110-120lbs per horsepower and they are made to tear up ground. Normally to not tear up ground you need to be around 90 lbs per horsepower max. ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
DRankin
Join Date: Jan 2000 Posts: 5116 Northern Nevada Pics |
2003-11-11 68513
Ken, I am thinking the 430 loader might weigh 150 pounds more than the 420 model. The ballast numbers might be a bit more based on that, but not 1200 pounds more. ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
Art White
Join Date: Jan 2000 Posts: 6898 Waterville New York Pics |
2003-11-11 68514
Something is wrong for that to be needed. I don't want to get into it but that is way to much! ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
kwschumm
Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 5764 NW Oregon Pics |
2003-11-11 68516
I'm sure it's another case of JD not double checking their documents before publishing them. These numbers can't be right. ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley |
2003-11-12 68529
Or maybe another case of corporate liability lawyers getting into the act. ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
Murf
Join Date: Dec 1999 Posts: 7249 Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada Pics |
2003-11-12 68545
Using 'thumb-nail' mathematics, your FEL probably already has about 600 pounds of counterbalance being the back of the tractor and you (no commentary on your waistline intended).
You then would only need to 'top up' the level of counter balance to a little over the maximum lift capacity, probably 1500 pounds, so the figure of 1200 pounds sounds about right.
Bear in mind however, ballast on a tractor is like loading a 'see-saw', the front wheels being the fulcrum or balance point. You have to options to achieve the same results, you can add less wieght, but put it farther back, on the 3pth for example, or you can put a little more weight closer to the fulcrum, say on the rerar wheels, either as loaded tires or wheel weights.
If you are concerned about the tractor chewing up ground (as we are on golf courses) you might want to opt for a 3pth ballast which you can easily and quickly take off when you're not using the loader for anything heavy.
Best of luck. ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
kwschumm
Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 5764 NW Oregon Pics |
2003-11-12 68566
Murf, that's what I was thinking when I asked the question. The JD loader manual says that I'd need approx. 2600 lbs of ballast for a loader that can lift a maximum of 1200 lbs. It made no sense, thus the question. I thought maybe there was something I was missing, but it seems not. ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
Murf
Join Date: Dec 1999 Posts: 7249 Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada Pics |
2003-11-12 68571
I think Mark is probably right in thinking it should say "either" and not both. The part about 1210 pounds sounds about right, but they must mean in total.
We use 750-1000 pounds of 3pth-mounted ballast on our loaders and they don't get tippy unless you're really trying to overdo it.
Best of luck. ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
kadorken
Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 67 Canada |
2003-11-13 68621
The 430 manual might be considered ambiguous but it just looks wrong to me.
It shows a table with 3 columns, with headings "Rear Tires with liquid Ballast" (column 1), "Rear Tires with Liquid Ballast and 6 wheel weights" (column 2), and "Minimum 3-point hitch ballast kg (lbs) (column 3)"
It then has 1 row where it indicates loader use is not approved if wheel width < 59 inches,
The next row has an X in column 1 and a ballast weight of 600 (1320) in column 3.
The last row has an X in column 2 and a ballast weight of 550 (1210) in column 3.
I would conclude as Ken did that the manual indicates you always must have loaded tires, PLUS some ballast. Charts for other tractors have a column labeled "Rear Tires without liquid ballast" (usually with the words - Loader use not approved")
My experience recently with NO LOADED TURF tires, using a box grader is sufficient for filling of the 5' bucket of my loader with dry sand/gravel - you are just on the edge. I would estimate the box grader as weighing 200-300 lbs.
I can move 3/4 of a bucket of top soil with this configuration as well.
....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
DRankin
Join Date: Jan 2000 Posts: 5116 Northern Nevada Pics |
2003-11-13 68632
Lets take another look at this. I found some specs.
Someone needs to get on-line with Deere and clear up the questions.
The spec table is available as a PDF document, I would be happy to forward to you guys.
....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
kwschumm
Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 5764 NW Oregon Pics |
2003-11-13 68640
OK, I emailed Deere with the question and will report back what their response is. Mark, I'd like to have those pdf specs if you don't mind mailing them. ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
DRankin
Join Date: Jan 2000 Posts: 5116 Northern Nevada Pics |
2003-11-13 68645
Specs are on the way.
I was re-reading the thread, we have an 800# loader that can lift nearly 1800# almost 9 feet high.
Why wouldn't it need at least 2600# (1800+800) ballast?
Especially if you are going to lift that much, that high off the ground. ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
Billy
Join Date: Oct 1999 Posts: 975 Southeast Oklahoma Pics |
2003-11-13 68650
Ken, if you get the same response from Deere as I did, it'll be "contact your dealer"
Good luck ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
Murf
Join Date: Dec 1999 Posts: 7249 Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada Pics |
2003-11-13 68651
Mark, don't forget about the geometry involved.
As the FEL rises the arms do not lengthen, therefore the arc causes the load to move closer to the fulcrum, the front axle in this case. This effectively REDUCES the amount of counter-balance required by transfering the center of gravity closer to the operator and more onto the rear axle which of course is rigid unlike the front one. All of which should make it more stable, at least in a front to rear aspect.
The 2600# figure doen't sound all that far off, assuming you were actually lifting 1800#, but even then it would be a total including the tractors own weight.
Best of luck. ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
kwschumm
Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 5764 NW Oregon Pics |
2003-11-13 68653
Mark, thanks for the specs. It looks like you read from the wrong column on those lift capacity numbers. The 430 loader lifts 1045 lbs, it's the 460 that lifts 1705 lbs.
Billy, you're probably right about the "contact your dealer" comment. That's been their response on every question so far. However, this time I specifically referenced the Deere publication number as being incorrect so maybe they'll respond to their (probable) mistake. ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
Chief
Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 4299 Southwest MiddleTennessee Pics |
2003-11-13 68661
I've already "been there, done that and got the T-shirt" on this issue. John Deere's reply to my email was "contact your dealer". I did. Dealers says I should have enough ballast with the filled tires. The slide down my hill with rear tires slipping tells me more ballast sure would not hurt. ;-) You may be able to lift items with less than the called for ballast but the amount of traction/weight remaining on rear tires is in question. If you are on level ground or near level; you should probably be OK but for other areas will need the extra ballast weight. Ken, I know the ballast weights are expensive and loaded tires are PITA but on your property, I would say get the recommended ballast; especially with the soft mucky ground problem. The R-1's will get a better bite with the added weight I would think. ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
kwschumm
Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 5764 NW Oregon Pics |
2003-11-13 68667
And that's the problem. I want to use recommended ballast, but I don't want to if the recommendations are in error. The requirements are to either use 1320 lbs (no loading or weights) OR 2600 lbs. (loaded tires + wheel weights + 1210 lbs on the 3ph). Which is it?
Dealer says loaded tires are sufficient but that's less than the manuals say.
What's a tractor owner to do? ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
Chief
Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 4299 Southwest MiddleTennessee Pics |
2003-11-13 68670
Personally, I think that the loaded tires and either wheel weights or a weight of some sort on the 3 pt. hitch would be plenty. The weight on the 3 pt. hitch could be a box blade or some other heavy impliment that you could mount temporarily for heavy loader work. Ken in your case with the traction issues, the wheel weights and filled tires may be what you end up with. I can definitely tell you that just the loaded tires is NOT enough weight for all uses. Its a crap shoot! ;-) ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
kwschumm
Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 5764 NW Oregon Pics |
2003-11-13 68686
Well, Deere answered my email and as predicted the answer was "contact your dealer". I don't know why they bother to accept questions via the internet since the answer is always the same. They could save some money by firing a few people and installing an auto-responder that always says "contact your dealer".
Anyway, my Titan HI-TRACTION R1s were installed late this afternoon, too late to try 'em out. They were already loaded since they took 'em off another tractor so that issue was resolved for me. I had them set to the widest setting. The extra 5" diameter and extra foot or so of width really makes it look like a bigger tractor. My measurements were right - cleared the garage door with the ROPS up by about an inch.
If I ever have to install chains on these puppies I'll have to remove the rear fenders first and have them trimmed. There's only about 1.5" of clearance between the tread and the fenders. ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
DRankin
Join Date: Jan 2000 Posts: 5116 Northern Nevada Pics |
2003-11-13 68697
Ken, you were right, I was in a big hurry and read the wrong column.
If I had your tractor I would use the ballast numbers for the 420 loader and get on with life. Sorry about the mix-up.
Keep us posted on the next chapter of "How the tire turns." ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
plots1
Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 563 mo Pics |
2003-11-14 68706
I remember you asking about tires when you bought your machine. I bet your really going to like the performance of those new ones . ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
kwschumm
Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 5764 NW Oregon Pics |
2003-11-14 68733
Yeah, I asked everyone about tires since that was the toughest issue for me. Two guys even came out from the dealer to look at the property and they were divided between R1s and R4s. Oh well, I now know R4s were wrong for me - time will tell if R1s will be a big improvement but they sure look like it. ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
diesel
Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2 Wichita KS |
2003-11-20 69171
hey a good rule of thumb is wheel weights equal 1/3 of 3point weight, so in other words 500lbs of 3pt weight is like having 1500lbs of wheel weights. I have a 4310 with a 430 loader and i use it mainly as a loader. i have a box blade that weights 495lbs and i've NEVER have any tipping or other problems with the ballast. i use it with concrete, ab3, or sand and overload the bucket every time. This is one of the best workhorses i've had. WOW ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
Chief
Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 4299 Southwest MiddleTennessee Pics |
2003-11-20 69174
Follow up on the ballast weight issue.
Day before yesterday I moved a Buck Stove fire place insert out of the basement up to the garage to clean it up for sale. (I can't believe how heavy that thing was!) It was all I could do just to slide it out the door enough to pick it up the FEL. As soon as I picked it up and slowly rolled the bucket back, I IMMEDIATELY felt a VERY noticable weight shift off of the rear tires. I initially thought the tractor might lift the rear tires off the ground so I took it slow. I don't think this Buck Stove weighs more than 500 lbs.
This made a believer out of me as far has ballast weight! I was able to carry the Buck Stove up to the garage but I took it REALLY slow and kept the bucket as low to the ground as I could. To lift heavy stuff like this, my "seat of the pants ballast meter" tells me I need at least double the weight I have with the filled rear R-4 tires, if not more. Probably a rear 3 pt. hitch weight box or heavy implement would suffice for the heavy loader work and it could be removed when not needed.
Just be VERY careful when picking up heavy stuff with the FEL and go about doing it VERY, VERY slow and easy so you can drop the bucket back to the ground if the tractor starts to tip or looses traction. Keep the bucket as low to the ground as you possibly can.
....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
Murf
Join Date: Dec 1999 Posts: 7249 Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada Pics |
2003-11-20 69182
Diesel, I think your rule of thumb is a little off.
Ballast is merely torgue working against a tendancy for the tractor to revolve (lift the back-end up) around the fulcrum (the front axle). Torque can be best expressed in foot/pounds. One pound at the end of a ten foot lever is equal to ten foot/pounds, so is ten pounds at the end of a one foot lever.
Using my Kubota as an example, it has a 6' (71.5" if it matters here) wheelbase. If the load on the 3pth was 3' further back it would look like this;
1,500 pounds 6' back (wheel weights) is 9,000 foot/pounds.
500 pounds 9' back (3pth) is 4,500 foot/pounds.
In order to achieve 9,000 foot/pounds at the 3pth I would need 1,000 pounds (9,000# / 9') on the 3pth, not 1,500 pounds, that would only be the equivalent of 333.33#.
Best of luck. ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Ballasting 4310 - can this be right
TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley |
2003-11-21 69227
Torque is an interesting way of looking at ballast. It also leads into the idea that 3ph and loader ratings are static loads, but torques change a lot when weights are in motion. That's the idea that shock-loads can break tractors even if weights are less than the ratings. I've even heard of tractors being broken with nothing in them when trailering them at highway speeds. Buckets and implements are supposed to be sat on the desk--good idea to get a long enough trailer.
Designs and ratings have built in allowances for shock loads but I don't suppose it's realistic for ratings to be anything but for static loads. Manufacturers ultimately have to depend on owners having Chief's seat of the pants ballast meter in good working order. ....
Reply to | Quote Reply | Add Photo
Go Top
Share This