Thinking Thursday; Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights

[JoeM 7,871]

I have acquired a set of loaded 23X10.50-12 CARLISLE TRU POWER 4 PLY tires. They seem to be in decent shape and weigh in at 115 lbs each. I have always used steel wheel weights in the past and I am wondering if using the fluid tires would be any advantage on my 520H FEL machine. 

I have read were the steel weights act like flywheels and will allow the energy to be transferred into motion. On the other had the fluid tire is touted as applying the most traction effort. 

What is easier on the drive train? 

I am sure this is not a new question but it is raining here and I am thinking! 

 

[WHX?? 48,795]

Run both! 

[WHX?? 48,795]

Seriously Joe I would consider both especially for an FEL you can never have too much weight back there.  The thing about either is all the weight on the tire and rim and very little on the axle bearings. The stress on the driveline is when the traction does not want to give. That's when axles start to snap. The advantage to loaded is it puts the weight over the entire surface of tire to ground contact patch. Do you run a ballast box? 

[ebinmaine 67,309]

I'm with Jim. Run both.

 

By strict scientific definition the fluid would be a little easier on the drivetrain because it moves inside the tire and does not need to be sped up or slowed down with the drivetrain such as the steel weights do.

However ...

I don't think either one is going to be any easier on the drivetrain in a slow speed garden tractor application. I can understand the effect of flywheel and centrifugal weight but these tractors are just not moving fast enough to have much effect there. IMHO.

Personally I favor the fluid-filled because it puts a literal direct pinch on the rubber right to the ground and also with every rotation the bead of the tire is reinforced. I run near or at zero air pressure in my fluid filled tires.

 

[Pullstart 62,803]

I vote for keeping the fluid in there, they offer direct contact pressure across the entire tread width.  If you have weights, or the option to acquire them, I vote for those as well!  Personally, I feel like the weighted tires I have run improved forward bite tenfold to anything else.  Like Eric, I run no air pressure in my fluid (tube) filled tires.

[JoeM 7,871]

25 minutes ago, WHX24 said:

ballast box

I do have 350 lbs of suitcase weights on the rear. 

Using both. I am concerned about the rotating mass being hard on the hubs. That would put it just north of 220 on each wheel. 

I checked the fill level and they are I would say 90% or better filled and had 0 air pressure. 

[ebinmaine 67,309]

9 minutes ago, JoeM said:

concerned about the rotating mass being hard on the hubs. That would put it just north of 220 on each wheel

 

If anybody disagrees with what I'm about to say please quote this and correct me down below. I like to learn about the machinery that I am operating and use it to its potential without abusing it.

 

I don't think you should count the weight of the fluid towards the rotating mass. The reason for that is because the fluid is constantly moving inside the tire or tube and will offer VERY little resistance to the rubber or steel as it rotates in any given direction.

Not knowing what you're using for fluid and not knowing how much friction would be created I think it's safe to easily discount 50 or 60 lb per side from that number of 220.

I arrived at that because you should have seven or so gallons and it should weigh between 8 and 10 pounds per gallon unless they are calcium filled which would be higher.

I understand your concern for the wear on the hubs. I think most of us would agree that the hub to axle connection on a Wheelhorse could have been done in  different better ways than it was.

That said, I don't think it's that big of a concern.

I say that because even with the lighter duty hubs and 1" axles that's still a fair amount of metal to be attaching to a wheel.

 

[Pullstart 62,803]

31 minutes ago, ebinmaine said:

 

If anybody disagrees with what I'm about to say please quote this and correct me down below. I like to learn about the machinery that I am operating and use it to its potential without abusing it.

 

I don't think you should count the weight of the fluid towards the rotating mass. The reason for that is because the fluid is constantly moving inside the tire or tube and will offer VERY little resistance to the rubber or steel as it rotates in any given direction.

Not knowing what you're using for fluid and not knowing how much friction would be created I think it's safe to easily discount 50 or 60 lb per side from that number of 220.

I arrived at that because you should have seven or so gallons and it should weigh between 8 and 10 pounds per gallon unless they are calcium filled which would be higher.

I understand your concern for the wear on the hubs. I think most of us would agree that the hub to axle connection on a Wheelhorse could have been done in  different better ways than it was.

That said, I don't think it's that big of a concern.

I say that because even with the lighter duty hubs and 1" axles that's still a fair amount of metal to be attaching to a wheel.

 

Speaking of the strength of our axles... there are eight body bolts (7/16”-1/2”) holding the cab to the truck of a 3/4 ton truck.  Given the amount of body rot on the average rust belt truck, I’ve only witnessed one time a body pulling from a frame.  I’ve got a pretty good level of confidence in the statement that even a 1” axle is plenty for the average garden tractor.  I realize we are weighing in on the difference between pull strength and rotational strength and that has little to do with the weight on a bearing...

 

All in all, I bet a well lubricated transmission is not likely to have bearing issues for 50 or more years of maintained abuse regardless of the weight applied.

[71_Bronco 1,072]

Just something to think about, and I may be wrong, but wouldn't the teeth on the gears in the transmission give before a solid, 1" diameter axle?

 

Or perhaps the key / keyway fail before the axle?

[ebinmaine 67,309]

Just now, 71_Bronco said:

Just something to think about, and I may be wrong, but wouldn't the teeth on the gears in the transmission give before a solid, 1" diameter axle?

 

Or perhaps the key / keyway fail before the axle?

My experience over the years shows me that it depends how it has been maintained up until the point of failure. The gears in these transmissions are quite rugged to say the least.

The key  SHOULD be the first point of failure. Issue is, lots of people never check the tightness of the set screw and it ends up cutting a big groove into the hub, axle or both. 

@953 nut Richard had a rather startling experience with a broken axle.

 

[JoeM 7,871]

Since it is "thinking Thursday", after reading the comments I seem to have landed on maybe a concern that doesn't matter. The machine is solid and if operated in a decent manner the axles should hold up. 

I have scaled the tires one is 117 lbs and the other is 115.

I do like is maximum traction effort. As far as picking up a load, Currently, I can get 400 plus up on the level ground and that is plenty for me being in such close proximity to the frame work. 

I think WX got the right idea with both. 

[WHX?? 48,795]

Did you say if you are running a ballast box?? 

[squonk 41,038]

4 hours ago, ebinmaine said:

 

If anybody disagrees with what I'm about to say please quote this and correct me down below. I like to learn about the machinery that I am operating and use it to its potential without abusing it.

 

I don't think you should count the weight of the fluid towards the rotating mass. The reason for that is because the fluid is constantly moving inside the tire or tube and will offer VERY little resistance to the rubber or steel as it rotates in any given direction.

Not knowing what you're using for fluid and not knowing how much friction would be created I think it's safe to easily discount 50 or 60 lb per side from that number of 220.

I arrived at that because you should have seven or so gallons and it should weigh between 8 and 10 pounds per gallon unless they are calcium filled which would be higher.

I understand your concern for the wear on the hubs. I think most of us would agree that the hub to axle connection on a Wheelhorse could have been done in  different better ways than it was.

That said, I don't think it's that big of a concern.

I say that because even with the lighter duty hubs and 1" axles that's still a fair amount of metal to be attaching to a wheel.

 

What I have experienced with liquid ballast is with the tire not completely full the fluid is rotating. Then when say when plowing snow, you hit a snow bank and the tractor comes to a sudden stop. The fluid is still moving forward and slams into the front half of the tire and shoves the entire tractor forward a few more inches. It's the reason for a tanker endorsement needed to drive a tanker truck. Also the reason why almost every train derailment involve chemical or propane tank cars. Liquid ballast gives you more momentum.

[ebinmaine 67,309]

23 minutes ago, squonk said:

tire not completely full the fluid is rotating. Then when say when plowing snow, you hit a snow bank and the tractor comes to a sudden stop. The fluid is still moving forward and slams into the front half of the tire and shoves the entire tractor forward a few more inches. It's the reason for a tanker endorsement needed to drive a tanker truck

I can see the logic in that.

I have a tanker endorsement and I've driven one for a short time and I understand that syndrome all too well.

My own tires are loaded right up. I don't get that forced forward movement.. I'm pretty sure. I'll have to keep an eye out for that. Now you got me thinking.

 

[JoeM 7,871]

3 hours ago, WHX24 said:

Did you say if you are running a ballast box?? 

Suitcase weights

[WHX?? 48,795]

Choice Joe... suits are the way to go. I know  some the other guys use old pilate weights and that works when they got a heavy @$$ deuce blower hangin off the front.