I have an L4330 with fluid filled rear tires. Does this help, hinder or have no impact when crossing a moderate flowing river about 2' plus deep? I also have a FEL and bush hog attached. River usually is 8" to 12" deep and never a problem.
Fluid filled tires and water crossing.
- Thread starter p t farmer
- Start date
PHPaul
Well-known member
Equipment
B2650, Pronovost snow blower, Landpride rotary mower, Howard tiller, box blade
Assuming a solid (gravel or bedrock) bottom on the river, the weight of the filled tires may help keep the current from shoving the tractor downstream.
Doesn't seem like it'd make a lot of difference tho. If you were able to safely cross with out them, adding them will likely not make the process noticeably different.
Doesn't seem like it'd make a lot of difference tho. If you were able to safely cross with out them, adding them will likely not make the process noticeably different.
CaveCreekRay
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
L3800 HST, KingKutter box scraper, KingKutter 66" rake, County Pride Subsoiler
With a filled "tar," you won't have the buoyancy of the air-filled part below the waterline and you will have the weight of the filled tire above the waterline to help you. But I would stay out of anything "moving" that's deeper than 6"!!! Everything is fine until you are totally screwed. No way to know until it happens.
Out here in AZ, we see reports of cars washed away in as little as 12-18" of fast moving water. I remember reading somewhere that a wave crashing on a beach has a impact force of over a ton per square foot. A tractor presents a lot of sidewall to rushing water and you could find your tractor turn into a boat in a hurry! And, unlike a car, where the center of gravity is pretty low, your tractor has a much higher CG. Get into deeper water and it will capsize or roll on you.
Stay away from fast-moving water! Even though it "was" a few inches deep last time, fast moving water can scour potholes downstream from rocks and debris. Drive into one of those and you are a goner.
Ray
Out here in AZ, we see reports of cars washed away in as little as 12-18" of fast moving water. I remember reading somewhere that a wave crashing on a beach has a impact force of over a ton per square foot. A tractor presents a lot of sidewall to rushing water and you could find your tractor turn into a boat in a hurry! And, unlike a car, where the center of gravity is pretty low, your tractor has a much higher CG. Get into deeper water and it will capsize or roll on you.
Stay away from fast-moving water! Even though it "was" a few inches deep last time, fast moving water can scour potholes downstream from rocks and debris. Drive into one of those and you are a goner.
Ray
85Hokie
Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
BX-25D ,PTB. Under Armor, '90&'92-B7100HST's, '06 BX1850 FEL
Pure and simple - weight is WEIGHT, and weight, when it comes to gaining traction is simple - the more the better!
two feet deep? that might not be a good thing......can water get into any place that it typically cannot? Axles? Bearing? Hubs? Bottom of block?
Looking at pictures of your tractor - the engine will dip in the stream too! AS well as the radiator fan!
I would not want to cross that river, unless something on the other side needed my immediate attention!
hitechredneck
New member
Equipment
L2501, Land Pride Rotary Cutter, Woods tiller, FEL, Dirt Dog box scraper
Flowing water is nothing to mess with.
I watched a man drown trying to take his car through a low water crossing with about a foot of water in it. His car stalled, and he couldn't get the door open due to the force of the water against it. He tried to climb out the window, and the car tipped on its side when he was about halfway out. He got pinned underneath.
Sent from my XT1097 using Tapatalk
85Hoikie has it right.
This quote from Cave Creek makes no sense:
"With a filled "tar," you won't have the buoyancy of the air-filled part below the waterline and you will have the weight of the filled tire above the waterline to help you."
This quote from Cave Creek makes no sense:
"With a filled "tar," you won't have the buoyancy of the air-filled part below the waterline and you will have the weight of the filled tire above the waterline to help you."
CaveCreekRay
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
L3800 HST, KingKutter box scraper, KingKutter 66" rake, County Pride Subsoiler
Evidently I got some 'splaining to do.
Picture a mounted "weight filled" tractor tire sitting in 2 feet of water.
The part below the water line is filled with water. Water in water is neutral buoyancy. The part below the water will present no buoyancy like an air filled tire would. The rubber in the tire is denser that water and actually offers a miniscule amount of weight to the overall tire below the water. (Flotation is a function of water displacement. Water displacing water results in zero buoyancy. This is why an empty ship floats. Fill it with water and the buoyancy is zero so it sinks.)
The part of the tire above the water line is filled with water. That water provides additional weight. If it were filled with air, it would provide no additional weight to the tire. The rubber above the water offers roughly half the weigh of an empty tire to the lower half.
That make more sense?
The point of this whole description is to point out that even filled tires won't offer much weight advantage in water. The scary part is the per square foot pressure on the sidewall of the larger rear tires. Your average rear tractor tire submerged in two feet of water presents more than a square foot of area to the rushing water. Using the number I mentioned regarding wave energy, each square foot of exposed surface gets slammed with a ton of pressure. Two tires equals two tons of sideways loading on a tractor. As the above illustration demonstrates, the machine is lighter than it would be standing on dry ground. The side loading on the machine is well over 2/3 the weight of the machine. It's a ticket for disaster.
Ray
Picture a mounted "weight filled" tractor tire sitting in 2 feet of water.
The part below the water line is filled with water. Water in water is neutral buoyancy. The part below the water will present no buoyancy like an air filled tire would. The rubber in the tire is denser that water and actually offers a miniscule amount of weight to the overall tire below the water. (Flotation is a function of water displacement. Water displacing water results in zero buoyancy. This is why an empty ship floats. Fill it with water and the buoyancy is zero so it sinks.)
The part of the tire above the water line is filled with water. That water provides additional weight. If it were filled with air, it would provide no additional weight to the tire. The rubber above the water offers roughly half the weigh of an empty tire to the lower half.
That make more sense?
The point of this whole description is to point out that even filled tires won't offer much weight advantage in water. The scary part is the per square foot pressure on the sidewall of the larger rear tires. Your average rear tractor tire submerged in two feet of water presents more than a square foot of area to the rushing water. Using the number I mentioned regarding wave energy, each square foot of exposed surface gets slammed with a ton of pressure. Two tires equals two tons of sideways loading on a tractor. As the above illustration demonstrates, the machine is lighter than it would be standing on dry ground. The side loading on the machine is well over 2/3 the weight of the machine. It's a ticket for disaster.
Ray
Last edited:
That picture reminds me of the outlaw jose wales, LOLbetter get one of these
https://youtu.be/t-KEnU9TBmQ
I wouldn't cross a 2' deep river unless I knew it had a gravel bottom, and was clear enough to see it...
85Hokie
Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
BX-25D ,PTB. Under Armor, '90&'92-B7100HST's, '06 BX1850 FEL
that there is a Missur'a boat ride .....gotcha be a bitch when it hits rocks!
one of the best movies, of all time. Actually Clint Eastwood's favorite.
one of the best movies, of all time. Actually Clint Eastwood's favorite.
coachgeo
Well-known member
Equipment
L225 w/woods Few Mowers & Back Blade, D722 in Motorcycle (Triumph Tiger), LMTV
Lot of great info..... but maybe a little overkill since he apparently has traversed this river with out issue prior to filling the tires. thus it appears to me after reading everything... it appears it will not hurt if you have been traversing the river without much issue already and it may help some ontop of that.
Too add to the overkill though
seems to me If the water's flow did want to begin to tilt the tractor WITH filled tires....... as the tractor begun to lift one side, the portion of the filled tire that now rises out of the water once again adds weight on that side and helps prevent it from toppling over.
Last edited:
CaveCreekRay
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
L3800 HST, KingKutter box scraper, KingKutter 66" rake, County Pride Subsoiler
Made me think of Ole Josie when 1st saw the old photo. I agree "good movie" that most new western movies aren'tThat picture reminds me of the outlaw jose wales, LOL
https://youtu.be/t-KEnU9TBmQ
I wouldn't cross a 2' deep river unless I knew it had a gravel bottom, and was clear enough to see it...
OK Cave Creek here is a question. Take a quart sized chunk of concrete and weigh it in air with a spring scale via a wire tied to it.. Record that. The take that chunk of concrete and the scale and hold it in a bucket filled with water and measure the weight. If it weighs the same, your logic may be right. However, that concrete is buoyed up by the weight of water it displaces.
Let's say that concrete chunk is one cubic foot and weighs 150 pounds. Try it under water and it only weighs 150-62.4 = 87.6 The result of buoyancy. If you don't believe this, try it to check.
Same goes for that filled tire by the volume of water it displaces when it comes to the effect of gravity from the whole tractor.
Let's say that concrete chunk is one cubic foot and weighs 150 pounds. Try it under water and it only weighs 150-62.4 = 87.6 The result of buoyancy. If you don't believe this, try it to check.
Same goes for that filled tire by the volume of water it displaces when it comes to the effect of gravity from the whole tractor.
Archimedes was a pretty smart guy
http://chemistry.about.com/b/2007/08/05/how-to-measure-volume-density-a-tale-of-archimedes.htm
http://chemistry.about.com/b/2007/08/05/how-to-measure-volume-density-a-tale-of-archimedes.htm
Hey Skeets, I come here tonight to read something and relax after the Royals got their plow cleaned in NY....and you give a pop quiz! I'm going to bed.
CaveCreekRay
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
L3800 HST, KingKutter box scraper, KingKutter 66" rake, County Pride Subsoiler
You are correct about the concrete in water question: It weighs less underwater because of the displacement of the water. The density of concrete and water are different, right? Does that chunk of concrete float or sink in water? If it sinks, then its density is higher than the water. If you form that concrete in the shape of a concrete liberty ship, then it most certainly floats because its relative density decreases and it displaces water.
The density of a tire filled with water is identical to the water outside the tire (in the stream) with the slight exception of the rubbery tire bits. I never see floating tires so I assume their density is higher than water, therefore they sink. So, if you filled a tire fully in water, like throwing one in a river with no air bubbles inside, it would sink to the bottom.
You said, "Same goes for that filled tire by the volume of water it displaces when it comes to the effect of gravity from the whole tractor. "
This would require water to be less dense because its displacing other water. Water is water (in-compressible and therefore impossible to change its density) - all the same density so water in water is buoyancy neutral.
Water displacement offsets gravity so when the tractors air-filled tires submerge, the weight of the tractor is less as measured by the bottom of the river bed. The original question was "would water-filled tires help weight down the tractor for the river crossing" and the answer is "not as much as you would think because the portion of the tire below the water is almost net zero and the only additional weight would be the water inside the tire above the waterline."
My overall concern is the side loading offered by the water movement upon the front and rear tires submerged in the water. This pressure could upset the machine rather easily in two feet of water. Using your example with the concrete, the more submerged the vehicle is, the less it "weighs" due to displacement. Get an already light vehicle deep in water with a heavy side current and the machine can get swept away. We see this all the time here during monsoon season.
Example: Our little town has two major wash crossings that have no bridge. One bright individual decided all we needed was a heavy rescue truck to drive across these flooded washes. They bought a surplus MRAP and converted it into a rescue vehicle. It weighs like 10 tons and the engineers said it was good up to 2 feet of water and not an inch more because it might become unstable and get washed away if the current was fast enough. The vehicle has sat for four years because no one has the cajones to drive it across a fast flowing wash. I ain't gonna volunteer.
The density of a tire filled with water is identical to the water outside the tire (in the stream) with the slight exception of the rubbery tire bits. I never see floating tires so I assume their density is higher than water, therefore they sink. So, if you filled a tire fully in water, like throwing one in a river with no air bubbles inside, it would sink to the bottom.
You said, "Same goes for that filled tire by the volume of water it displaces when it comes to the effect of gravity from the whole tractor. "
This would require water to be less dense because its displacing other water. Water is water (in-compressible and therefore impossible to change its density) - all the same density so water in water is buoyancy neutral.
Water displacement offsets gravity so when the tractors air-filled tires submerge, the weight of the tractor is less as measured by the bottom of the river bed. The original question was "would water-filled tires help weight down the tractor for the river crossing" and the answer is "not as much as you would think because the portion of the tire below the water is almost net zero and the only additional weight would be the water inside the tire above the waterline."
My overall concern is the side loading offered by the water movement upon the front and rear tires submerged in the water. This pressure could upset the machine rather easily in two feet of water. Using your example with the concrete, the more submerged the vehicle is, the less it "weighs" due to displacement. Get an already light vehicle deep in water with a heavy side current and the machine can get swept away. We see this all the time here during monsoon season.
Example: Our little town has two major wash crossings that have no bridge. One bright individual decided all we needed was a heavy rescue truck to drive across these flooded washes. They bought a surplus MRAP and converted it into a rescue vehicle. It weighs like 10 tons and the engineers said it was good up to 2 feet of water and not an inch more because it might become unstable and get washed away if the current was fast enough. The vehicle has sat for four years because no one has the cajones to drive it across a fast flowing wash. I ain't gonna volunteer.
OK Cave Creek: Now here is another question. Suppose none of the tires have any fluid, just air, but there are steel weights on front and some on back all equal in weight to what liquid might be needed to fill all tires. I suppose due to only air in the tires they will now float and cause sideways motion that would not happen if tires were full if I get your reasoning right. Your comment?
I'll make it a little more complicated. Same case of only air in tires but comparing to effect of tires filled only enough to reach the height of water outside the tires.
But now the steel weights equal the weight of that fluid that otherwise is present in this comparison, where only air is in tires.
I'm substituting weights hanging on tractor for the weight that might be in the partly filled tires case.
But now the steel weights equal the weight of that fluid that otherwise is present in this comparison, where only air is in tires.
I'm substituting weights hanging on tractor for the weight that might be in the partly filled tires case.