Running a BX Without Ballast is No Joke

[japollner]

Went out to move some larger rocks that I have dug out of the driveway over the years, and got a few into the bucket that I knew were at or just below what the max lifting capacity is at stock hydraulic pressure. Yes, I know running without ballast is a dumb idea but I kept the bucket low (max 2-3") or even slid it on the ground to get these rocks moved. I was filming a video about it for the YT channel, and decided to do some testing to see just how tippy things could get (obviously without me on the tractor and with the bucket low enough to stop any rollover). With a rock in the loader, and only slight pressure on the cutting edge with my foot, I can basically pick up the rear of the tractor.

Needless to say, even with loaded rears, and without shimming the hydraulic system, we'll be adding a ballast to the rear of the tractor. Leaning towards a simple ballast box at the moment to keep it more maneuverable the the alternative we are considering which is a box blade, even though the box blade would be better for maintaining the driveway.

New operators, don't mess around. I had a pretty good feel for the tractor and knew what I was getting into since I have run it in this configuration for a few years now, but a new owner coming from a larger machine might not be in the same boat. Stay safe!

 

[B737]

Keep up the hard work man, love your channel!!

I use one of these, they used to be around $100, I think. I put 8x 40 pound suitcase weights on it, so 320 pounds, plus the ballasted tires (60 pounds?). The weights aren't cheap but they are useul. When not in use on the back, I hang them on the front of the frame when I take the loader off to brush hog or use the leaf blower, you can fit 5 on the front.

if you dont paint them Kubota Gray they dont work as good.

 

[freewheel3]

Keep up the hard work man, love your channel!!

I use one of these, they used to be around $100, I think. I put 8x 40 pound suitcase weights on it, so 320 pounds, plus the ballasted tires (60 pounds?). The weights aren't cheap but they are useul. When not in use on the back, I hang them on the front of the frame when I take the loader off to brush hog or use the leaf blower, you can fit 5 on the front.

if you dont paint them Kubota Gray they dont work as good.

Or orange. That 320# plus another 80#s between the weight box and the 3pt adapter makes a big difference in stability when doing loader work. I like how it is a compact weight down low, in the center of the tractor as opposed to a blade, box or mower hanging back there.

 

[B737]

haha! i like them in orange!

 

[leveraddict]

Not using ballast also stresses the front axle and you could cause costly damage!

 

[michigander]

There is some ballast while operator is on the seat looks to be 100 lbs. +/-

huge help when thinking about it the 100 lbs. +/- is right on rear axle.

 

[B737]

my ballast only gets larger as i age lol

 

[japollner]

There is some ballast while operator is on the seat looks to be 100 lbs. +/-

huge help when thinking about it the 100 lbs. +/- is right on rear axle.

Haha! You're being too kind with that 100lb guestimate!

 

[NHSleddog]

Not using ballast also stresses the front axle and you could cause costly damage!

I always wondered about this. The math guy in me says no way, ballast would cause more stress until it was overloaded the other way. Regardless, I am a huge fan of ballast.

Put 1500lbs in the bucket, rear tires lift off ground. Weigh force on front axle.
Add 250lbs of ballast on the 3 point, rear tires still lift off the ground, front axle now has a lot more weight on it than it did with no ballast.
Add 500 lbs, the rear tires no longer lift off the ground (just teeter), the front axle has even more force on it when lifting the same 1500lbs.
Add 750lbs and it sits solid. What would the weight on the front axle be in each scenario?

The weights don't really matter to the fulcrum aside from the force they apply. Think of a see-saw. The loader center-point/mount will change how the load is applied and will vary by model some.

Driving along, weight behind the rear axle will take some weight from the front axle and add it to the rear axle but lifting in general, weight is weight, add more weight to the tractor, more force is adding to everything for the most part.

 

[freewheel3]

I always wondered about this. The math guy in me says no way, ballast would cause more stress until it was overloaded the other way. Regardless, I am a huge fan of ballast.

Put 1500lbs in the bucket, rear tires lift off ground. Weigh force on front axle.
Add 250lbs of ballast on the 3 point, rear tires still lift off the ground, front axle now has a lot more weight on it than it did with no ballast.
Add 500 lbs, the rear tires no longer lift off the ground (just teeter), the front axle has even more force on it when lifting the same 1500lbs.
Add 750lbs and it sits solid. What would the weight on the front axle be in each scenario?

The weights don't really matter to the fulcrum aside from the force they apply. Think of a see-saw. The loader center-point/mount will change how the load is applied and will vary by model some.

Driving along, weight behind the rear axle will take some weight from the front axle and add it to the rear axle but lifting in general, weight is weight, add more weight to the tractor, more force is adding to everything for the most part.

You are correct up until you reach the max recommended rear ballast. But you are still within the design limitations. If you have the max recommended ballast, and the rear wheels still come off the ground, then you are exceeding the design limitations of the unit.
Bottom line is the more weight behind the rear axle, the less on the front axle as long as all 4 tires are on the ground.

 

[japollner]

You are correct up until you reach the max recommended rear ballast. But you are still within the design limitations. If you have the max recommended ballast, and the rear wheels still come off the ground, then you are exceeding the design limitations of the unit.
Bottom line is the more weight behind the rear axle, the less on the front axle as long as all 4 tires are on the ground.

That’s why I am guessing the ballast bucket for the BX recommends 350lbs, to keep from overloading the front seals.

 

[Henro]

I always wondered about this. The math guy in me says no way, ballast would cause more stress until it was overloaded the other way. Regardless, I am a huge fan of ballast.

Put 1500lbs in the bucket, rear tires lift off ground. Weigh force on front axle.
Add 250lbs of ballast on the 3 point, rear tires still lift off the ground, front axle now has a lot more weight on it than it did with no ballast.
Add 500 lbs, the rear tires no longer lift off the ground (just teeter), the front axle has even more force on it when lifting the same 1500lbs.
Add 750lbs and it sits solid. What would the weight on the front axle be in each scenario?

The weights don't really matter to the fulcrum aside from the force they apply. Think of a see-saw. The loader center-point/mount will change how the load is applied and will vary by model some.

Driving along, weight behind the rear axle will take some weight from the front axle and add it to the rear axle but lifting in general, weight is weight, add more weight to the tractor, more force is adding to everything for the most part.

Well first off, put 1500 pounds in a BX bucket and the bucket sits on the ground and never moves. If the rear tires lift, then there is added down force on the front axle granted, but the weight in the bucket is not part of that calculation.

If you have enough rear ballast to keep the rear tires from lifting off the ground, the stress felt on the front axle will be limited by hydraulic power/weight of everything behind the front axle, countered by the weight of everything behind the rear axle.

Weight on the 3PH offsets the weight of the loader on the front axle, until the rear tires lift off the ground. So more is usually better.

I think this is what you are saying in your first paragraph.

The weakness in your logic is that you picked an unrealistic number for what a BX loader can lift. Seems to me anyway...

 

[NHSleddog]

The weakness in your logic is that you picked an unrealistic number for what a BX loader can lift. Seems to me anyway...

I wasn't referring to a BX, I was referring to tractors in general. There was no weakness in the logic. Until the rear wheels are firmly planted on the ground all the weight added behind the fulcrum will ADD force to the front axle.

 

[Henro]

I wasn't referring to a BX, I was referring to tractors in general. There was no weakness in the logic. Until the rear wheels are firmly planted on the ground all the weight added behind the fulcrum will ADD force to the front axle.

Well the tread is about BX tractors

A properly ballasted tractor will not generally not lift its rear wheels off the ground.

There can be no argument that if the tractor is teetering on the front axle the weight of everything is carried by the front axle in that point in time. This can happen when transporting a heavy load in the loader, if even ballasting is optimal, for a couple reasons.

Since normally all four tractor wheels are planted firmly on the ground, it may be clearer to say “If the rear wheels leave the ground, the weight of everything is carried by the front axle.” (At least until the loader hits the ground...)

I think Freewheel3 summed things up pretty well. If your rear wheels are coming off the ground you ain’t doin’ something right. Either insufficient ballast or exceeding the operating limits of the equipment.

 

[armylifer]

That’s why I am guessing the ballast bucket for the BX recommends 350lbs, to keep from overloading the front seals.

I think you meant to say bearings. The seals do not bear any weight.

 

[dirtydeed]

I happened to see your video last night about the things that you dislike about the BX. One of your issues was with the ROPS pins. You stated that you cannot get the pins back in after you raise the rops back up.

I noticed that you didn't adjust the tension on the thumb knobs that are located on the front edge of the ROPS. You should only need to loosen them a turn or two to get the pins to slide in. Then, crank them down again to keep the ROPS from rattling.

Try it. Then edit your video. Maybe you can make the hydro fan item number 5?

 

[japollner]

I happened to see your video last night about the things that you dislike about the BX. One of your issues was with the ROPS pins. You stated that you cannot get the pins back in after you raise the rops back up.

I noticed that you didn't adjust the tension on the thumb knobs that are located on the front edge of the ROPS. You should only need to loosen them a turn or two to get the pins to slide in. Then, crank them down again to keep the ROPS from rattling.

Try it. Then edit your video. Maybe you can make the hydro fan item number 5?

The misalignment on the ROPS in the the vertical axis, not horizontal. Tightening or loosening the adjusters has no effect on it.

 

[skeets]

OK boys lets get to the meat of the issue he hasnt figured out it is a LITTLE tractor not a freekin 988. Use it as it was desigined and the little beasty will do wonderful things, dont and the bitch will bite you

 

[B737]

edited