L4802 limited to 3 wheel weights?

[Tonka]

Why would the L4802 be limited to 3 - 62lb wheel weights per wheel?
With longer hardware would it be OK to put 4 weights per wheel?

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

Why would the L4802 be limited to 3 - 62lb wheel weights per wheel?
With longer hardware would it be OK to put 4 weights per wheel?

Why do you need so much weight?
And pushing weights out outside the limits of what the Manufacturer recommends can lead to some serious failures.

 

[GrumpyFarmer]

Find some ballast for the 3pt or hire a better cook..

 

[GreensvilleJay]

why ?
One possible reason is the rims will not take the added stress. I've got 4 rear rims with fractures from the square weight mounting holes. Consensus is the bolts got a wee bit loose and years of use the weights moved back and forth, up and down, and oopsy....
FWIW Have also seen 3 front rims destroyed due to loader use. Some front rims are reinforced for loader use( yeah, check the fine print....)

 

[Tonka]

Why do you need so much weight?
And pushing weights out outside the limits of what the Manufacturer recommends can lead to some serious failures.

Just considering if I want to ballast the wheels with fluid @ 57 gallons per wheel. Or wheel weights. 3 wheel weights @ 60lbs each for 180 lbs is no where near close to 57 gallons of fluid per wheel. Just thought it seemed odd that wheel weights were not even remotely close to the weight of fluid.

 

[Tonka]

Find some ballast for the 3pt or hire a better cook..

850 lb box blade. Need weight on the wheels for traction.

 

[Tonka]

why ?
One possible reason is the rims will not take the added stress. I've got 4 rear rims with fractures from the square weight mounting holes. Consensus is the bolts got a wee bit loose and years of use the weights moved back and forth, up and down, and oopsy....
FWIW Have also seen 3 front rims destroyed due to loader use. Some front rims are reinforced for loader use( yeah, check the fine print....)

Just seemed odd that the wheels can take 57 gallons of fluid each but can only handle 3 wheel weights at 60 lbs each.

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

Just seemed odd that the wheels can take 57 gallons of fluid each but can only handle 3 wheel weights at 60 lbs each.

It's just the way the weight transfer to the tractor changes.
Wheel weight put all the weight to the outside thus pushes down on the axle and up on the bearings.
Where in tire weight is a lot less force on the axle and bearings.

Take a weight and put it on your finger where your ring goes, then move that same weight to the end of your finger, it's a lot of leverage and force.

 

[OntheRidge]

Curious what size tires you have that require 57 gallons?

 

[NCL4701]

850 lb box blade. Need weight on the wheels for traction.

If you’re looking for traction, max liquid ballast (75% / level of valve stem when at 12 o’clock) and tire pressure around 15psi (more bars in the dirt = more traction) in rears. Some run lower pressure but at 15psi in R4’s I’m getting good traction without rims spinning in tires or popping off bead with side pressure.

Dealer delivered mine with 32psi in loaded rears. Rode like it was on steel wheels and traction was disappointing to put it mildly. Sidewall flex was negligible. Dropping to 15psi made a world of difference. Fronts on mine are still at max pressure per mfg stamp on sidewall due to loader use. That and the term “front wheel assist” is quite accurate. The vast majority of pulling power is coming from the big wheels on the back, not the little ones on the front.

Rear ballast (such as that 850lb boxblade) is important, but it’s not a substitute for wheel weights/liquid ballast, same as liquid ballast/wheel weights aren’t a substitute for rear ballast. Weight on the 3 point will transfer weight from the front axle to the rear axle, which can be important for loader work. Wheel weights and liquid ballast won’t do that, but they’ll do a better job of increasing traction and stability, particularly if coupled with appropriately adjusted air pressure. Partly because ground engaging implements generally don’t add weight to the rear when they’re engaging the ground. That 850lb boxblade isn’t adding any weight to the rear wheels when you drop it in the dirt, and that’s when you need extra weight to pull it, so you need ballast on/in the wheels to do that.

As you pointed out, the weight added by wheel weights is quite puny compared to liquid ballast if you’re going either/or rather than both.

Some don’t run liquid ballast and that’s fine. There’s no reason to use corrosive liquid unless you choose to (don’t know why you would). If your usage doesn’t require draft work (you’re mowing, blowing snow, etc.) extra weight may be useless or undesirable. If you need traction for pulling at or near the tractor’s capacity, you need weight; more weight than you can get with wheel weights alone.

 

[Tonka]

If you’re looking for traction, max liquid ballast (75% / level of valve stem when at 12 o’clock) and tire pressure around 15psi (more bars in the dirt = more traction) in rears. Some run lower pressure but at 15psi in R4’s I’m getting good traction without rims spinning in tires or popping off bead with side pressure.

Dealer delivered mine with 32psi in loaded rears. Rode like it was on steel wheels and traction was disappointing to put it mildly. Sidewall flex was negligible. Dropping to 15psi made a world of difference. Fronts on mine are still at max pressure per mfg stamp on sidewall due to loader use. That and the term “front wheel assist” is quite accurate. The vast majority of pulling power is coming from the big wheels on the back, not the little ones on the front.

Rear ballast (such as that 850lb boxblade) is important, but it’s not a substitute for wheel weights/liquid ballast, same as liquid ballast/wheel weights aren’t a substitute for rear ballast. Weight on the 3 point will transfer weight from the front axle to the rear axle, which can be important for loader work. Wheel weights and liquid ballast won’t do that, but they’ll do a better job of increasing traction and stability, particularly if coupled with appropriately adjusted air pressure. Partly because ground engaging implements generally don’t add weight to the rear when they’re engaging the ground. That 850lb boxblade isn’t adding any weight to the rear wheels when you drop it in the dirt, and that’s when you need extra weight to pull it, so you need ballast on/in the wheels to do that.

As you pointed out, the weight added by wheel weights is quite puny compared to liquid ballast if you’re going either/or rather than both.

Some don’t run liquid ballast and that’s fine. There’s no reason to use corrosive liquid unless you choose to (don’t know why you would). If your usage doesn’t require draft work (you’re mowing, blowing snow, etc.) extra weight may be useless or undesirable. If you need traction for pulling at or near the tractor’s capacity, you need weight; more weight than you can get with wheel weights alone.

That's how I filled the tires on the 2502 - valve stem at 12 and run 15 psi. Rear, 3 point ballast, is for taking weight off the front axle for loader work. Traction comes from weight on or in the wheels. When the box blade is dropped weight is needed on/in the wheels for traction.

 

[Tonka]

Curious what size tires you have that require 57 gallons?

17.5-24. According to Rim Guard's tire fill chart take 57 gallons.

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

17.5-24. According to Rim Guard's tire fill chart take 57 gallons.

When you reply to posts make sure you type outside the Quotes.

 

[Tonka]

Update - been using the loader and 84" box blade, BB3584, without any liquid ballast in the wheels or wheel weights. Figured I'd use it a little bit without any ballasting other than the box blade to use as a baseline and decide what I needed from there. It actually is doing really well. Of course for loader work with 850 lbs hanging off the back I have good traction and stability. And I was surprised at how well it did using the box blade without ballast in or on the wheels. I'm actually leaning towards just adding the wheel weights and not filling the tires. I can easily fill the wheels myself. I've had other tractors where I've filled the wheels because they desperately needed it. But this L4802 with R4's is actually doing pretty good. Might just add the wheel weights.

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

Update - been using the loader and 84" box blade, BB3584, without any liquid ballast in the wheels or wheel weights. Figured I'd use it a little bit without any ballasting other than the box blade to use as a baseline and decide what I needed from there. It actually is doing really well. Of course for loader work with 850 lbs hanging off the back I have good traction and stability. And I was surprised at how well it did using the box blade without ballast in or on the wheels. I'm actually leaning towards just adding the wheel weights and not filling the tires. I can easily fill the wheels myself. I've had other tractors where I've filled the wheels because they desperately needed it. But this L4802 with R4's is actually doing pretty good. Might just add the wheel weights.

Most do the opposite and fill the wheels and not add weights, but do what works for you.

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

FYI those are not R4's on that tractor, they are R14's huge traction difference.

 

[jyoutz]

Update - been using the loader and 84" box blade, BB3584, without any liquid ballast in the wheels or wheel weights. Figured I'd use it a little bit without any ballasting other than the box blade to use as a baseline and decide what I needed from there. It actually is doing really well. Of course for loader work with 850 lbs hanging off the back I have good traction and stability. And I was surprised at how well it did using the box blade without ballast in or on the wheels. I'm actually leaning towards just adding the wheel weights and not filling the tires. I can easily fill the wheels myself. I've had other tractors where I've filled the wheels because they desperately needed it. But this L4802 with R4's is actually doing pretty good. Might just add the wheel weights.

A heavy implement works well for ballast in most cases, but when lifting close to maximum capacity filled and/or weighted wheels are necessary. At least if you don’t want to experience butt pucker.