BX owners, chime in

[GrumpyFarmer]

You mean like this?

View attachment 160035

Oh my…I am really torn between party foul / misuse of of liquid courage dispenser and absolutely love the re purpose…first time I have run in to this situation but I think we need a split emoji for that solution.

(honestly I think that is a brilliant solution)

 

[RCW]

You mean like this?

View attachment 160035

Oh my…I am really torn between party foul / misuse of of liquid courage dispenser and absolutely love the re purpose…first time I have run in to this situation but I think we need a split emoji for that solution.

(honestly I think that is a brilliant solution)

That's awesome @armylifer!

Like @GrumpyFarmer, I'm a little torn on the re-purpose......

Many years ago, I ran a Catering/Clambake/Company Picnic, etc. business.

There were times I had the box of my little Ranger pickup full of those......don't recall exactly, but think I could fit 10 or so at 15.5 gallons each?!?!

It was really overloaded .......(no pun intended.....)

 

[Speed25]

For some reason I have an overabundance of automotive brake rotors laying around. I can actually fill up my ballast box to the top which would be about 700 lbs. if I choose to do so. They’re also good to practice welding on.

View attachment 160032

I keep meaning to take old rotors to the recycling place, but using them for ballast is a great idea.

My biggest concern is running the weight low so the center of gravity is low so I don't roll it on hills.

It's not always "how much" but also "how far back" is the weight. The weight box is "somewhat close" compared to the flail mower, but the chipper is "way out there."

Less is sometimes more, running the chipper out back with 4" of wheel spacers per side likely puts a bunch of stress on the rear axle bearings, so I try to be "reasonable." Try, anyway.

That's a big reason I keep the mower deck on when possible. The BX is notably more stable with it under there when the loader and backhoe are one. I figure that 60" width below has also gotta act like training wheels on a bike and keep me right side up if I start going over. Might bend some mower links, but better than a tractor on its side.

 

[RCW]

I keep meaning to take old rotors to the recycling place, but using them for ballast is a great idea.



That's a big reason I keep the mower deck on when possible. The BX is notably more stable with it under there when the loader and backhoe are one. I figure that 60" width below has also gotta act like training wheels on a bike and keep me right side up if I start going over. Might bend some mower links, but better than a tractor on its side.

I think a 60" MMM is almost 300#, and of course very low to the ground.

Does help a lot......

 

[shelkol]

You mean like this?

View attachment 160035

Yes, but you have to run a hose up from it so they think you're drinking lol

 

[Shawn T. W]

My back tires are filled, and 2wheel weights 75 pounds each, I use the old gal for more than it was ever meant for and I never needed any more than that

If you (anybody) are using a loader, you really should have rear ballast on the three point, if you want your front axle to stay happy ...

Not picking on you, it's a very common misunderstanding that filled tires or wheel weights are appropriate rear counter balance for loader use ... Just because the rear tires don't lift off the ground, doesn't mean that the front axle is not overloaded.

Filed tires and wheel weights are excellent for increasing traction, and help lower the center of gravity.

Here is a 11 minute video using scales that show what I'm trying to say ...

If you don't want, or can't watch the video, here is a screenshot of the results ... He admits that he doesn't have enough rear ballast, but most importantly if you look at the front axle weights, it's showing a lot of weight up there, and filled tires aren't helping in that respect! (But 3pt ballast does)

While keeping weight close to the tractor is nice and handy for tight maneuvering, the closer it is, the more it needs to be, to be equal to weight farther out ... The weight plates on the bar, and beer keg has the weight "at the pins" of the hitch ... Where as that same amount of weight farther back such as in a standard ballast box would be more effective, or less weight needed in the box ...

My 5' wide brush hog weighs 518.4 Lbs, but is 8' long, hanging off the back of my Quick Hitch that pushes it out even farther ... Where as my BH weighs 651.0 Lbs, but is mounted closer to the rear of the tractor ... While operating with the brush hog, the front steering is "light" but not with the BH on ... So I add rocks to the bucket when brush hogging.

I believe that not enough rear ballast while using the loader, is the primary cause of leaking front axles, and other failures ...

 

[skeets]

Explain to me how not having loaded rear tires wheel weights or a weight box is going to do more damage to the front axel than having the rear end loaded up. I mean other than the rear end coming off the ground when you over load the bucket or try to push it past safe working load

 

[bucktail]

Explain to me how not having loaded rear tires wheel weights or a weight box is going to do more damage to the front axel than having the rear end loaded up. I mean other than the rear end coming off the ground when you over load the bucket or try to push it past safe working load

Think of your tractor as an overengineered teeter totter with 2 pivot points instead of 1. The front axle is 1 pivot point and the rear is the other. Weight between the axles is distributed between both axles proportionally to its relative distance to a given axle. Weight in front of the front axle or behind the back axle creates torque which takes load from the farther axle and adds it to the closer axle.
When you apply weight centered over either axle it doesn't exert torque to that axle because torque is force times distance and there is no distance.

 

[skeets]

The front axel is nothing more than a pivot point, so if there is no weight in the rear the rear raises up, and there is no real weight on the front axel just pivots like a see saw. Now load the ass end up and all the weight in the bucket is transferred to the front axel, and that is when ware and tear happens

 

[Shawn T. W]

The front axel is nothing more than a pivot point, so if there is no weight in the rear the rear raises up, and there is no real weight on the front axel just pivots like a see saw

No, then the entire weight of the tractor and load is on the front axle, until the load hits the ground, then probably only most of the tractor weight is on the front axle

Now load the ass end up and all the weight in the bucket is transferred to the front axel, and that is when ware and tear happens

That's not how it works, look at the picture I posted with the scale weights.

 

[Russell King]

The front axel is nothing more than a pivot point, so if there is no weight in the rear the rear raises up, and there is no real weight on the front axel just pivots like a see saw. Now load the ass end up and all the weight in the bucket is transferred to the front axel, and that is when ware and tear happens

Where is the weight of the FEL load and the tractor supported if the rear wheels are off the ground? If the FEL load is great enough, of course the FEL will come into contact with the ground. But if the load and the tractor center of gravities are perfectly balanced to each other, the tractor would be able to be in a hand stand and all the weight would be on the front axle.

 

[torch]

But if the load and the tractor center of gravities are perfectly balanced to each other, the tractor would be able to be in a hand stand and all the weight would be on the front axle.

It gets worse. All that weight is now on the axle that pivots from side to side. Unless the tractor somehow magically stays balanced laterally, the whole thing will lean sideways and quite possibly tip over.

 

[Shawn T. W]

While I don't have a loader on my Kubota ... I do on my Massey Ferguson and it states similar to what the Kubota loader manual does, that you need rear three point ballast to use the loader, why in the world the majority of salesmen don't bother to instruct and encourage purchase and use of rear ballast is beyond me! If they would sit down for an hour and read the stinking manual, they would be able to help a lot of purchasers, and sell more ballast boxes!

On another forum there was a guy complaining about having to rebuild his neighbors Kubota's front end for the THIRD time who only had rear tires filled ... So I down loaded the Kubota manual for it, and read it!

Have a look ...

Note -It doesn't say "and/or" ...

Unfortunately I've never seen a manual list a specific weight for rear ballast ... But they do list the weight of a backhoe here ... Seems like it's not "too much" and for me it's a good starting point ...

Note how all this pictures of USING the loader show a rear ballast box?

 

[torch]

Unfortunately I've never seen a manual list a specific weight for rear ballast ... But they do list the weight of a backhoe here ... Seems like it's not "too much" and for me it's a good starting point ...

It's all about leverage more than specific weight.

Let us say that a particular tractor has a 5' wheelbase and that the loader CoG is 3' in front of the front axle (so 8' in front of the rear axle). And let us say that the CoG of that tractor's particular ballast is 4' behind the rear axle. That's a 2:1 ratio. Lifting 500lbs in the bucket requires 1,000lbs in the ballast box to maintain the proportionate weight distribution.

Of course, real-world use means the bucket is empty much of the time. Too much weight out back and the tractor will be doing backflips going up a hill with an empty bucket. A reasonable compromise is to find the balance such that the absolute values of increased weight on the front axle when full vs decreased weight when empty are equal. In the above example with a 2:1 leverage the calculation is easy: Required ballast box load = loader weight capacity.

Loaded tires do not have any leverage, but they are a great way to lower the CoG, unlike a ballast box. So loading tires helps counteract the rise in CoG that results when lifting a load with the FEL/Forks/Grapple/etc. But don't add that weight to the ballast box requirement, it should be in addition to.

 

[Shawn T. W]

It's all about leverage more than specific weight.

Yeah, I understand ... That's why I wrote :

My 5' wide brush hog weighs 518.4 Lbs, but is 8' long, hanging off the back of my Quick Hitch that pushes it out even farther ... Where as my BH weighs 651.0 Lbs, but is mounted closer to the rear of the tractor ... While operating with the brush hog, the front steering is "light" but not with the BH on ... So I add rocks to the bucket when brush hogging.

 

[BX25D Rookie]

IMG_20230920_164800040_HDR by cee_Kamp 32ACP, on Flickr