Michelin surprising remarks on tire ballast,

[majorwager]

Important to Note, Do Not hate the messenger, simply posting guideline from a respected tire manufacturer.

Attempt to enlarge image provided NO improvement.



LIQUID BALLASTING
1. In many instances it is necessary to add weight to improve machine performance.
2. Michelin® Tires and equipment manufacturers recommend the use of cast iron weights for ballast
3. Compared to cast iron weights, liquid ballast is not, yes NOT, the optimum recommendation because of the following reasons:
***8226; Footprint size is decreased because added weight acts at the bottom of the tire,
not on the axle.
***8226; Traction and flotation are reduced due to a smaller footprint.
***8226; Soil compaction is increased due to a smaller footprint.
***8226; Tires are more vulnerable to impact and damages.
***8226; Ride comfort is decreased due to the reduced air cushion.
***8226; Power hop tendency is significantly increased.
***8226; Tendency for damage to power train and steering system is increased.
***8226; Tires are much more difficult to service and repair.
4. In many cases, however, liquid ballast is the only feasible solution. Michelin tires function
as well as any other tires with liquid ballast when additional weight is needed.
5. It is possible to add liquid to tires, up to 75% full (see Figure B). It consists of filling
the tire with liquid up to the valve when it is at its highest point.
6. Please note that the volume data given for each tire in this book is 100% interior
volume.
7. When tires are ballasted with liquid, air is used to pressurize the assembly. Because the
air volume is reduced, frequent pressure checks are necessary.
8. If liquid ballasting is necessary, an appropriate anti-freeze may be required.

 

[Lil Foot]

Hmmmm... I thought I was the only one on the planet who felt this way.
I've always preferred iron over liquid, for some of the reasons stated, but they bring up some more reasons I hadn't considered.

A little larger version for those of us with old eyes:

 

[RCW]

Hmm....

Might be plausible for a tractor not used for regular agricultural/commercial purposes.

For one used day-in-day-out for heavy use, my only experience is you get all the weight you can, however you can....load wheel weights to max, and load them tires too...

I think my ole 'Moline has 520lb weights each side plus loaded....desire to get as many of those 30 ponies to the ground as possible. Stock tractor is 3,800 lbs., but weighs about 8,000 or so with loader frame/blade. No 3PH, so you need to get weight somehow...

With that said, these new agricultural tractors are a different breed altogether...so maybe my thinking is outdated.

 

[Lil Foot]

At the risk of starting another debate...
A few years ago there was an article written by a tractor pulling guy that extolled the virtues of liquid-filled tires for ultimate traction. He made a pretty convincing argument. (I can no longer find the article)
Then a couple years later another tractor pulling guy wrote another article extolling the virtues of iron weights, that completely refudiated the earlier article.
He also made a pretty convincing argument.
(I can no longer find the article)
In the end, I went with my gut, which told me that if I fill my tires, I WILL have flats. (my karma )
I also subscribe to the premise that an air filled tire carrying lots of iron will have a greater footprint than a liquid filled one; the liquid acts much like higher air pressure, pushing the sidewalls out, especially higher up on the tire, not allowing for more "squish" at the bottom. (footprint)
(My obsession with footprint is a product of years of duning, sand drags, and 4 wheeling.)
For applications that need as much weight as possible, the obvious answer is to use both types of ballast.

 

[prof.fate]

foot print benefits depends on the surface. Wider tires are a disadvantage on WET pavement - the higher PSI weight of a high pressure/narrow tire on the ground helps - a wider, more flotation tire will hydroplane.

Ifyou look at the farmall's and ww2 jeeps the mud tire was tall and skinny - dig through the mud to the firm ground beneath. Same theory in snow.

On dry pavement it's different of course. But how many of us operate our tractors on dry pavement?

the linked to image above is way too small for me to read, tried googling and got this...
https://agricultural.michelinman.com/us/Properly-use-your-tires/Ballasting-tyres-for-better-use

 

[majorwager]

Fatalist provided the incorrect link. The Michelin piece has nothing to do with tire size and aspect. And to correct a misnomer, a tire that digs through the mud to find solid ground will be stuck before attaining that goal. Perhaps I saw different WW2 Jeep film footage?

The point is how best to add weight to accomplish fire ballast. Sorry for the blurry text. It just will not copy clearly.

LIQUID BALLASTING
1. In many instances it is necessary to add weight to improve machine performance.
2. Michelin® Tires and equipment manufacturers recommend the use of cast iron weights for ballast
3. Compared to cast iron weights, liquid ballast is not the optimum recommendation because of the following reasons:
***8226; Footprint size is decreased because added weight acts at the bottom of the tire,
not on the axle.
***8226; Traction and flotation are reduced due to a smaller footprint.
***8226; Soil compaction is increased due to a smaller footprint.
***8226; Tires are more vulnerable to impact and damages.
***8226; Ride comfort is decreased due to the reduced air cushion.
***8226; Power hop tendency is significantly increased.
***8226; Tendency for damage to power train and steering system is increased.
***8226; Tires are much more difficult to service and repair.
4. In many cases, however, liquid ballast is the only feasible solution. Michelin tires function
as well as any other tires with liquid ballast when additional weight is needed.
5. It is possible to add liquid to tires, up to 75% full (see Figure B). It consists of filling
the tire with liquid up to the valve when it is at its highest point.
6. Please note that the volume data given for each tire in this book is 100% interior
volume.
7. When tires are ballasted with liquid, air is used to pressurize the assembly. Because the
air volume is reduced, frequent pressure checks are necessary.
8. If liquid ballasting is necessary, an appropriate anti-freeze may be required.

 

[BAP]

One point not being pointed out here is that most of Michelin’s tractor tires are radials. Radical tires work better empty. Loaded radial tires with tubes will eventually destroy the tubes threw friction from the sidewalls flexing. Radial tractor tires pull best at lower PSI than bias ply. Running lower psi tubeless and loading the tires are a good recipe for tires slipping on the rims leading to flats. How do I know all this you ask? Experience from many years of farming and living through the time period when radial tires started to be used on tractors. When they first came out, everyone treated them the same as bias ply when it came to setting the tractor up. After lots of flats, people realized that with radial tires, they need to be run tubeless, empty, and cast iron weights used for maximum pull and traction. Now bias tires are a whole different ballgame. Tubes and liquid ballast aren’t a problem because tires can run higher psi and still function well.

 

[twomany]

I can't buy the limited tire foot print with liquid ballast.

Fill a balloon with water and hang it by the nozzle. Where is the balloon the fattest?

At the bottom! The liquid weight acts as "head" with greatest pressure at the lowest level.

 

[Lil Foot]

I understand whee you're coming from, but a balloon has virtually no structure where as a tire does. We ran tests with filled vs non filled 4wd tires on Landcruisers & Broncos trying to get an edge in rock crawling. We had measurably larger footprint in non filled tires with the same pressures.

 

[twomany]

I understand whee you're coming from, but a balloon has virtually no structure where as a tire does. We ran tests with filled vs non filled 4wd tires on Landcruisers & Broncos trying to get an edge in rock crawling. We had measurably larger footprint in non filled tires with the same pressures.

One could rationalize that due to the weight and density of the liquid fill, it is impossible to achieve low pneumatic fill pressures at the contact patch.

That is, the fluid column pressure exceeds the air fill pressure.

Air fill at 6 psi only adds to a fluid column that gives 15psi. (these are just numbers, I did not calculate the fluid column pressures of "beet Juice". ;-)

The first bullet of line three in that warning should use the word Pressure, not Weight at the bottom of the tire.

 

[Lil Foot]

Point taken.

 

[SidecarFlip]

Loaded tires may work for a non compaction unit but in my case they don't. Because I run a forage operation with M series Kubota's, only cast wheel weights and FWA are required. Loaded tires cause compaction and ruts in forage ground. I run bias R1's as well. No radials.

 

[armylifer]

I move a lot of rocks with my FEL. I found that loaded tires in the front perform a LOT better than just air. With just air in the front tires I have run the tires off the rim because of tire compaction due to the weight I am carrying. This has happened at least once before just by turning the wheel, even though I have increased the tire air pressures by from 22 PSI to 30 PSI. After filling my tires with 75% water and 22 PSI air, the tire never compacted enough to run a tire off the rim. I have run the tires this way for a few years and as I said they perform best when loaded. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[Kubota Newbie]

I think I was the second "tractor pulling guy" noted earlier. Radial or bias ply really makes no difference. Pound for pound a properly ballasted tractor with iron weights will always out-perform in-tire liquid ballast. Just the way it is in testing and in life. BUT... one can't always afford to buy enough iron to properly ballast a tractor so for many, liquid ballast is a workable compromise. And since most operators won't be able to discern the difference in performance the argument is pretty much mute. UNLESS, like me you service your own tractor tires in which case a 16.9-28 tire or larger full of fluid is a major PITA, and as noted earlier, adding fluid always seemed to be an invitation for a flat (I've come to the conclusion magnetic pull of fluids resulting from containment in cylindrical rubber envelopes attracts foreign objects).
FWIW, the reason for not "rolling" tires off the rims using the loader is because fluid doesn't compress. Of course that shock has to go somewhere, and the carcass of the tire is where it goes resulting in somewhat shortened tire life. All relative though, if you're wearing out the tread before the extra tire shock ruins the carcass it doesn't really matter.
Bottom line is unless you're pulling or participating in a "Nebraska Test" you probably can't tell the difference. But, if you do a lot of plowing, working ground or other similar high draft, high slip work, iron in the right place will probably save you money in the long run.

 

[GeoHorn]

... And since most operators won't be able to discern the difference in performance the argument is pretty much mute....

Maybe I should remain mute...but I think you meant to say "moot".

This is all very interesting (regarding what Michelin has to say regarding radial vs bias tires and pressure and ballasting,... because they seem to contradict themselves here: https://agricultural.michelinman.com/us/Tires-101/Ballasting-Tires

 

[DustyRusty]

What is the opinion of the group about running filled tires, and iron weights on a BX tractor.. ?

 

[Lil Foot]

Either one is good, both are better.

 

[Freeheeler]

Either one is good, both are better.

Depends on what you're doing with that BX. If you're mowing, neither is best. If you're doing heavy front loader work, both would be better, different machine would be best. If you use that BX for a little of everything which is what it's made for, then iron is easier to put on and take off than liquid, and a ballast box or rear implement is even better.

 

[armylifer]

I have to agree with Bill on this. I have my tires filled with water and I also have 235 lbs of weight on the 3pt. The extra weight does not make any difference on my lawn. The extra weight does help tremendously with traction though. The increased traction keeps the tires from slipping on the lawn and that is a good thing.

 

[Freeheeler]

I have to agree with Bill on this. I have my tires filled with water and I also have 235 lbs of weight on the 3pt. The extra weight does not make any difference on my lawn. The extra weight does help tremendously with traction though. The increased traction keeps the tires from slipping on the lawn and that is a good thing.

Curious, do you mow with the mmm while keeping the 235 lbs on the 3pt for extra traction? I agree that the liquid in the tires doesn't do any harm to the lawn in normal situations, and my rears are filled (much bigger tires with a lot more weight than a BX), but my point was 'heavier is not always better'. If it were, everyone would buy a bigger, heavier tractor because pound for pound, the BX is one of the most expensive tractors out there. The reason it's soo popular is because it works so well in those situations where lighter is actually better. 3pt weight can be removed easily. Iron wheel weights are much easier to remove than filled tire weight. For a large AG tractor, heavier is better, but I was responding to his BX specific question where sometimes lighter is better. Bill is right, IF you are needing weight, both is best.