Green Tractor Talk banner
1 - 20 of 83 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,564 Posts
Everyone feels differently about this and it is a great discussion item.

I am odd guy out here as I dislike fluid filled tires. I like iron weights as it allows the tire to have the weight put on it at the axle instead of hanging it in the tire. By putting it on the axle, it allows you to use 100% of the weight added to ballast the tractor. With water, the weight is there, butits a hung weight.

Also, with iron, you have the ability to easily adjust your air pressure for propper traction. It been proven in the ag industry that you can get more traction with iron and proper weights than with water. Hobby guys are not as concerned with this, but if you look at the pro's, they all use iron.

Iron is more expensive, and that is about its only downfall, as it it also easy to remove if you want or if you are working on your tractor.

Iron weights are fairly specific, so you would go to your dealer for them.

With fluid, you can buy the tool to fill your tires from TSC or northern tool and fill them with windshield washer fluid.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,065 Posts
I've never had filled tires, and I don't want them. I'll use iron weights if need be, as fluid just seems way to mess prone. Besides I can handle my unfilled rear tires by myself if need be. All bets are off if were to fill them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
Everybody has their own opinion and reasons on this subject. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer, but more a matter of what you are use to. For me I use the liquid ballast because that is what I was always given to work with in the construction field where we were maxing out the equipment 8-12 hrs a day, someone who is raised in a AG situation who has used iron wheel weight may be because that is all they have ever used. Both have advantages and dis-avantages. for me on my 1026R I have the rear tires filled with Rim Guard, RG weighs 11# per gallon and there is about 8gal in each tire, the reason I am thinking about adding iron wheel weight is do the small size of the tire, I would like some more weight added, If I had a 2xxx or bigger tractor I would not even consider the iron.
One advantage you have is being in GA you don't have to worry about freezing so you can by a adapter at TSC or the equilivent of and add water @ 8# per gallon for free, then if you don't like it, remove it and add iron.
Just my .02
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
I priced a set of rear wheel weights while at the dealer today
2, BM17973, 72lb cast iron starter weight ring, 167.00each
4, BM17972. 50lb cast iron wheel weight, 118.00each a max of 2 50lb weight per wheel
for a total of 570.00 for the full set of weights for the 26x12x12 wheels on my 1026R. All I can say is that they are not a priority at this time...:mocking:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Thanks for all the input and opinions.

I have to harrow a lot of rough fallow ground this spring. I think I will go ahead and add the iron, then fill em up if that is not enough. Again thanks for the input!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,497 Posts
I priced a set of rear wheel weights while at the dealer today
2, BM17973, 72lb cast iron starter weight ring, 167.00each
4, BM17972. 50lb cast iron wheel weight, 118.00each a max of 2 50lb weight per wheel
for a total of 570.00 for the full set of weights for the 26x12x12 wheels on my 1026R. All I can say is that they are not a priority at this time...:mocking:
I picked up 4 50lb cast iron wheel weights off craigslist for $200. Some spray paint and they now look like new. It would be nice to have the starter weights, but arent needed. Weights from any tractor with 12" wheels should work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Some like the fluid filled wheels because it adds weight without rotational mass. I personally don't think that the rotational mass of wheel weights is going to do anything to hurt the drivetrain on anything as heavy duty as these tractors. That being said, I have Rimguard in my rear tires on the 4110 because it came that way. Seems to be pretty effective, but certainly no substitute for 3 point ballast.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,065 Posts
Some like the fluid filled wheels because it adds weight without rotational mass. I personally don't think that the rotational mass of wheel weights is going to do anything to hurt the drivetrain on anything as heavy duty as these tractors.
Agreed as the engineers take these things into account; besides the wheels would have to be turning at a pretty good clip for rotational mass to be a detrimental factor.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,564 Posts
Can we have a civil discussion about "If fluid filled tires changes the % of load on the front axle less than iron weights".

Some days (like today) I have a hard time with fluid adding weight to a tractor. It seems to hang in the rubber and not do much until something tries to lift it. But the fluid is also in more places than just on the bottom of the tire so what are its pressures on different places of the tire. :morning2:

I am over thinking it, but it sounds fun to discuss.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,406 Posts
Brian, interesting discussion. My 990 has R4 tires and the rear are 17.5L - 24. They take 55 gallons each if I were to fill them. If I used water that would be an additional 440 lbs per tire. If I use Rim Guard then the weight per tire would be an additional 605 lbs. I would need to use Rim Guard since I live in the North East with temps sometimes down to 0 F. JD does not have iron weights to equal that amount for my 990.

I am assuming that the tractor is built to handle the wheel weights since they sell them, I understand that some believe that wheel weights cause greater ware rate on the bearings on the rear axle since they are hanging in the air. Maybe they do since they are always hanging there. That needs some physics calculations to determine if that is a legitimate concern. I would think that some engineer has done that a long time ago. Obviously it does add weight to the rear end. the pluses are that you can remove them if you so desire and if you need to change the tire it is a lot less heavy to do so. The costs of the wheel weights (which was stated earlier in this thread) worked out to be anywhere from $2/lb to $2.30/lb. I can get either a 55 lb weight for each tire or a 110 lb weight for each tire on my 990. The 110 lb from JD actually works out to be $1.86/lb! Of course one can only add 110 lbs to each rear tire this way or a total of 220 lbs.

Filling the tires with Rim Gaurd or another fluid keeps the weight in the tire and not on the rim and the axle like wheel weights do, at least again that is the theory. How do the physics calculations work out in this scenario? I don't know. The strength of the Rim Gaurd is that I can add 1210 lbs to rear of the tractor. And that will help keep the rear from lifting up better than only an addiitional 220 lbs with the wheel weights. My dad's tractors had all their rear wheels loaded with CaCh whch is very dangerous if you get a puncture or a tear. Not so with the Rim Guard. However as one poster noted, try to change a loaded tire and I am sure you will not do it by yourself.

I am pretty convinced to go with the Rim Guard. Where I am located it is about $3.05 gallon or a total of $335.50 or $0.28/lbs. The closest dealer for Rim Guard is a little over 50 miles away. The problem is that if I am going to fill it myself I need to bring my own container to get it to my house. both places said I would need to bring 2, 55 gallon drums. First I have to find one and second if I do use a 55 gallon drum I am going to have to get a pump to get the stuff out of it. So I thought about instead using 5 gallon buckets with lids from Home Depot for a few $ ea and then I can handle filling the tires using 55 lb buckets which are much lighter to lift than a 605 lb drum. The Rim guard in my opinion is the way to go. If I had to bring my tractor to the dealer there would be an extra $75 per wheel for them to fill it and the cost of trucking the tractor there and back so all of a sudden my costs rise probably more than doubling the cost. It still is less expensive per pound than cast iron wheel weights.

Those are my thoughts on the matter.

Rob
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,564 Posts
I cannot disagree with anything you said rob, but I believe that all tractors are made and built to handle wheel weights. The hub assemble rotates so slow, even in high range, that I see little issue with wear.

Now, as to how the weight hits the ground. Lets keep this fair and say that this tractor that we are talking about can hold 440 pounds of iron, or 440 pounds of rim guard. On a scale, with weight added, they each weigh the same. Where this gets fuzzy to me is where the weight is distributed. I have to assume that with wheel weights that "some" of the weight is transferred off the front axle and to the rear. Nothing like a ballast box, but some. Now with that said, when you add a loader and weight to the front, does the rim guard help to hold down the rear axle like weights. In my mind, no, only because the weight is in the tire and not on the axle. The tractor must exert a force to lift the rear axle before it lifts the weight added to the tires. When it does this, the weight is on the front axle, or pivot point, exactly where you do not want it.

My assumption, or way of thinking, is that iron adds weight that is usable all the time to the rear of the tractor, while rim guard adds the weight and ground pressure, it does not counter balance like iron does and the tractor has more forces acting on it when using rim guard in a negative way since it has to "lift" the weight before it becomes effective. While it might feel like you have more ballast, in reality, your stressing the front axle more, as it is the pivot point.

Make sense? It does in my mind, but trying to explain it is not easy and I could be wrong with this way of thinking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,487 Posts
I agree with your reasoning Bryan. I just want to take it a step further and add... With loaded tires and rear wheel weights,they both will help keep the rear end down when lifting and if you have enough weight,will allow the tractor to lift up to its maximum capacity. But irregardless ,without cantilevered weight behind the rear axle to make it the pivot point ,the front axle will remain the fulcrum for the loader and will bear the full weight up to the loaders maximum and if the rear of the tractor lifts off the ground, you will then have the full weight of the tractor on the front axle as well...including the loaded tires or weights.But,even before the rear lifts off the ground,the weight from the tractor is transfering to the front when lifting, up to the point where the rear wheels come off the ground. Loading the rear axle ,whether fluid or iron,will just insure that you'll have the capability to do some major stress to the front axle. So,in my mind ,cantilevered weight behind the rear axle is best for loader work....rear wheel weight, however accomplished ,is best for traction
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,564 Posts
Good point Randy, lets revise my original story.

Both tractors are the same tractor with the same loader.

Tractor A has 440 pounds of fluid in its tires and 700 pounds in the ballast box.

Tractor B has 440 pounds of iron weights on the rim and 700 pounds in the ballast box.

When Tractor A picks up 2,000 pounds in the loader how much weight is transferred to the front axle?
When Tractor B picks up 2,000 pounds in the loader how much weight is transferred to the front axle?

I believe that tractor B has less weight transferred to the front axle because the fluid in tractor A's tires is not pulling down on the tractor until its lifted up but the raised load up front. Tractor B has the weight constantly applied to the rear and thus should not have as much weight transferred forward.

So, if we look at traction alone, all I can go back to are the studies that in Ag tractors, you get more traction with iron weight and low air pressure than you do with liquid.

Again, this is all fun. I am not bashing Rim Guard, I just believe that iron does more, but it is more expensive at the moment. Does this mean that it should be used in all applications, NO! But I bet there are people out there using it for rear ballast, and I do not believe it does that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,406 Posts
Brian et al, I am enjoying this thread and the discussion. I work with radiation physics instruments so I like physics. This is truly a physics calculation but one needs to know all the factors before one could properly calculate which would be better. Brian your'e examples always show that the loaded tire and iron weight tire are the same. On a CUT I don't know if that can be a reality. Maybe it could be on the larger models. So I don't think that we can get apples for apples comparisons which would be helpful in the calculation. I can also appreciate the input regarding the importance of the ballast on the rear to help change the pivot point as well.

Your assumption is that because the iron weight is attached to the axle, hard fixed that it is better than the fluid in the tire which is not hard fixed to the axle. However if you load the tire correctly the fluid will be up to the top and over the rim and is always there. the one thing that is not hard fixed because of its flexibility is the rubber tire and how much it gives when the rear of the tractor is lifted. Once that flex is completed then that whole weight is being lifted. With the proper air inflation my guess is that that flex will not be too much especially with an 8 ply tire. I remember with my dad's old IH 330 utility its 2PH had a regular hydraulic ram and it had down pressure and it could lift the whole rear end off the ground loaded tires and all. When that happened I don't remember there being a lot of distortion in the tire itself. So if we acknowledge the fact, if it is a true fact (this really will depend on rim sizes and tires which I fully understand and there will probably always be exceptions to the rule) that the iron weight can never match the weight of a loaded tire Thus you are getting more weight from the loaded tire even with that flex and maybe at the end of the day it will do the same for the front end being the pivot but you get the added extra benefit of the extra weight and traction.

I would like to find someone who could show the physics on this. It probably would be different on every machine depending on the length of the FEL, the weight of the bucket and the FEL, the weight of the rear end of the tractor, the flex of the tire when loaded, all of this calculated with the pull of gravity and friction etc.... It is probably pretty hard to really determine on any specific tractor what would be the best fix based upon material used to weight the rear wheels and all these other factors. However because of the realities I believe the loaded tire still has the advantage unless you could equal or close to equal the weight of the loaded tire with wheel weights. Then I ask the question why don't the manufacturers make wheel weights that give a similar weight to loaded tires?

Anyone know any students who are studying physics in a university who need to do a thesis work? This would probably be a pretty good paper.

Rob
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,564 Posts
Rob,
I agree, I like this discussion, but it does have many items to wrap your head around.

For example, what about this:

Tractor A with 900 pounds of rim guard in the tires and 800 in the rear ballast box.
vs.
Tractor B with 450 pounds of iron on the rims and 800 in the rear ballast box.

This is where the physics come in:
When the loader lifts on Tractor A, it will apply pressure to lift the tractor and ballast box first, then lift the tire. So the fluid is holding down the tire and the axle is trying to lift the tire but cannot.

When the loader lifts on Tractor B, it will apply pressure to lift the tractor, iron weights and ballast box and there would still be down pressure on the rear axle. So the weight of the tractor and weight is holding down the tire and the axle not being lifted.

I still assume more weight would be on the front axle with the liquid in the tires, even in this situation. :hi:

Again, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the weight of fluid in the tire is hanging there rather than mounted to the tractor.

But this all has to do with tire flex and how/where the weight applies itself.

Dunno :fire:
 
1 - 20 of 83 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top