Science! The relationship of Ballast and Weight Distribution. 

yes, not just the proportions

I thought that he was going to give us numbers since he had the scales

What I find funny is Kubota doesn't state what that weight limit is on their BX tractors, I doubt they mention it for any of their tractors, and is a very important number that owners should know. They try and boast about everything else while hiding a very important piece of the number game.

I am working on a front axle video, but I don't know why fluid would not be effective. It does not have the same leverage effect, but it should help.

Exactly!! That is why l made a 1500# counterweight for my tractor.

@@MessicksEquip Hopefully it includes numbers on Kubota tractors since they seem to try and hide those, and its not a good idea.

@@MessicksEquip It'd be effective to stop the back wheels coming off the ground. It won't be effective in reducing load on the front axle, because it has no lever effect - it's not behind the back axle. If you do those measures again with the scales, using actual weights not percentages, you'll find wheel weights (or just bricks on top of the rear wheels, whatever) will change the % but not reduce the front weight. Ballast behind the rear wheels will reduce the front through the pivot on the rear axle. I'd also note that most ballast boxes carry weight further back (on the 3ph) than the weight bar you showed - which looks nice for keeping the weight close, but less pivot effect. Something like a rotary cutter will have even more effect - so much weight well behind the 3ph.

Heh. That lack of extra weight may shorten HIS life.

He maybe confusing rear axle bearing life, adding any weight to any bearing is going to shorten its life, but with a tractor adding ballast is by far going to outweigh not wearing out a bearing, in the less tractor rollovers they have...which at that point totally negates any sort of shortened bearing life once you roll that tractor, you are done.

@@wildbill23c I think he is confused, I’ve tried to explain, but to no avail

Unlikely to shorten the engine life - the engine doesn't care what it's pushing around, and it's made to push things around. Probably the thing that'd shorten engine life would be mowing.....just because you do it for hours and hours and it's all high rev and high load work. But a small diesel engine will outlast most subcompact tractor users. Tell him that what he needs to care about is his axles and bearings. All the load on his front axle is definitely going to shorten the life of that thing, it's quite a bit smaller than your rear, but you're asking it to do most of the work. Spreading the load between the front and rear spreads the life. Ultimately the problem is that tractors started out taking load on the back. They're built with all the weight forward (when empty) to counter balance the weight they think you're going to put on the back. But most sub compact tractors are used with mid-mount mowers (evenly balanced weight) or loaders (front weight). So you need to ballast them to balance that out.

That's something that many people forget is front ballast for those rear attachments/implements, yeah sure the loader helps a bit with that, but if you are doing something where you want the loader removed, you just removed several hundred pounds of front ballast, so your tractor may easily start doing wheelies with whatever attachment or implement you have on the back. Same goes for moving around trailers, everyone loves to do that but they don't think about the ballast they need to have on the front of the tractor to counteract the tongue weight of the trailer.

That's my strategy.

A heavy driver can’t hurt.

Yes

I used rv winterizing fluid. According to manufacturer it's good to -50*f.

Weight went down

I know when I'm pushing it, because I have to put the tractor in 4wd due to loss of traction on the rear. Yeah, that's when I should go put the ballast box on. Sometimes I'm just doing one load though, if I go slow and keep the bucket low it's OK.

I think that's wrong. It's about loader geometry and the load on the rams, rather than just the pivot from the front. If you could lift less at low height, you'd have no way to get it to full height. My tractor regularly can lift things 1 foot off the ground that it won't lift any higher, and most tractor manufacturers publish a height/weight lift curve for their loaders, it clearly shows more capacity at lower levels.

The orange paint not only weighs more, but it’s heavier in the rear! 🤣

The statement is correct. The rear tires act as a lever and shifts weight from the front axle to the rear.

@@MessicksEquip You would need to show me the actual scale readings to convince me.

Yes, it removes weight from the front axle. Rear axle acts as a lever.

The rule I know is 50% of the machine's weight is okay as ballast.

Different sorts of ballast I'd have thought. Liquid ballast and wheel weights don't directly put weight on the axle - the weight goes directly through the tire to the ground. They do put twisting load on the axle when driving (but I wouldn't have thought too much), and I guess going over bumps and things that'd add load to as it bounces around. Ballast on the 3ph would put much more load on the axles and bearings, because that weight has to transfer through the bearings and axles to get to the wheels and the ground. 3ph ballast I still think is better - because it pivots on the rear axle and reduces load on the front axle (a big thing on a subcompact), and because you can take it off when you don't need it (like for mowing). Horses for courses, but I prefer ballast boxes.

I don't believe you are correct. If you added weight between the rear axle and the bucket, I would agree with you. But when you add weight to the 3-point hitch, you're catilivering up any weight in front of the rear axle. If you added sufficient weight to the rear (and we're talking A LOT), you could lift the front wheels off the ground. Ergo, the front wheel bearings do NOT have 2000 pounds on them.

@@JCWren you’re correct, the tractor acts as a fulcrum. Put weight on the back, it pulls it off the front

@@JCWren I hope Neil does this again with actual weight in LBS. on each tire. You are right about weight past the rear wheels, but most of what neil did was to get it babk on the ground

Agreed, I would like to see actual numbers also. I know he was able to lift the rear tires by bouncing on the bucket, but I'd have liked to have seen the weight in pounds without him on it.