Welcome! Please use the navigational links to explore our website.
PartsASAP LogoCompany Logo Auction Link (800) 853-2651

Shop Now

   Allis Chalmers Case Farmall IH Ford 8N,9N,2N Ford
   Ferguson John Deere Massey Ferguson Minn. Moline Oliver

Tractor Talk Discussion Forum

New Belarus tractors - tire pressure?

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
Dale

08-03-2003 15:57:45




Report to Moderator

Anyone know what the pressure is supposed to be on the front tires on the new 65 hp Belarus? The owner's manual converts to 145 psi and the dealer isn't any help.




[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
Belarus parts supplier

08-12-2003 20:06:20




Report to Moderator
 Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pressure? in reply to Dale, 08-03-2003 15:57:45  
1 atm = 103.32 kPa = 0.10332 mPa = 14.696 PSI = 10333 kg/m2 = 1.0333 kg/cm2 = 1.0133 BAR

Belarus-9000-series manual says:

rear tyres: 1.0-1.2 BAR = 14.5-17.4 PSI
front 2WD: 1.2-1.5 BAR = 17.4-21.75 PSI
front 4WD: 1.0-1.2 BAR = 14.5-17.4 PSI
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =

Please have a look a demo version of Belarus-500/800-900-series Workshop Repair Manual now available on CD at>Link

>Link

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
dave mullin canada

02-10-2004 16:14:18




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pressure? in reply to Belarus parts supplier, 08-12-2003 20:06:20  
it doesn't seem to matter...after 12 yrs of running on pavement for 1000 hrs my natural rubber 65 hp belarus tires are in great shape + i have never even ck'ed the air pressure..hard to beleve but true..kick them...if they all look good leave them alone.....



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Larry

08-05-2003 11:12:25




Report to Moderator
 Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pressure? in reply to Dale, 08-03-2003 15:57:45  
IF it has MFD I'd say about 20psi.

I find it REALLY hard to believe the Belarus dealer who just sold you a NEW BELARUS tractor won't help you out.

Further more I have a belarus tractor and the owners manual for it is pretty damn good compared to other makes of tractors I have. It explains how to do all normal service procedures and more. So I really find it hard to believe you can't find the Psi on the tractor, on the tire or in the manual!

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
RAB

08-05-2003 10:31:31




Report to Moderator
 Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pressure? in reply to Dale, 08-03-2003 15:57:45  
Never mind the fronts!!!! What about the rears?!?!?!
Regards, RAB



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Tom

08-05-2003 06:31:17




Report to Moderator
 Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pressure? in reply to Dale, 08-03-2003 15:57:45  
Dale, I think you must be one decimal off. Common sense would indicate that 14 to 18 psi is about right; at least according to the rear tires on both my tractors. With this Belarus, tire pressure is the least of your worries.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
gene b

08-05-2003 05:15:05




Report to Moderator
 Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pressure? in reply to Dale, 08-03-2003 15:57:45  
all other tractors use around 25-35 or so What makes yours any different?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Dale

08-04-2003 15:35:12




Report to Moderator
 Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pressure? in reply to Dale, 08-03-2003 15:57:45  
Tried posting what the manual said this morning but it didn't show. It says 1.0 to 1.2 megapascals, which works out to 145 to 175 psi according to the charts I could find and which can't be a safe pressure in those tires.
Not my tractor, it's my father-in-laws new toy. Thank God he doesn't have to depend on it too often. We're running JD and Allis on our own farm.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Dale

08-04-2003 15:36:39




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pressure? in reply to Dale, 08-04-2003 15:35:12  
Forgot to say, there's nothing on the tires either.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Tire Pressure

08-05-2003 06:03:21




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pressure? in reply to Dale, 08-04-2003 15:36:39  
1.2 megapascal = 174.0452856 pound-force/square inch (PSI)



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
RAB

08-04-2003 14:41:15




Report to Moderator
 Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pressure? in reply to Dale, 08-03-2003 15:57:45  
So what does the manual say?
We can then work it out for you.
Regards, RAB



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
good luck

08-04-2003 12:58:27




Report to Moderator
 Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pressure? in reply to Dale, 08-03-2003 15:57:45  
"the sweetness of cheap prices is forgotton sonner than the bitterness of poor quality". think about that when you need parts and service.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Tom

08-04-2003 05:53:17




Report to Moderator
 Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pressure? in reply to Dale, 08-03-2003 15:57:45  
Now that you have a new Belarus tractor, you find that the dealer can't even help you with tire pressure. Just imagine how much help he will be when the serious stuff starts going wrong. Another reason not to buy.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
paul

08-04-2003 08:05:21




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pressure? in reply to Tom, 08-04-2003 05:53:17  
That caught my attention as well! Oh my.

--->Paul



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
buickanddeere

08-03-2003 21:37:35




Report to Moderator
 Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pressure? in reply to Dale, 08-03-2003 15:57:45  
6.89 kpa in a psi. Your were multiplying not dividing.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
andyd

08-03-2003 20:38:33




Report to Moderator
 Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pressure? in reply to Dale, 08-03-2003 15:57:45  
look on the tires they should have the pressure and rating on tire some where use lower pressure if you dont have heavy stuff on front such as loader and the higher pressure if you use the loader? you may have to convert that metric crap to american be careful converting or get you a metric gage?over inflation is dangerous under inflation will get your tires?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
RAB

08-04-2003 01:08:49




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pressure? in reply to andyd, 08-03-2003 20:38:33  
The only two advantages of the outmoded, incoherent, non-metric systems is that (1) the kids might learn their 'times tables' better to cope with a system which is out of step with the rest of the world, (they now use a calculator for everything except their ten X table), and (2) 4x3 boxes (dozens) are easier to handle than 5x2 metric boxes.
It is perhaps peculiar for you to relate air pressure to that of the atmosphere. It just so happens that one Bar in metric is virtually one Atmosphere in air pressure. So simple, really. You might be able to remember how to convert if you know how many psi there are in one atmosphere or the psi value of a vacuum. It's easy for metric users - it's ONE!!!! Unit. We needn't go into Pascals here, except of course that it is defined as 1 Newton per 1 metre square, a rather small unit (about 4 ounces per 11 square feet?!)so there are about 100 thousand in one Bar but it is so easy to put in the relevant number of 'powers ten' kilo, mega, giga, tera, exo, deci, milli, micro, nano - the same as in all the metric units.

One further point - do you get billed for your electricity in kiloWatt hours or still in British Thermal Units (or some other antiquated unit)? Just wondered. You may be more metricated than you thought.
Btw - you should not be decrying your largest and closest trading partner, who are sensibly fully metric (except for weight units).
Regards, RAB

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Gomer

08-04-2003 22:36:48




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pressure? in reply to RAB, 08-04-2003 01:08:49  
I can't measure electricity with BTU's. Perhaps I was absent that day.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
paul

08-04-2003 08:03:32




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pressure? in reply to RAB, 08-04-2003 01:08:49  
The metric system is much easier for a pencil pusher to use, yes.

The 'normal' system used in the USA is much easier for the average person to use 'in the field'. 12 is used a lot, because it is divisible by 1,2,3,4,&6 - while 10 is only divisible by 1,5,&10. Try building something - it is much easier to use 1/4 of something, than to use 3/10 of something.

And so on. Metric is for desk sitters. Not for people who actually do something.

--->Paul

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
RAB

08-04-2003 10:33:14




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pressu in reply to paul, 08-04-2003 08:03:32  
Paul, Don't be silly. Use the metric system and you just measure it to the nearest ONE in sensible units. What is more simple than that for someone who needs to actually measure something in the field? And what is more, the rest of the world would know exactly what you are talking about.
Having used both systems, I can assure you the metric system is far better than the old Pound Shillings and Pence, Pounds and ounces, Rods, Perches and Yards, Feet and inches, Gallons quarts and pints, Ergs, British Thermal Units and many more. Don't tell me about quarters, thirds and sixths - the above all use a multitude of multiples and they were all thought up on a whim by people over a period of several centuries in the dark ages who were very good for their time, but unable to pull all the units together in one organised system. The Americans were sharp enough to go for a decimal monetary system a long time ago, and I would think you don't even consider that this is so very much akin to the metric system!
The metric system is here and it works much better than the multitude of systems it made redundant - for both people in the field and behind desks.
As for further examples. How did the Mars probe miss it's target - because someone got the wrong conversion factor? If only there was no need for a 'factor'.
Do you know why the Fahrenheit temperature scale has water freezing at 32 degrees? When it was invented the lowest attainable temperature in the laboratory was assigned as zero Fahrenheit!!!! Great idea at the time!!!!
Remember: 8 furlongs to the mile 10 chains to the furlong 22 yards to the chain 3 feet to the yard 12 inches to the foot 4 quarter inches to the inch etc
So one mile seven furlongs three chains eighteen yards two feet seven and a quarter inches is how far? Who cares anyway? Just a stupid example of an unuseable system.
Metric system Standard unit is the metre Smaller units have prefixes of deci, centi, milli, micro, pico, nano. Larger units have prefixes of deca, centa, kilo.
Precision of measurement is easily understood by using scientific notation. Job done, easily, efficiently and the result can show the precision or accuracy perfectly clearly. Same system basically applies for other quantities except time which has the second as the standard.
They are now all related as multiples of nuclear frequencies so as not to be mixed up anywhere in the known universe, but that is another can of worms!!
Regards and don't get too uptight about it, RAB

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Rod F.

08-04-2003 21:14:17




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pr in reply to RAB, 08-04-2003 10:33:14  
Being from Canada, I have passed through a fully metricated school system, and I still prefer imperial measure for many things in the field. The lab is another story.... And don't tell me the probe missed mars because some scientist was using the old system of units. That's crap. Scientists have used metric for 50 years or more....arount the world. But to me, Imperial measure is easier to use in the field because it relates to something. A foot is a foot. We wouldn't all convert 12 lengths of our boot into 4 meters for some rough measure would we? It is also much easier, when working with tools, fastners, etc to use standard measure. That bolt that looks like 5/8 standard might leave one searching for a 15 or 16 or 17 mm. It's just plain annoying. One of the odd quirks I find is with spraying. (Mabey just me) I always figure rates in liters per acre. I guess Trudeau never saw that one coming did he RAB?
As for the tire, it's probably a 10-20, converted to useful measure. Mabey a 12-20. I would guess about 25-30 psi. Pump it up until is carrys the load, and set the other one the same. Just don't run them too soft, or they wil scallop out. More air is better, but too much will make a rough ride, but since it's a Belarus, you probably won't notice anyway. We used to have a 520A. Crude is not the word..... speachless.... Good luck.

Rod

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
RAB

08-05-2003 11:18:55




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Belarus tractors - tir in reply to Rod F., 08-04-2003 21:14:17  
Rod, Thanks for your comments but:
If you do practical work with metric you would know THAT metric bolt will not be a 15 or 17 mm!! The system uses preferred values (just like electrical resistors)14,16,19mm. The threads are also of standard pitches and depths. The Furlong - the distance a pair of oxen could pull a plough before getting tired (and needing a turn). Good old fashioned variable measure!
Check up for NASA's excuse for losing that probe.
Multiply your spray rates by 2.4. You will probably find they all work out to integer values.
Do you spread fertiliser using kilograms per 4840 square yards, or kilograms per hectare?
And don't forget, of course, a gallon is not always a gallon depending on where you are.
Even the British Government realised in the sixties that decimalisation of our currency was needed, but even though everywhere in the UK should by now have adopted the kilogram as a unit
of weight, there are many who can not bear to let go of that silly lb. or are unable to grasp the advantages of a unified metric system. Or simply are not willing to change.
Regards, RAB
Oh, btw we will still be left with the computer having 1024 bytes per kilobyte (hexadecimal)!!

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Rod F.

08-05-2003 21:25:40




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Belarus tractors - in reply to RAB, 08-05-2003 11:18:55  
Hi RAB,

Of course you're right. Metric and Imperial threads are different size. My thought was more in line with simply establishing size by eye, not the conversion, as such. Pitches are standard at 1, 1.5 2 mm etc. That's not difficult, only that a mulitude of closely spaced sizes often leaves me guessing, or running for the gauge. As I said before, I am well metricated. That was all that was taught in school in my time. It's not hard to understand, just that as Trevor mentioned, some of us are resistant to change. I spread fertilizer in pounds per acre. As for the conversion...it's 2.54acres per hectare, to be picky. As for NASA, I saw the reports at the time. "Excuse" seems to be the operative word there. As for volume, I tend to use liters, for that very reason. A gallon is never a gallon. You're also correct that the UK switched to metric long ago. Remember the shop keeper a few months back who was charged for selling banannas by the pound instead of the kilo? You must also be aware of the mother of all measures, James Watt's horse power....the work that a horse will do in one hour. Like I said before, I use both systems, often interchangeably, depending on what one is convenient at the time. Generally I use metric for calculations, and Imperial for most practical stuff. But that's just me, and i've never been accused of being normal.Take care.

Rod

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
RAB

08-06-2003 01:10:10




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Belarus tracto in reply to Rod F., 08-05-2003 21:25:40  
Hi Rod,
Hectares to acre conversion is 2.471. So I should have said 2.5, I suppose - no need for a precision of 1 in 2500 for a practical topic like that, I suppose.
Btw the 2.54 is inches to centimetres conversion.
However, this post is now getting too far down the page to continue, so I'll find one a bit nearer the top with which to be controversial!
I too am not regarded as 'normal' but slightly eccentric as I collect Olivers, Cletracs (one I call Alice 'cos the commentators keep referring to it as an Allis Chalmers as it's orange) and stationary engines, along with the odd motorbike, sock knitting machine etc. etc.
I too use the Imperial or American Standard systems, as most of my stuff is non-metric, but with bolts in Whitworth, UNC, UNF, Standard US, BA, BSF, cycle thread, Acme, Miniature engineering thread, Metric and others, I find a thread gauge as important as the 'digi' for sorting them out!
I just like to reply to those who refer to viable alternative systems as 'crap', instead of admitting their bias to the one they grew up with, or whatever.
I don't get uptight about it, just fight my corner, whichever it might be. When it's gone I move on. Life is too short. These old machines used the best technology available at the time (well most did). An awful lot of that technology has been re-invented by modern-day manufacturers and claimed as 'new', not 'improved' now that technology allows these old inventions to be better designed/utilised. Now, how many of these get uptight when you remind them it was invented by someone else 75 years ago, or whatever, and suggest they have just copied and updated it?
Regards, Have fun and happy engineering, metric or otherwise. RAB

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
paul

08-05-2003 21:17:16




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Belarus tractors - in reply to RAB, 08-05-2003 11:18:55  
So, who's uptight? :)

To me it makes more sense to measure something in a real value - like the distance a team of oxen can go - than to measure in something meaningless - like what does a meter (or metre - not really standard.... ;) stand for, anyhow? What is it measuring? What can I relate it to?

Meaningless.

You want to divide some construction into 1/4's - and you can't, need to get decimals involved - 2.5 of something. A human brain can see 3/12's of something a lot better than 2.5/10th's of something.

Either system is just arbitrary standards of measure. Nothing wrong with the metric system. For pencil pushing, it's a lot easier as I said. In the real world, that's another can of worms. One is easier math, the other is easier to visualize & use intuitively.

No big deal.

--->Paul

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Rod F.

08-05-2003 21:27:26




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Belarus tracto in reply to paul, 08-05-2003 21:17:16  
Precisely. Well said.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Trevor

08-05-2003 05:53:48




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Belarus tractors - tir in reply to Rod F., 08-04-2003 21:14:17  
Rod,

Glad to see someone finally call it the proper name, IMPERIAL. It is not the "nromal" system or the "american system" It is Imperial.

I wonder if people understand the root of the Imperial system. It was created centuries ago using measurements from the king of the time. for instance a foot was as long as the kings foot. When the king would change the length of a foot would change. Why would anybody stand behind such a system.

The only reason people like it is because they refuse to change and learn a new system.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Rod F.

08-05-2003 22:01:29




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Belarus tractors - in reply to Trevor, 08-05-2003 05:53:48  
Actually, Imperial is correct for the old British system. Americans have their own, in which some units are different, often called U.S. or standard, or mabey American Standard. Not sure of the exact title, but it is certainly NOT Imperial. They shed the Imperial bit with the revolution and all. The confusion continues.

Rod



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Ed

08-06-2003 10:14:54




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Belarus tracto in reply to Rod F., 08-05-2003 22:01:29  
I'm not sure we gained anything in the USA from trying to implement the metric system.

A US inch is a USA inch anywhere in the world where as a Meter in Japan is differend that a Meter in Germany. Try putting a fine thread Jap bolt into a fine thread German nut - dosen't work!

The good old US standatd is at least a uniform standard.

So what if the kids have to learn how to use fractions and non 10 base mathamatics - might improve math scores

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Shep Va

08-04-2003 12:50:02




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pr in reply to RAB, 08-04-2003 10:33:14  
Wow.. All this and we still dont know how much air to put in the tire.....

Interesting points though...



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
rustyfarmall

08-04-2003 09:15:27




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: New Belarus tractors - tire pressu in reply to paul, 08-04-2003 08:03:32  
A great big AMEN to you, couldn't have said it better myself.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
[Options]  [Printer Friendly]  [Posting Help]  [Return to Forum]   [Log in to Reply]

Hop to:


TRACTOR PARTS TRACTOR MANUALS
We sell tractor parts!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]

Home  |  Forums


Copyright © 1997-2023 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters

Website Accessibility Policy