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

Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
720Deere

07-29-2004 06:26:53




Report to Moderator

I posted this one on the John Deere forum and got quite a few interesting theories. Let's see if we hear from anybody else here.

Alright, there are quite a few intelligent people here, so I need to pick your brains. I am involved in an argument with my father about which takes more power to move, iron weights or liquid ballast. We understand the whole CACL rust issue, the toxicity of Glycol and the cost of installation/maintenance differences. Our argument is based purely on which requires more HP. I won't state which side of the fence that I am on, but I do believe that my opinion is supported by the laws of physics.

These father/son arguments seem to be abundant. The only consolation that I get is that even though I am alway wrong according to dad, in several months he will prove my point to himself and preach it as the gospel according to his experience.

Any and all opinions are welcome and the more the better. Thanks for your time!

[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
Indydirtfarmer

07-30-2004 04:06:24




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to 720Deere, 07-29-2004 06:26:53  
A few things; First, most of the theoretical assumtions on this issue would be true IF the tractor was suspended off the ground, and the wheels were turning in mid air. They are however, not. The biggest difference in fluid-filled vs. air-filled with iron weight is the difference in rolling resistance created when you fill the tire with fluid. That changes the entire structure of the tire. Air (Tire pressure) pressure has a great deal to do with the changes, and how they effect the overall performance of a given tire/wheel. Yesterday, I became "at issue" with a couple folks on the pressures I run in my tractor tires. (I don't run the same PSI constantly, or on all my tractors) The ONE tractor I was using as an example, is used quite a bit, to move round bales weighing around 1800lbs. With all that weight on the rear of the tractor, it needs higher tire pressure to remain "stable", as well as helping to reduce "rolling resistance". In recent years, I have moved primarily to no-till cropping. I still do SOME tillage. (Mostly a mulch tiller) For those types of jobs, the pressures drop..... (Also, that's where the radial tired tractors come in to play) I'm searching for any actual "field tests" conducted by tire companies/universities/equipment manufactureres on the subject. When it's all said and done, discussion of theory vs. "real world facts" sometimes differ greatly. Interesting topic none the less..... .John

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
MarkB

07-29-2004 15:48:25




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to 720Deere, 07-29-2004 06:26:53  
This is simple. Fluid-filled tires will require more horsepower to turn than the same tires with external ballast.

Why? The fluid inside the tires does not rotate, while the tire does rotate. The water exerts a small amount of friction against the tire, which causes the tire and fluid to heat up. This heat is lost energy, which translates to lost power. The amount of power consumed by this parasitic drag is infinitesimal relative to the total power produced by the motor, but it is real.

The cast iron weights, on the other hand, create almost no drag. (Assuming that they are fastened good and tight to the wheels.)

Duane had the right idea, but he has it backwards: it's the hard-boiled egg that will spin the longest, not the raw egg.

Benjb had some interesting math, but he answered the wrong question. He calculated the rotational inertia of the ballast, which affects the power required to accelerate the tractor to operating speed. That is of little consequence. First, the tractor spends most of its time at a constant operating speed. Second, when you stop you recover the energy that was used to accelerate the tractor, assuming you don't touch the brakes.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Ron

07-30-2004 03:09:25




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to MarkB, 07-29-2004 15:48:25  
Simply not true. I agree that any "friction heating" of the water is so minor as to be inconsequential but disagree about the cast weights. They absolutely consume power, lots of it, as does any rotational mass, like the wheel/tire assemblies. Because water does not rotate with the tire and cast iron weights do, physics tells us that when comparing identical weights, one in liquid ballast and the other in external cast iron wheel weights, the external weights consume far more power.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
MarkB

07-30-2004 04:00:01




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to Ron, 07-30-2004 03:09:25  
Sorry Ron, but you're mistaken. A rotating mass, such as a flywheel, stores energy. It does not consume energy. So it takes power to accelerate the wheel weights to speed, but no further power is consumed once the tractor is at operating speed. The energy stored in the rotating weights is recovered when the tractor is deccelerated, either by friction in the drivetrain, brakes or the implement in use.

You can verify this with any physics textbook, or prove it yourself with a rotating mass such as bicycle wheel. Spin the wheel up to speed. Does it stop spinning when you quit applying power? No, although it will eventually slow down because of friction in the bearings. Now stop it by holding your hand against the tire. Did your hand get hot? That's because the energy stored in the spinning wheel was converted to heat.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Ron

07-30-2004 04:37:09




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to MarkB, 07-30-2004 04:00:01  
The energy that is stored comes from somewhere... the effort it takes to rotate it. There is no free lunch in physics!



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
buickanddeere

07-30-2004 08:29:20




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to Ron, 07-30-2004 04:37:09  
Energy to accelerate the cast weights to speed is then converted to heat when stopped by the brakes or drag from the load. Any extra weight carried on the tractor does increase rolling friction in both the tire and the ground below it. Be it cast, fluid or equipment The fluid as well as using energy to climb the rising side of the tire and being dragged down the leading edge of the tire. Is subject to random sloshing. The slosh energy is always taken from either rotation or the linear travel in the direction of the tractor. However the sloshes rarely return energy in the direction that created them. The sloshes are dissipated against the sides of the tire (x axis), a vertical motion (Y axis) or in the (Z axis) in the opposite direction the tractor is traveling. Then there the pumping action just above the tread contact surface. The sidewall widens and then pushes fluid out of the way in order to narrow again. As for the slosh in the correct direction returning the energy that created it? Try dropping a rubber ball. It bounces back up but at a lower amplitude and lower with each bouce. The energy that initially raised that ball has been converted to heat by the ball and floor.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
benjb in NE

07-29-2004 20:22:20




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to MarkB, 07-29-2004 15:48:25  
I thought the original question was which required more power to get up to operational speed. Once you get both moving all the only power needed is to resupply the energy lost to friction.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Duane

07-29-2004 09:43:53




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to 720Deere, 07-29-2004 06:26:53  
The liquid filled tire takes less energy to rotate. There is a simple experiment to show this. Take two cans of food that are the same size and weight. One can should have a solid substance like jelly and one can should have a liquid substance like thin soup. Put both cans on a sloped board and see which one will go faster. The liquid filled can should win. This is because the liquid in the can does not rotate and take up energy. The same experiment can be done with raw and hard boiled eggs.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
benjb in NE

07-29-2004 20:25:43




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to Duane, 07-29-2004 09:43:53  
That experiment doesnt answer the question because two factors are not considered: a. the can with the fluid is not shaped like a tire thus changing how inertia is calculated
and b. the fluid and the solid would have different masses and thus different inertia to begin with



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
john in la

07-29-2004 14:58:10




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to Duane, 07-29-2004 09:43:53  
Yes but your test is not true to life.
For it to be true your can with the solid would have to be 100% full like iron weights.
The can with the liquid would have to be 1/2 full as in water in a tire.
A liquid will always have starting and stopping forces.
Try pulling a trailer with a tractor on it.
Now take the tractor off and put a 800 gallon tank on the trailer with 400 gallons of water in it. Did you notice the difference ????? ?????

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Clay

07-29-2004 13:40:51




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to Duane, 07-29-2004 09:43:53  
By Jove, I think he's got it.

Right on.

Sometimes cans of food and boiled eggs are better than all the science and physics you can find.

Best regards,
Clay



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G-MAN

07-29-2004 13:57:51




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to Clay, 07-29-2004 13:40:51  
The only difference being that those items are not coupled to anything and are being powered by gravity on a smooth service. Tractor wheels are driven by the engine and powertrain. Does that change the outcome?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Benjb in NE

07-29-2004 09:10:18




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to 720Deere, 07-29-2004 06:26:53  
The answer to your question involves Physics, moments of inertia, and Calculus, integration. The basic equation is I=MR^2. By knowing the different radii and the masses involed you can set up an intergal to evaluate between the two radii. If you do a general equation for a hollow cylinder (liquid ballast) and a solid cyclinder (wheel weight) you get I=.5M(R_1^2+R_2^2) and I=MR^2, respectively. By comparing the two I's you can see which one would have a greater inertia (resistance in a change of motion).

To illistrate, suppose you have a wheel with a 20 in minor radius and a 25 in major radius. You have the choice of putting a 1000# (treated as mass) wieght, with a 10in radius, or 1000# of fluid. The inertial for the weight would be .5*1000*10^2 or 50000 h's (arbitrary unit). The inertia for the fluid would be .5*1000*(20^2+25^2) or 512500 h's . The fluid in this example definitely has more inertia (about 10 times more) and would require more horse power. (to find the exact horse power difference you would need to get to standard units and plug into a few mor equations).

Another point to consider is that the fluid doesnt fill the entire tire. My Allis B manual said that originally they came filled with only 75% fluid. that means that the weight is not balance with respect to the axis of rotation. Which is easy to turn and keep turning, a balance flywheel or one with a large chunk taken out. In both regards it appears that the solid wheel weights require less HP in order to move the machine forward

P.S. The closer the mass is to the axis of rotation, the less rotational inertial it has.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Ron

07-29-2004 09:37:26




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to Benjb in NE, 07-29-2004 09:10:18  
Water inside a tire tube does not move around the axis of rotation. Get a child's clear yard ball. Fill 3/4 with water. Spin it on one axis slowly in your hands and you will see for yourself. The reason is simple, not enough friction exists between the tube and water to move the water. At high speeds, centrifugal force will cause the water to pile up against tube surface, causing friction and then the water will move, but due to surface tension and shear only some of it moves.

Given that tractor tires operate at only a few rpm in real world conditions, there is near zero additional power required to operate the tractor with water in the tires, beyond the dead weight of the water which really only has an effect during acceleration and deceleration, again something tractors in the real world do very little of.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G-MAN

07-29-2004 10:55:51




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to Ron, 07-29-2004 09:37:26  
Exactly. All that math and calculation was performed on the assumption that the mass of the liquid in the tire was rigidly attached the wheel/tire as cast-iron weights are. Except for the very small amount of fluid that the tire can actually grab onto, the majority of it stays relatively stationary while the tire rotates around and under it. It takes more braking effort to stop a iron-ballasted wheel than a liquid-ballasted wheel. Of course, after you stop, the liquid tends to slosh around and rock the tractor some, which doesn't happen with cast, but that's a separate issue.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
buickanddeere

07-29-2004 12:10:23




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to G-MAN, 07-29-2004 10:55:51  
I agree the drag by the fluid is "minor". However it is ever present parasitic load that cumulatively adds up in fuel consumption over the life of the tractor. Rolling steady state the drag is light but the sloshing effect while on rough ground adds up. It’s tougher shaking a 1 gallon container containing ¾ of water. Compared to shaking a ¾ gallon container filled to 100%. With the tall tires the rpm maybe down but the linear speed in ft/min stays the same. While my math doesn't come close to the genius of Benjb. Fluid friction is a loss we have to contend with in industry and the fire service even in "smooth" pipe and hoses.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G-MAN

07-29-2004 13:47:39




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to buickanddeere, 07-29-2004 12:10:23  
Ahh, but what about the water being held onto by the tire increasing the rolling mass and adding to the inertia? The sloshing effect. If the water sloshes forward against the front of the tire, wouldn't it be trying to push the tire forward? Of course it then sloshes backward, negating the forward momentum. Does it cancel out?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
buickanddeere

07-30-2004 08:33:05




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to G-MAN, 07-29-2004 13:47:39  
The sloshes usually return the energy to the tire in a direction opposing the energy that created. Or in an direction that does not assist rotation and direction. Plus as in bouncing a rubber ball, there are losses. The numbers are small but the energy consumed does add up over time.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
David

07-29-2004 09:04:12




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to 720Deere, 07-29-2004 06:26:53  
Wouldn't it require the same force to acclerate the same mass regardless of its state of matter (liquid, solid or gas)?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
buck

07-29-2004 08:04:24




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to 720Deere, 07-29-2004 06:26:53  

While each day I think I think a little less I will tell of the toddler that has figured out that if he adds water to his dirt pile he can move much more to the the hood of grandmas car. When lasily fishing on the creek bank we know that many pounds of water will flow over a rock but the rock never moves. A 90 lb person can easily move a 2000 lb water bed from its frame and not spill the water but cannot move the 200 pound frame. Millions of pounds of water falling from the sky is a rain shower while a million pounds of iron would surely destroy our entire property. Thoughts for today have expired.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
buickanddeere

07-29-2004 06:49:36




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to 720Deere, 07-29-2004 06:26:53  
You do know how to stir the pot!!!
Are you certain you want to confuse people with facts when their minds are already made up?
I can just imagine Galileo back in Italy in the 14th or 15th century. He almost got burned at the stake for saying a 1lb ball fell at the same speed as a 10 lb ball. The Church/Government at the time didn't want to hear that the earth and all the planets rotated around the sun either.
Unless the tractor has a front mounted loader, go with only bolt on cast iron ballast. It costs a little more initially, but it's a win/win/win from there on in.
We could get into the old radial vs bias ply tires conflict here too? Funny how some people claim properly sized/inflated quality radials don't save money over bias tires?

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
720Deere

07-29-2004 07:09:30




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to buickanddeere, 07-29-2004 06:49:36  
Funny you should mention the Galileo thing. That is another grand father/son argument. Dad believes that because he weighs 140 lbs and I weigh 250 lbs that I would fall faster than him. He had a pretty good fall a few years back and his statement to me was "Imagine how fast I would have hit the ground if I was as big as you". I can't seem to convince him that it is a diffence in force and not speed. Oh well, to each his own I guess. I've retired from the teaching an old dog business.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Leland

07-29-2004 11:02:04




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to 720Deere, 07-29-2004 07:09:30  
It's not the fall that hurts!! It's that sudden stop . whats your dad think of that



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
720Deere

07-29-2004 18:55:56




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to Leland, 07-29-2004 11:02:04  
He knows that all too well. He fell while trimmin a tree a few years back. Not the best way to get a helicopter ride!



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Leland

07-29-2004 20:06:52




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to 720Deere, 07-29-2004 18:55:56  
Are you in the same boat as paulie on american chopper ,you know or do nothing and old man does it all



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
720Deere

07-31-2004 19:37:22




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to Leland, 07-29-2004 20:06:52  
Not quite American Chopper. I learned 15 years ago that we don't work well together. It's just this darn tractor hobby thing is starting to seem like work. I really don't waste my time arguing much, I just drop theories here and there. Next thing you know he finds out it works and he is proud of his discovery.

A friend of mine once told his father "Remember, some day you will be old and in a wheelchair and if you're lucky, I won't push your a$$ down the steps!".

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Ron

07-29-2004 07:29:41




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to 720Deere, 07-29-2004 07:09:30  
Assuming you and your dad are on earth, he's right.

This nonsense about Galileo's "law of fall" is often quoted but rarely understood. Physics teaches us that two bodies of different weight fall (towards the center of earth) at exactly the same rate IN A VACUUM (no atmosphere). That condition does not exist anywhere on earth.

Therefore, the rate of fall of any two objects is based largely upon aerodynamics, at least until terminal velocity is achieved. Due to the mass/surface area ratio of the human body, the heavier guy falls faster than the lighter guy, assuming both are in the same relative position (feet first, fetal, limbs extended, etc.)

Now here's one to chew one. A bullet is dropped by hand onto the ground from 5'. At exactly the same time, a bullet is fired from a rifle pointed directly at the horizon. The rifle is at 5' from the ground. Which bullet hits the ground first?

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
jimNCal

07-29-2004 21:36:22




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to Ron, 07-29-2004 07:29:41  
Assuming the bullets are the same physical size(but not necessarily the same weight), neither. They hit at the same time. Now suppose you could aim a rifle exactly straight up to fire it. Allowing that the rotation of the earth is a constant and there's no side movemant by the air, what speed would the bullet be going when it eventually came back down into the barrel?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
720Deere

07-29-2004 08:03:03




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to Ron, 07-29-2004 07:29:41  
Now your assuming that the difference in mass of the 2 bodies will produce enough difference in aerodynamics to change velocity. Not very likely in 2 human bodies. If you are going to factor in surface area of the body and the way it is affected by air resistance, the larger or heavier body in this case would produce more resistance and thus fall at a slower rate.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Allan in NE

07-29-2004 07:33:34




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to Ron, 07-29-2004 07:29:41  
Hey Ron,

I'd guess that they'd hit at about the same time wouldn't they? Lateral speed would have nothing to do with the vertical drop would it?

Allan



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Ron

07-29-2004 07:48:08




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to Allan in NE, 07-29-2004 07:33:34  
Allan,

BINGO! You just made my day!

Ron



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Indydirtfarmer

07-29-2004 06:46:35




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to 720Deere, 07-29-2004 06:26:53  
I was following the thread on the John Deere board. Many good theories, all explained quite well. Last year about this time, I started an experiment of my own. I have one tractor that is used to pull a corn planter, cut and bale hay, and bush hog. It doesn't need much ballast for most of that work. (Actually needs MORE wieght to pull the round baler than anything) When using the planter, I mount a set of saddle tanks for liquid fertilizer on the tractor. That provides all the needed wieght to pull a 4 row no-till planter. (I use it on 1 farm, WAY away from where my 8 row planter stays) I want the wieght at some point, but when it comes time to plant, I want to be able to remove the wieght quickly, and easily. Iron wieghts accomplish that end. At the time when I was switching wieghts, I also removed the injector pump for a visit to the repair shop. I had to pull the tractor around with fluid in the tires (1450 lbs). Then I removed the fluid, and added almost the same wieght in iron wieghts. I had to pull the tractor around the shop with THAT set-up also. I used a garden tractor to move it on both occasions. With the fluid in the tires, and tires inflated to 15 PSI. the garden tractor almost didn't have the gonads to move it. With the iron wieghts, and the same tire pressure, it pulled significantly easier. Hmmmmm m.
Not exactly rocket science, but conclusive anyway. John

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Allan in NE

07-29-2004 06:41:25




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to 720Deere, 07-29-2004 06:26:53  
720,

If it were a static weight, it would take more force to move the fluid, since it is located further away from the axle. It would then take more braking power to bring it to a halt also for the same reason.

But, fluid in a tire is not staic. The fluid tends to remain stationary while the tube/tire tends moves "around" it.

Therefore, me thinks it doesn't make 6 eggs worth of difference between fluid and iron weights. :>)

Allan

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
buickanddeere

07-29-2004 06:53:08




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to Allan in NE, 07-29-2004 06:41:25  
True if the fluid didn't move or press on the tire tread and sidewalls. Pumping, lifting,sloshing and friction losses are a steady drain of HP. Plus if I had a dollar for every over ballasted and over inflated tire..... ..... ..



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Ron

07-29-2004 07:46:49




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to buickanddeere, 07-29-2004 06:53:08  
Then you would have $2!

Maybe you should take your "I hate liquid ballast" routine on the road, Quebec or wherever. No doubt they would pass a law forbidding anybody from operating a tractor without your approval.

Let's get something straight, every one of us who actually use our equipment find what works best for us. We all use different tractors, with different implements, on different soils with different moisture levels, for different tasks. The amount of ballast and tire pressure and type of tire, and size of tire are choices we make based on our different needs. Ballst is also very much a safety issue; anything you do to lower the center of gravity keeps you from testing your ROPS (or your head if you don't have one). Nothing is more effective at lowering the center of gravity than LIQUID BALLAST.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Allan in NE

07-29-2004 07:02:07




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to buickanddeere, 07-29-2004 06:53:08  
Boy!

Do I ever hear you on that one! 15lbs is crazy, if ya ask me.

Allan



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G-MAN

07-29-2004 10:45:58




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to Allan in NE, 07-29-2004 07:02:07  
There is no set ideal tire pressure. Just like ballast and where to put it, ideal tire pressure is determined by the weight the tire has to carry, the type of work being done, the tire make and model. Every tire manufacturer and tractor manufacturer publishes tire pressure guidelines and worksheets just like they do for ballast.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
buickanddeere

07-29-2004 11:50:43




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to G-MAN, 07-29-2004 10:45:58  
What I was thinking of is all these worn out tractor tires with very little bar height in the tire's middle and nearly full length tread bars on the outside 1/3 of each tread bar. Wasn't road wear either.
As for ballasting in general...I don't know why some people insist on loading a 50HP tractor with ballast like it was doing a 75HP tractor's work. And yet the tractor attached just to a 25HP load? Or those people who ballast a 50 HP tractor like it had 100HP and attach a load suited for a 100hp tractor?

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Indydirtfarmer

07-29-2004 07:04:14




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to Allan in NE, 07-29-2004 07:02:07  
Guess that's why nobody asked you..... ...
That happens to be the pressure that works best in that set of tires, on that set of rims, on that tractor. John



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
720Deere

07-29-2004 07:17:21




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to Indydirtfarmer, 07-29-2004 07:04:14  
The tire pressure is one that could be argued for many years to come with no clear answer. In the antique tractor pulling game, I have learned that different soil types require differing tire pressures to maintain optimum traction/efficiency. Also rim width will change the pressure requirements. Another factor is the liquid ballast. Tires with liquid ballast require different pressures than an air filled tire. Nobody is totally wrong on that one and I don't believe that anybody could be correct in making a general statement about what is too much pressure.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G-MAN

07-29-2004 10:47:50




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to 720Deere, 07-29-2004 07:17:21  
There are clear answers about tire pressure, it's just that just like what you mention about pulling, the clear answer is going to vary from situation to situation. Two identical tractors with identical tires could require two different pressures based on whether they have a 16-row planter hanging on the hitch or are pulling a '37 foot disk on the drawbar.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Allan in NE

07-29-2004 07:06:55




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to Indydirtfarmer, 07-29-2004 07:04:14  
John!

Ouch!!

I sure wasn't talking about anyone else's outfit except mine and mine alone. Geeeze!

Allan



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
harley1983

07-29-2004 07:13:54




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to Allan in NE, 07-29-2004 07:06:55  
YOU boys are forgetting the most significant point here. How cool does a ballasted tire look out there just pulling along. Now, how cool does a tire look that has four or five big ole bolt on weights on it, maybe even sticking out from the edge of the tire at least one weight. Shades of the sixties and some opf the first tractor pulls. My 560 loader tractor has four on each side and the M, wide front, three pooint has three on each side and between the two I can do anything I need down here in the Ozark hills . God Bless all and the ability to have their own opinions, Harley

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Allan in NE

07-29-2004 07:29:53




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to harley1983, 07-29-2004 07:13:54  
Aw Heck!

I have this uncanny ability to make people mad; been fightin' this curse all my life. I'm the only guy I know that can make someone mad by just saying "good morning" to 'em.

Rumor has it that when I was born, my mother took one look at me and turned around and slapped my dad.

I was the original prototype of the "A Boy named Sue" identity profile. :>)

Now, about this ballast issue..... ..naw, I don't wanna go there. :>)

Allan

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Indydirtfarmer

07-29-2004 07:20:25




Report to Moderator
 Re: Liquid Ballast vs. Iron Weights in reply to harley1983, 07-29-2004 07:13:54  
Nothing against your opinion. (I like the "look" of iron weights too) It seems to me that the question at hand is which requires the most horsepower to overcome. I'm quite certain that rolling resistance is higher on fluid-filled tires. That is why I operate most of my tractors with tire pressures at the peak of their best working range. I run radials on the tractors I use for tillage. They stay at a low pressure. As soon as any of my tractors need tires, I'm switching ALL OF THEM TO RADIALS. (And getting rid of the fluid too) John

[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