|
Post by grohgreg on Feb 18, 2008 18:14:48 GMT -5
One thing to remember is that due to the side to side articulation of the front axle, the front end contributes jack squat for stability until the axle hits the stops. Concur. Most of this talk is just that. I've mowed embankments that put me on three wheels. And every time, it's the uphill rear that lifts. I'm still firmly enrolled in the school that teaches your front/rear wheel width should be as close to equal as possible. Having said that, I'm not talking about special built and counterbalanced tractors that are engineered for embankment work. I'm talking about an all around configuration that will keep you safe on the hillsides - and STILL let you get through the shed door. In fairness though, I'm now driving somewhat bigger tractors. I'll concede that my JM254s had seemingly higher centers of gravity - which typically equates to a higher pucker factor. //greg//
|
|
|
Post by porky69 on Feb 19, 2008 0:49:06 GMT -5
I should have clarified that my statement is most true only when the tractor is stopped.
When moving the wider stance helps to minimize the obstacles effect on the tractor, that is the chassis only moves a small amount compared to the travel of the wheel when at the end of a wide axle, giving the feeling of being more stable.
A lot of it is mental, we are all raised with the basic thought that wider stance will be more stable.
I don't want to say that a wider axle stance is/isn't going have any effect but I do think that the relatively small change in width is not worth the potential extra wear/damage of widening.
With larger tractors the reason for adjustable track widths is mostly for matching tire spacing with crop row spacing and secondarily to allow clearance for different tire sizes. Also matching front and rear axle spacing has been proven to increase traction (front tires make a path for the rears, instead of each axle making its own path)
|
|
|
Post by grohgreg on Feb 19, 2008 8:18:36 GMT -5
Excellent points all Porky. I want to make it clear that what I posted is offered as a counterpoint. New and potential owners read forums like this, and could innocently assume that widening the track is the end-all answer to tractor stability. That's much more dangerous than actually being physically and mentally aware of the true limitations of your machine on the terrain over which it will actually be worked. It's at THAT time that an informed decision should be made as to the best stance for that tractor doing that work on that property. I'm merely offering an alternative opinion to assist in arriving at that decision.
I've got two tractors with different physical characteristics; height/weight/length/center of balance/horsepower. They both work the same land, doing very similar work. But - because their physical traits differ - the way they traverse the same slope or embankment is different. As such, the two tractors do not share the same stance profile. My 45 horse has equal stance (66.5") front/rear. My 35 horse is a little narrower in front to better handle stress from the loader. If/when one or both of them are retasked - say some row cropping - stance will likely change again.
//greg//
|
|
3RRL
Administrator
Huge Kama
Posts: 2,027
|
Post by 3RRL on Feb 19, 2008 12:08:41 GMT -5
Greg and Porky make very good points on this subject. See my thread about widening the stance when I made both fronts and rears the same width for the reasons discussed here.
This is a very good statement... Excellent points all Porky. I want to make it clear that what I posted is offered as a counterpoint. New and potential owners read forums like this, and could innocently assume that widening the track is the end-all answer to tractor stability. That's much more dangerous than actually being physically and mentally aware of the true limitations of your machine on the terrain over which it will actually be worked. It's at THAT time that an informed decision should be made as to the best stance for that tractor doing that work on that property. I'm merely offering an alternative opinion to assist in arriving at that decision.
|
|
|
Post by Ranch Hand on Feb 19, 2008 12:58:57 GMT -5
For some more info / reading on tractor wheel width do a Google search ....... Operating a Tractor on a Slope
Ronald Ranch Hand Supply
|
|
carld
CTW Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by carld on Feb 21, 2008 15:41:27 GMT -5
As I see it widening the rear wheels on a 200 series will put little extra force on the bearings in the rear axle considering the limit to which they can be moved out.
For the front wheels, if they are at the wide setting, the only extra load will be on the two bearings in the pivot of the spindle and the wheel bearings. That will not put any extra force on the drive axle.
If you are digging with the bucket or moving a load with the bucket using the wide setting the force on the spindle bearings and wheel bearings will indeed be greater than with the narrow setting.
However, with a given load in the bucket, the force on the front drive gear train will be the same with the wide setting or the narrow setting. The only bearings affected by a wide or narrow setting is the wheel bearings and spindle bearings.
I don't see any way that widening the front and/or rear wheel spacing can make a tractor tip over easier.
|
|
quikduk
CTW Life Member
Dog House
Posts: 552
|
Post by quikduk on Feb 29, 2008 17:58:19 GMT -5
I too widened my tires. They are now flipped at the front and at the 4th widest position on the rear so the tracks align. It really added to the stability while working on my slopes. I will be adding antifreeze to my rears in the near future but I am always cautious on the slopes.
|
|
3RRL
Administrator
Huge Kama
Posts: 2,027
|
Post by 3RRL on Mar 3, 2008 15:37:01 GMT -5
Here's the wider stance on my Kama thread. It came out great and truly made a difference for me. Kama Wider Stance It's just not a cure all for tip overs, you still have to watch it, but it sure is steadier on slopes than it was. Rob-
|
|
|
Post by stumppuller on Aug 22, 2008 22:38:29 GMT -5
Like it or not, reversing the rims on the axle does add new and higher stresses on all the support components. Is it enough to cause a failure? Who knows, but it will hasten the failure of the weakest component. For added stability, I intend to reverse the rear wheels and add water. The added water weight is ideally placed to provide the geatest resistance to overturning (as well as improving traction), yet it doesn't add a load to the axle support bearings. The negative is that it makes handling, braking etc. a little more sluggish. I also don't see any advantage to widening the front track width since the axle is center pivoted and contributes nothing to side force resistance (until the physical limits are hit). By the time the limits are hit you may well be on your way to a rollover anyway.
|
|
3RRL
Administrator
Huge Kama
Posts: 2,027
|
Post by 3RRL on Aug 22, 2008 23:31:22 GMT -5
Like it or not, reversing the rims on the axle does add new and higher stresses on all the support components. Is it enough to cause a failure? Who knows, but it will hasten the failure of the weakest component. For added stability, I intend to reverse the rear wheels and add water. The added water weight is ideally placed to provide the geatest resistance to overturning (as well as improving traction), yet it doesn't add a load to the axle support bearings. The negative is that it makes handling, braking etc. a little more sluggish. I also don't see any advantage to widening the front track width since the axle is center pivoted and contributes nothing to side force resistance (until the physical limits are hit). By the time the limits are hit you may well be on your way to a rollover anyway. Good to hear you will be widening your rears and adding liquid for stability and traction. I did the same and also filled the fronts. Indeed there is a significant difference in how "solid" and heavy the tractor feels to me. I presume you will notice the same when you do yours. And when you do, post back whether or not you experience the same as you wrote above. You will appreciate the difference and your pucker factor will probably be the one telling you so. I am in disagreement that making the fronts wider contributes nothing to side force resistance even though the axle pivots. Especially if the fronts are loaded like mine are. Merely because of the added dimensions to the stance and weight of the components being out there wider and associated frictions resiting to movement, there is some difference. I can't tell you exactly how much, but there is for sure. I've given this example before that if you theoretically widen the fronts much wider, so wide in fact that they extend WAY beyond the sides of the tractor, it becomes more and more difficult for the tractor to tip over on the same slope as the fronts get spaced farther and farther apart. So wide, (exaggerate for example) that the tractor no longer affects how much it's tipped over itself (hitting the stops) because if the wheels were spaced out wide enough, the upper wheel would have to be on a slope great enough to flip over the lower wheel. Like I said, I can't tell you how much, but I know it is affected somewhat. What I am really trying to get across is that IMHO, the negatives (such as added wear and sluggishness) are outweighed by the positives from widening your tractor stance and loading your tires. Rob-
|
|
|
Post by stumppuller on Aug 23, 2008 10:18:16 GMT -5
Hmmm...interesting thought. If you were to widen the front track an infinite amount (theoretically of course), it would be no different than if you took the front axle off and connected the pivot to a strurdy post in the ground. Now, since you couldn't move, imagine tipping the earth you are on sideways. At some point the tractor would tip over and the front "earth pivot" would do nothing to prevent it. Only when you hit the stops does the wider wheel spacing come into play.
|
|
3RRL
Administrator
Huge Kama
Posts: 2,027
|
Post by 3RRL on Aug 24, 2008 10:39:36 GMT -5
Hmmm...interesting thought. If you were to widen the front track an infinite amount (theoretically of course), it would be no different than if you took the front axle off and connected the pivot to a strurdy post in the ground. Now, since you couldn't move, imagine tipping the earth you are on sideways. At some point the tractor would tip over and the front "earth pivot" would do nothing to prevent it. Only when you hit the stops does the wider wheel spacing come into play. lol ... yeah, great example...
|
|