tractor pans or scrapers which do you like better

[Deas Plant]

Track wear.

Hi, T dirt
Are you by some odd chance finding that the rear tracks are wearing/chopping out faster than the front ones?

 

[t_dirt]

yes, i do beleive the rears are wearing faster than the fronts. We thought it was due to the increased traction from the loaded pan. Lots of power+stong drive components+lots of traction= something has to give.... tracks????

 

[Richardjw~]

I wonder what the weight ratio is front to back? Can you over ride the power de-rating or just load in 5th gear??

Absolutely not, its in the software of the machine for a reason.....to stop total destruction of the tractor

 

[Richardjw~]

not being funny T Dirt, but your local Case IH dealer should have a ballasting calculator to work out what weight goes where.

Are these proper scraper spec. tractors?

Basically the machine (STX380?) weighs in at 21,800kgs & you can go up to 24,500kgs for optimum weight (in the ops manual), to get the 65% split weight you need around 15,600kgs over the front tracks to get the job right

Eighteen x 45kg weights & the carrier on the front end will increase the front end weight by 1191kgs and because of the law of physics actually adds nigh on 2 tonnes to the front and take it off the back

 

[Deas Plant]

Ballasting.

Hi, T dirt.
If your rears are wearing/tearing out before your fronts, you ARE way out of balance. The loaded front pan resting on the drawbar is not 'directly' causing the problem. That is to say, it is not the weight as such but the extra traction that it gives to the back end when loading that second pan.

The front ballast the Richardjw mentioned is even more important when loading a second pan - or third , or fourth - than when loading a single or the front one of a multiple hitch. Otherwise, too much of the work is left to the rear tracks and they just ain't in the same class for handling those sorts of loads/strains as a standard crawler. Heck, you cain't even ballast the front TRACKS with water or cal/chlor - or lead powder - like you can with a wheeled tractor.

Another trick that might help would be to set up a quad-track with a front dozer blade and use it to pushload the other rigs. This would require a push block on the back end of each rear pan. A block that pinned into the rear drawbar and could maybe swivel a bit to either side might do the trick. Just a thought. I think you would also find that this would increase production by packing more into each scraper load due the extra horsepower and traction, as JDOFMEMI and Mass-X pointed out earlier.

Hope this helps.

 

[OCR]

Ballasting... or, weight and balance:

Here's a nifty calculator that I used when we were installing the pusher axle
under our water tender.

Of course you need to know the weights you're dealing with... or guess real
close.

It's basically a weight and balance calculator... the type of stuff we had to figure out by hand, back in A&P school. I don't think I ever got one right...
due to simple math errors... :cool2

You have to mess with it to work on things it wasn't designed for... like put in
minus numbers... if you're removing something... and so forth.

It's pretty self explanatory... open the link and read the instructions... or,
click... go to calculator, after you open link, of course.

Lot of other info. on the page that pertains to trucks, which it was designed
for.

Also, you can't us it to figure weight transfer under power, which is what you're kinda looking at on the scraper deal.

But, it would work to get your front to back split how you want... if you know
your axle weights.

http://www.roscommonequipmentcenter.com/eng_exp.html

And you do have to use all the boxes... even if they're just zeros... or you will get a NaN... Not a Number...

Here's one to do unit conversons... such as kilograms to pounds... And, a
whole bunch more....

http://rlhudson.com/Unit Converter/index.htm


OCR

 

[Richardjw~]

Hi, T dirt.
Heck, you cain't even ballast the front TRACKS with water or cal/chlor - or lead powder - like you can with a wheeled tractor.

Don't even consider water ballast for tyres in this application. The tyre sidewall HAS to flex in order to put the traction down correctly. Water will prevent this.

 

[Deas Plant]

Water Ballast

Hi, Richardjw.
Might I, from the lowly vantage point of a mere 48+ years of working with tractors and heavy machinery, beg to differ with your last statement. Further, may I put it to you that, if you do the job properly, you will have MORE sidewall flex, NOT less, with water-filled tyres.

 

[Richardjw~]

Hi, Richardjw.
Might I, from the lowly vantage point of a mere 48+ years of working with tractors and heavy machinery, beg to differ with your last statement. Further, may I put it to you that, if you do the job properly, you will have MORE sidewall flex, NOT less, with water-filled tyres.

lowly or not, tyre manufacturers now do not recommend filling the tyres with water - period.

 

[Deas Plant]

Maybe I'm outa touch???????????????

Hi, Richardjw.
Maybe I'm outa touch, or maybe I've been hiding under a rock somewhere but I have NOT heard anything like from that ANY tire dealers DownUnder.

I have run 4wd loaders in sand with water in the tires and beat the pants off similar machines with air-filled tires. I have worked narrower, water-filled tires against wider air-filled tires, especially on 4wd loaders, and at least stayed with the other wider-tired machines if not beaten them. Again especially on 4wd loaders, it makes them a much more stable machine as well as adding traction.

Not recommended for high-speed haulage units such as normal scrapers, dump trucks and ADT's due the build up of centrifugal force at speed. How-wevver, where 4wd tractor-pan combinations are working on un-graded haul roads or not achieving high speeds, above about 20-25 mph, I'd certainly be thinking about it.

But I've never found the thought-box with my name on it yet.

Just my 0.02.

 

[Greg]

sounds like a heck of a bunch of extra everything when you can use reguar scrapers or pull pans behind a Cat.

 

[JDOFMEMI]

Don't even consider water ballast for tyres in this application. The tyre sidewall HAS to flex in order to put the traction down correctly. Water will prevent this.

Unless you fill the tire to the point of pressurizing it only with water, the sidewall will still flex. Most tire filling charts I have seen show how many gallons to add to get 50% fill, or max fill of 75%. The remainder is air filled, and keeps the tire flexible while greatly improving the bite. Pure water is one thing, adding CaCl in solution gives much more weight than straight water.

It is a pain to deal with, flats are a real mess, but the balance and traction makes up for it in the right application.

 

[Deas Plant]

Extras.

Hi, Greg.
That has been my contention all along, since I first saw a tractor-pan combo. You are maintaining 2/3/4/5 units in each combo as opposed to one unit with a scraper, a heap of extra tires, it takes much longer to load, in some dump situations, you have to go around a second time to dump that last pan and they won't work in harder ground without a ripping tractor anyway. And they plain won't work in low-traction conditions.

And people want to talk about transport costs. If you are running any more than ONE pan behind a tractor, you are going to need a second float. If you are running FOUR pans behind a tractor, which we've seen photos of on this forum, you are going to need at least 3 floats - PLUS something capable of either loading or unloading the pans at EACH end while you are transporting.

O.K., so you do need either a pushcat or push-pull twin-powers for normal scrapers to work effectively BUT normal scrapers will work reasonably well in country where a tractor-pan combo would have to watch from the sidelines 'cos the tractor couldn't pull its pans through the mud or sand or whatever and Cat-n-can rigs will work well in even more places than normal scrapers, governed largely only by haul distance.

Just my 0.02.

 

[RollOver Pete]

lowly or not, tyre manufacturers now do not recommend filling the tyres with water - period.

Hmm...
I'm not sure if I've ever listened to any manufactures recommendation-period.

"4 out of 5 Dentists surveyed would recommend sugarless gum to their patients who chew gum."

 

[Richardjw~]

Hmm...
I'm not sure if I've ever listened to any manufactures recommendation-period.

At the end of the day its no skin off my nose what you do or who you listen to....... the topic here was about enhancing performance for these tractor scraper combinations either on tracks or tyres. Its not for nothing that the manufacturers spend £££££ on research and in this instance recommend cast iron in these applications.

Remember a tractor tyre running at 18psi transmitting 500hp through it is an entirely different construction to that used on a 500 hp loading shovel

http://www.moderntiredealer.com/t_inside.cfm?action=art_det&storyID=1035

and the sentence "Many farmers are comfortable with calcium chloride ballast because that's what dad used,"

 

[Deas Plant]

Original topic.

Hi, Richardjw.
The ORIGINAL topic here was, and I copy and paste:

"tractor pans or scrapers which do you like better".

As seems to be very common in such discussions, the focus had shifted a little by the time you came along, from the original question to how long or SHORT a life rubber tracks had in this application and the reasons therefore.

You came along with some good sense about balance and ballast - and then you posted this gem, and I copy and paste:

"Don't even consider water ballast for tyres in this application. The tyre sidewall HAS to flex in order to put the traction down correctly. Water will prevent this." (Un-C+P)

Note that at this stage you didn't mention that tire manufacturers didn't recommend water ballast in their tires these days. You just made a flat blanket statement that water ballast would prevent the tire sidewalls flexing.

It was at this point that you started unravelling. I doubt there is a person of either gender on this forum who has had anything to do with water ballast in tires who hasn't noticed that water-ballasted tires tend to have MORE sidewall flex, NOT less. I personally have never yet met anyone who attempted a 100% fill with water but, even if it was done, you would have to put a fair bit of pressure behind the last of the water to STOP sidewall flex.

I have read the article at the other end of your link. (Yer certainly dug that one out of the archives, didn't you? 2001.) It does say that some tire makers and some tractor makers are suggesting suitcase and wheel weights rather than liquid ballast. It also goes on to say that the tire dealers are NOT finding that this advice is changing big mobs of people's approaches to getting more traction. Maybe the tire and tractor makers ought to point an ear or six in the direction of the end users.

I have also yet to see wheel weights give as much increase in traction as a 75% fill with water and running the tires at about 18 - 20 PSI instead 30 - 40 PSI air-filled. I think this might have something to do with comparative footprint???????? And you still have to keep the darned wheel weights bolted up tight too.

Yes, 500 hp TRACTOR tires are a somewhat different proposition from 500 hp 4wd loader tires. Have you ever watched the distortion and flexing, especially in HEAVY digging, that are part of a loader tire's life? You just don't get that same kind of punishment dished out to tires on tractor-pan applications.

In closing, we love to 'see' new faces posting here but I think most of us would prefer that the posts make good sense, have somethiong worthwhile to contribute AND explain the logic or reasons behind whatever information or views are posted. Flat, blanket statements, especially without accompanying reasons, do not tend to be well received here.

 

[Richardjw~]

Apologies to all the readers for appearing abrupt, but I never use 20 words when 2 will do.

It wasn't really a case of digging around for the info, just using Google.....it was the first thing it threw up (so to speak)

So Deas now you agree with my statement that adding water is not recommended for scraper applications?

If you want to continue reading then have a look here....http://salesmanual.deere.com/sales/salesmanual/en_NA/tractors/2008/feature/ballasting_and_optimizing_performance/6030p_7030p/6030_6030p_7030_7030p_ballast_liquid.html

here......http://salesmanual.deere.com/sales/salesmanual/en_NA/tractors/2008/feature/ballasting_and_optimizing_performance/9030/9030_tractors_optimizing_tractor_performance.html


here.....
http://www.goodyear.ca/tires/farm/pdf/GoodyearFarmHandbook_1.pdf


and here.....http://manuals.deere.com/omview/OMAR283051_19/?tM=

 

[Deas Plant]

Water in tractor tires for scraper work.........................

Hi, Richardjw.

So Deas now you agree with my statement that adding water is not recommended for scraper applications?[QUOTE]

Now yu dun gotten me all kew-ree-yus. I'm tryin' ter figga rout whair eye dunn sed that eye aggree wiff y'all an' eye jes cain't fine ditt.

Eye kin fined whair I dunn sed this:
Quote:
"I have also yet to see wheel weights give as much increase in traction as a 75% fill with water and running the tires at about 18 - 20 PSI instead 30 - 40 PSI air-filled. I think this might have something to do with comparative footprint???????? And you still have to keep the darned wheel weights bolted up tight too." Unquote.

Eye cain't figga rout howe thatt ekwates 2 aggreein' wiff yer.

Quote:
"You came along with some good sense about balance and ballast." Unquote.

If'n yer figga that iz aggreein wiff yer, minetinkit yer dunn mist ther poynt 'cuz eye bloo ittall ayway wiff this necks lion:

Quote:
"and then you posted this gem, and I copy and paste:

"Don't even consider water ballast for tyres in this application. The tyre sidewall HAS to flex in order to put the traction down correctly. Water will prevent this." (Un-C+P)" Unquote.

I will be blunt here. That is a line of crap on a par with some of Dozer 575's better lines of similar substance. (If you don't know who Dozer 575 is, just do a little ferreting around in the dozer discussions in this forum.) There is only ONE way that water will go anywhere near preventing the tire walls flexing. That is if somebody were silly enough to attempt a 100% fill with water. Even then, it would be almost impossible to stop some degree of flexing due to the natural flex and elasticity inherent in the tire's construction.

The accepted WISDOM for filling tires with any form of liquid ballast for as long as I can remember and anywhere I have been where it has been done is to fill the tire somewhere between 40% and 75% with water, et al., and pressurise the rest with air. I personally prefer a 75% fill - to valve level with the valve at the top - and then add a little more than half the air pressure that you would use if the tire was totally air-filled. This gives about the best balance between traction and ride and the best footprint, at least in my humble experience. AND it allows the tire walls to flex more freely than a straight air fill simply 'cos there is way less pressure in the tire.

I have never used cal-chlor as a filler, simply 'cos I have always lived in parts of the world where freezing was not a problem. I do know that it plays real havoc with tubeless rims if proper care is not taken so I'm ackshully quite happy that I have never had to use it.

Now, do you still think I agree with you?

I meant what I said about new faces in the last paragraph of my previous post in this thread. May I suggest that you re-read it. And perhaps you ought to look at your habit of only using 2 words when 20 would possibly better explain your case.

 

[aglasergps]

Weights...steel or water....that is obviously the question now. I'll also throw in my $0.02 worth in, it's been a while since I've been here. I ran 4wd tractors and tandem buckets for nearly 15 years when I was younger and now have a neck to prove it. We found that we had to use a lower air pressure in the tyre with water because of the lower volume of air in the water filled tyre. There was less room for it to compress so we had to start with a lower pressure to allow it to let the tyre flex. The other reason we ended up with the steel weights was simply because the water was such a pain in the a..e when it came to a repair.....................

 

[Deas Plant]

Air, Water or..........................

Hi, Aglasergps.
I first encountered water-filled tires on Chamberlain Champion 9G farm tractors which had a top speed of 27 mph. These tractors had a transverse front leaf spring that did help to take a bit of bounce out them but they were an exceptional ride for a farm tractor of the day anyway, at any speed. How-wevver, I can tell you from personal experience that they were NOT quite as good a ride with all air-fill in those rear tires. We ran them at 16 psi with 75% water fill or at 34-36 psi with full air fill.

My next experience with water-filled tires was a Kawasaki KSS60Z 4wd articulated loader. It was not a good machine to road anywhere very far when I first started on it as it had air-filled tires at about 45 psi.. It was also not a particularly stable machine to operate.

Then we added 75% water-fill all round with about 18 psi air pressure. It was a vastly different machine. It could put its grunt on the ground much better and was far more stable in operation. I could actually side-cut a 1-in-2 batter with it quite happily.

It could wind up to around 50 kilometres per hour or slightly more on the flat and up to 55 kph down a hill. It handled almost like a car at those speeds. I was staggered at the difference the water-fill made to its handling.

Another time, I wasn't the operator, just a spectator. The tractor was a Bell 4206 pulling 2 x 18 cu. yd pans and it was having trouble filling them, particularly the front one. I suggested that they add 75% water to the tractor tires, again with about 18-20 psi air pressure. Different tractor, different ride. The operator loved it.

Yer pays yer money, yer takes yer pick.