b6000 ballast project max 3ph capacity issue

[Ach]

I'm about to build a ballast box for my b6000 so I can use the loader for lifting heavy materials without faceplanting and so I won't be so tippy on rocky and hilly land. I'm curious to see what opinions are regarding optimal weight and configuration is for such.

There's been a recent post regarding the lift capacity of b6000s here:

http://www.orangetractortalks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5059&highlight=b6000

In it the lifting capacity for the b6000 3ph is discussed at being anywhere between 300 and 800 pounds. I understand that the primary difference relates to the distance away from the lower end eyeholes the weight of the attachment is centered, but am happy to hear anyone's insight into the matter.

I'm using 1/2 inch eyebeams that I'll weld together. They're six by six by three feet long and weigh roughly 50 to 60 pounds each. Think stackable leggos.

While 300 lbs sounds like a good ballast, I am curious about whether more would be better. I could easily jump the weight anywhere between 300 and 700 lbs without extending the horizontal weight distribution on a 2x5 or 2x6 configuration. This would put the edge of the ballast at roughly 12 inches from the eyeholes, and I could counter act the steering loss with a bit of ballast on the front bumper. Is less more in this situation?

As to configurations, any opinions regarding a high stack that is short (ie 1x6 light or 2x6 heavy configuration) or a low stack that is long (ie a 2x3 light or 3x3/4 heavy configuration)? I live in a rocky area with hills and tight turns, so stability and maneuverability are both in high demand.

Thanks for any input in advance.

 

[284 International]

There was a similar discussion here. If it were me, I would try to figure out exactly what the tractor would do first. I know it will lift 300 lbs, especially close to the lift arm eyes. I would suggest going as heavy as you can. Ideally, you would want the same moment downward behind the tires as the bucket exerts on the front tires. That's the combination of how far from the tire the mass is centered, and the mass of the counterweight.

If you load it heavy, and tuck it in closely to the tractor, you'll be gaining traction, since there is more absolute weight, and still unloading the front. The tractor doesn't know the difference between a weight 10 feet behind the tractor and 50 lbs, or 1 foot behind the tractor and 500 lbs, but you certainly will, trying to maneuver around. It would also be handy if you could use the weight as a scraper or leveling device, if needed.

 

[Ach]

Thanks for the input.

I read that post back a while ago but didn't find it off the bat when I searched this time. That's where my understanding of center of mass on the 3ph affected it's lifting came from.

You're persuading me that the agility benefit of keeping the tractor as short as possible (ie a vertical setup) is overall more beneficial than the stability benefit of keeping the ballast's/tractor's center of gravity as low as possible (ie a horizontal setup). Certainly keeping the ballast within six inches of the 3ph means I can squeeze into more places.

Likewise, tightening the toplink down should angle the ballast "wall" towards the tractor, bringing the center of mass closer in toward the eyeholes of the lower arm links, allowing more weight to be lifted. Assuming aquaforce was correct in that his b6000E would lift the 750 lbs easily, I can get about that much in steel on the back. Combined with water in my tires the ballast and the water should weigh almost as much as the tractor itself..

As to pushing dirt, that's a great idea. I'm still working on an easy way to cut the beams at center mass (I'm thinking chop saw with cutting wheel), and once I do that I'll make sure to put together two bottom beams so that they're the same width as the tires. That way I can drop it and it'll be a blade of sorts. Likewise I'll probably devise a bolt on spike attachment so I can drop it and cut up some dirt. Eventually I'll cut a beam into 1/2" plates and mount a few onto the back that I can drop as large shanks. Need to get in some plasma cutting time to do that though...

Thanks again for the input!

 

[284 International]

I am not convinced my B6000 will lift 795lbs, but I decided to investigate anyway. My tractor is on loan at the moment, so I don't have it here to test.

In the service manual for the B6000, it says the pressure rating for the pump is 1200 PSI, and the bore of the lift piston is 2.36 inches. That means the piston is exerting about 2016 lbs of force on one side of the rockshaft. Looking at the diagrams, it appears that the lifting links attach halfway between the lower arm tips and mounting points on the tractor.

The lift cylinder has a stroke of 3.27 inches.

If the rockshaft moves 2 times the distance of the piston stroke, it will move about 6.5 inches, giving about 13 inches of lift between full down and fully lifted at the hitch eyes. That seems about right to my recollection, but could be off significantly. I'm just working on the theory here.

However, accepting that gives us about 504 lbs of lift available at the tip of the lift arms, which seems about right: It seems a generic rule of thumb is that a small utility tractor's lift capacity is about half of its mass.

With that said, the manual also says it will lift 795 lbs. There was some discussion on another board where I am a member recently about some inflated numbers from all of the Japanese tractor manufacturers in the '70s with respect to their lifting capacities because of creative interpretation of where and how to measure things.

I am not confident of my eyeball-estimated dimensions and the resultant math. It could very well be that it will lift 795lbs, but I think that's too much. I would shoot for something like 500, closely tucked to the tractor, and allow for the future possibility that you may be able to add weight. If one could add 795 lbs to it, and a loader, with material in the bucket, it will be slow going scaling the hills you have.

Let us know what you discover about your tractor's abilities. If I get mine back soon, I'll experiment a little as well, and see what we conclude.

 

[skeets]

Just out of courisioty are your tires filled and wheel weights? I know just filling my tires made a difference and a set of weights did the trick,,Between the filled tires and weights I figure that put another 200 pounds back there plus my large frame well its about 480,, just a though

 

[284 International]

Filled tires and/or wheel weights can help the tractor keep from being tippy, but it is still preferable to have weight behind the rear axle, to unload the front tires.