Rear ballast on 1466

61-4010 · Jul 31, 2009

Bought a 1466 that has new Firestone rear tires and the farmer loaded the rears with CaCl2. I don"t need that much extra weight for traction and in fact don"t want that much impaction when I"m using the machine for running the haybine.

I"m considering pulling 55 gallons out of each tire and transferring it to another tractor that has no ballast. If I do so, should I have any concerns about running the tires with about 1/2 liquid ballast and 1/2 air? My thoughts are no...but figured I"d ask others their experiences.

Thanks!

Anonymous-0 · Jul 31, 2009

do it all the time

Hugh MacKay · Aug 1, 2009

Get rid of it all, only folks running liquid weight on tractors over 60 hp, are living in the dark ages.

Allan in NE · Aug 1, 2009

And here I thought all along that I needed new glasses. :>)

Allan

Hugh MacKay · Aug 2, 2009

Allan: You know and I know, the way to get better traction in a field situation is add more rubber. Only thing more liquid will do is add more compaction.

I think the 1466 on a haybine is a bit of overkill, unless it's really a discbine.

Anonymous-0 · Aug 2, 2009

We have a pretty good running old 1466 at our farm (my cousin's tractor) with no cab, and no additional weight on the back end. The power curve on a 1466 is pretty gutsy on one that is running properly and without duals it will break the back tires loose with no weight (we don't use fluid anymore and add duals when needed depending on what we are doing). Be careful, because on wet grass or mud she's gonna spin if you put the soup to it.

Iowa_tire_guy · Aug 2, 2009

Compaction in the East and Midwest is an issue but in the Plains states and drier areas it isn't really a problem. One size doesn't fit all and making generalizations can make you look foolish.

Hugh MacKay · Aug 2, 2009

Iowa_Tire_Guy: Somr of the plains guys may think that, but are they really correct. I've seen tests out the Canadian Plains that suggest compaction is a problem. Same damn plain. The real problem, is guys farming, with a tractor puller mentality.

Where did the articulated tractor originate? A 300 hp articulated exerts roughly half the pounds per inch on the soil of a conventional tractor, yet it will exert a drawbar pull of 5 times it's own weight. Conventional two wheel drive tractors have a hard time pulling 3 times their own weight.

I took part in tractor pulls, where the criteria for winning was pulling the highest percentage of tractor weight. This was 50 years ago, everyone pulled in same class. I've seen more than a few guys roll in with big Olivers, Cockshutts and Farmalls, only to find themselves smoked by a Farmall A.

61-4010 · Aug 2, 2009

I have to use what I have that will fit the bill. The 1466 is the only tractor I have that will be able to pull a 12 foot chisel plow and 24 foot disc. And because it has dual hydraulics and 1000 PTO, it will run the haybine well.

Doing hay, I don"t till my soil regularly...so the traction for hard field work is only needed when fields need to be restored from the bottom up. And when that is needed, I"ll put the duals on her.

Trying to make use of what I have effectively. I"m not made of money and can afford to have a specialized tractor for everything I do. So we meet somewhere in the middle.

Back to the dark ages I go...now where did I put that dang candle????

scot in pa · Aug 2, 2009

We ran fluid in all our tires, we farmed enough side hills that we wouldn't be without it. When you have a chopper and dump wagon push an unloaded tractor sideways down a hill you appreciate it.

We even ran fluid in the 300, 400, and SM, as much to lower the center of gravity as for traction, because we were known to put some bigger loads than they should have had behind them, and they were our woods tractors, as they could be lived without needin a tire patched, etc, easier than a big one could be.

My uncle made about 2 rounds with our 15" Case discbine behind the 786 and brought it home. We usually ran the 4x4 1066 on it, the bias tires weren't loaded and wouldn't tear anything up when swinging the mower too fast. I preferred having it behind the 1566 because it was heavy enough that the front end would slide instead of the back, like both 1066s would.

Anonymous-0 · Aug 2, 2009

Hey man, if we need the 656 for something else we put the 1066 on the bin auger during harvest - now that's HP overkill. Ya use what ya got!

Iowa_tire_guy · Aug 3, 2009

One size doesn't fit all and making generalizations can make you look foolish.

Hugh MacKay · Aug 3, 2009

You seem to be doing a good job of it.

Hugh MacKay · Aug 4, 2009

You seem to have the looking foolish part down to an art.

Iowa_tire_guy · Aug 4, 2009

What I am trying to say is that if all tractors where used for one purpose then you may well be correct. BUT tractors of all sizes are for put into service for many diverse uses. So to make the blanket statement that "only folks running liquid weight on tractors over 60 hp, are living in the dark ages." shows you to be unaware of the whole big world out there and how it works. And as for my generalization statement, if the shoe fits wear it, if not then I wasn't talking to you.

Hugh MacKay · Aug 5, 2009

Iowa Tire Guy: I'm sure nobody cares or can figure out what your trying to say. I can see that your arguing with yourself.

Iowa_tire_guy · Aug 5, 2009

I see the problem. I wasn't arguing with anyone, was just trying to have an intelligent conversation.

Rear ballast on 1466

61-4010

Member

Anonymous-0

Well-known Member

Hugh MacKay

Well-known Member

Allan in NE

Well-known Member

Hugh MacKay

Well-known Member

Anonymous-0

Well-known Member

Iowa_tire_guy

Member

Hugh MacKay

Well-known Member

61-4010

Member

scot in pa

Member

Anonymous-0

Well-known Member

Iowa_tire_guy

Member

Hugh MacKay

Well-known Member

Hugh MacKay

Well-known Member

Iowa_tire_guy

Member

Hugh MacKay

Well-known Member

Iowa_tire_guy

Member

Similar threads