A wet vs. dry question...??

My question / comment is posed as a "theoretical". FWIW, I run my 4610 "dry" and lite, (16.9 x 30) but have had them "wet" and with supplemental weight on the 3-point.

Question / comment: It was told to me one time that "wet" tires were less strain on the drive system due to "slippage" inside the tire whereas iron weights were heavier and created more wear / tear on the drive line. This would be true if ... for example ... you used equal poundage of "wet" vs. dry/iron. Rust / corrosion / etc. factors do NOT enter this question.

What do you think ... WET tires VS WEIGHTED dry tires??

I have a 4610 with 4 front cast weights, and 1 loaded rear tire, other tire was replaced last summer during hay season in a hurry so was not filled, iv had the tractor 25 years and iv never had any problems with loaded or wet filled tires. I also have 16.9.30 tires. I don't do tillage or am not on steep hills and don't have a loader on my tractor, but I think it's better to have filled tires on a tractor. I also have 2 tractors with cast iron weights, no problems with them either.

It is hard to get as much weight in wheel weights as you get with fluid. But both put the weight right on the ground. Suitcase weights add to the bearing and axle load, as does putting a weight on the three point.

I really don't see that much, if any, difference on the driveline, regardless of the type, or amount of weight. In fact, the weight alone prevents wheel slippage, which is a major factor in driveline wear.

I say this from watching hundreds of cable plows that had either cast wheel weights, or foam filled tires. The ones that ran with no weight at all were prone to break axels due to the tires slipping and the resulting 'stutter' past back through the drivetrain. The ones that ran with weights, be they cast, or foam filled tires, never seemed to have that issue. Further, I saw no difference at all in the wear to the drive chains, the dog that engaged 4WD, or any other part of the drivetrain between the cast weighted tires -vs- the foam filled ones.

Moving into the larger machines, a cast weight is going to be attached to the rim, and thus will be on the center line of the axel. As such the only time I can see it having any effect on the driveline would be if you were to start spinning the tire, and it suddenly grabbed. The shock alone from the tire grabbing will definitely effect the driveline, and one can only assume that the extra centrifugal force from the cast weight will have a bit of effect also, as it acts as a flywheel. In this case the flywheel effect will be close to the center line, so I don't see it as having much effect in the grand scheme of things.

In the same scenario, using fluid filled tires, the weight within the tire will tend to stay toward the bottom, and/or the outer rim of the tire. As such, the weight is further away from the center line of the axel. Granted there will be some slippage when the tire begins to spin, but there will also be weight slung to the outside of the tire by the centrifugal force. Being further from the centerline of the axel, the weight of the fluid, in relation to an equal amount of cast weight closer in, would have more of a effect on things than the cast weight would.

In the end it's all just theory until somebody does some definitive tests and offers up proof. That said, I think the only big difference you'll see on a driveline wear is the difference between weighted, and unweighted, and that's if only one man ever runs the machine, and he does it exactly the same every time.

The only major differences between the two, are fluid filled tires give the machine a lower center of gravity, therfore more stability on slopes. And if running radials at opitimum inflation for field conditions, a fluid filled tire will not flex properly. This is more pronounced the bigger the tire is. If you have a 600 HP 4WD running dual 800/38's the difference would be very noticable. If you are rakng hay with 15.5/38s you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

I prefer wet as I think it puts the weight evenly on the bottom of the tire. It's tough to get enough weight on there alone to equal the calcium unless you have them inside or outside or both, stacked several deep and sticking out a mile.

I think water is also easier on the tractor because the water is only pushing down on the tread, not trying to pull the axle toward the ground. The water on the sides of the tires pushes down on the water at the bottom. I don't ever fill above 75% so there isn't fluid clearest the top to change your center of gravity.

The only time you will see me using a three point ballast is when I feed and have a bale on the back stinger. I am always off road with my chore tractor and I will not be banging the devil out of the arms with some huge box of rubble or something. If I feel like I'm going to have traction issues I put a bale on the back. I don't like things hammering around back there.

(quoted from post at 22:56:28 02/01/16) I prefer wet as I think it puts the weight evenly on the bottom of the tire. It's tough to get enough weight on there alone to equal the calcium unless you have them inside or outside or both, stacked several deep and sticking out a mile.

I think water is also easier on the tractor because the water is only pushing down on the tread, not trying to pull the axle toward the ground. The water on the sides of the tires pushes down on the water at the bottom. I don't ever fill above 75% so there isn't fluid clearest the top to change your center of gravity.

The only time you will see me using a three point ballast is when I feed and have a bale on the back stinger. I am always off road with my chore tractor and I will not be banging the devil out of the arms with some huge box of rubble or something. If I feel like I'm going to have traction issues I put a bale on the back. I don't like things hammering around back there.

Click to expand...

Have you ran that past a physics teacher or engineer ?

Any differences vis a vis durability, etc., will be unmeasureable.

Dean

Weight not supported by the axle bearing is not contributing to major wear issues. It could create stress if action forces like turning and quick stops and starts were violent because of inertia and gyroscopic force, but not much on a farm tractor. I believe a properly pressured tire will provide as much traction as it can for the pressure per sq. inch on the contact patch, fluid or no fluid. Jim Technology man, not engineer.

The only difference I can see is the flywheel affect like Wayne said. If, for instance 1000 pounds of cast weight is hanging on the wheel, how much torque does it take to get that weight spinning if the clutch was dropped in a high gear with the wheel spinning on ice? Cmon now, all of us northerners have been frustrated when we got stuck on the ice and made a bad decision with the drive train. I would think the rear drive train would take it OK but I'm no expert for sure. How much friction does the fluid inside a tire make? I'm sure someone has figured that out.