re: Pros and cons of putting water in the back tires of a tractor

quote:

---

But it is poor for transferring weight off the front tires during loader work.

---

Doesnt transfer any weight off the front axle. It adds weight to the whole equation. It allows you to increase the load on the front axle up to either the limit of hydraulic power or the tractor + load + ballast while keeping the cg between the tires.

In other words, all any ballast does is keep the arse end planted. All of it is adding weight and if anything it is all INCREASING load on the front axle.

Yep. What I’ve been saying. We’re pretty much arguing the same point.

Water in the tires to offer counterweights for a FEL is not the only reason for doing it; a secondary benefit yes, but by no means is it the silver bullet. I agree 100% it doesn't beat a heavy load placed more backwards for FEL counterweighting, and that it can cause damage if done willy nilly, but to say it does little to no good for countering a load (even FEL ones) I do disagree with. Doing it wrong can cause problems, but is that the fault of the liquid (and the concept), or the man putting it in there? Were there other contributing factors that his pride is refusing to recognize in the components failing? Sometimes the real culprit is a man too ashamed to admit that the root cause was himself: He mucked up the maintenance, fluids, operating, loads, etc., but the water in the tires just exacerbated it...or did it?

A tractor's high center of gravity and the critical need of its help to do work means that, without question, the method helps if it's a viable one. A tractor less vulnerable to having forces upset the gravity holding it down (in every plane of direction) is a tractor I'm better off with. For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction, and for every extra pound of weight transferred to the ground (e.g., water in tires), it takes an extra pound of dumbarse decisions to counteract it.

Rolling a tractor is the #1 tractor accident. Nothing beats prudence, but tools in the arsenal to mitigate for that is why weighted tires are so popular; it's an economical and reversible option: Oftentimes a little extra counterweighting is all that's needed for a tractor to go from getting its arse kicked by a land plane to kicking arse with the land plane. If the rains are coming tomorrow and we need some extra ground pressure but have limited options, well... water, anyone?

Sticking to gist of the OP/thread, it does more than counterweight FEL loads; if that weren't the case then tractors without FEL's wouldn't have any reason to do it. Enabling a top-heavy tractor to "stick" itself (and its torque) to the ground enables it to do tractor stuff, and do them safer and better. Regardless of the methods used, if they're done right and you cover your bases and operate with wisdom and prudence, then the pros far outweighs the cons, and water in tires are included.

Regarding the warranty and damage, that's a fair and very good point. Off-the-cuff my rebuttal is that you could, A) Buy tires that don't stipulate voided warranties in this way, B) Don't do things you ought not be doing that void a quality tractor tire's warranty, regardless of if water's in them or not, and C) clarify the matter with your dealer.

By default my dealer asks if I want water in my tires. I assume they'll follow SOP, and that they would not knowingly take a chance on compromising a warrantied tire/ machine. If I did void the tire warranty & have a legitimate claim denied due to the water, then I'd forward my invoice to the dealer. I'd expect them to know & to notify me of the matter so I can make an informed decision. If I wasn't notified, then I'll find another dealer- one who doesn't undermine my chances of a successful ownership.

IMO it's a proven, mostly beneficial alternative for safety and efficiency, BUT we don't debate matters of fact (e.g., Should the sun rise or not?). If there weren't problems and benefits to doing it then there wouldn't be a debate (or voided warranties), and yet here we are...

Ultimately it comes down to the owner and the circumstances regarding his budget, location, tasks, equipment, dealer and research. In my case, my tires are weighted with water, and I and my profit margins are better off for it.

Cool. My experience with water has been largely negative and when I was in the tractor business we advised against it on the manufacturer side and quit doing it for folks on the dealer side in the late 1990’s. We ran it in all of our bias tired machines for years and years and my father and grandfather would likely side with you. As our tractors got larger and tire technology improved, we went totally away from it. As an aside, we once ran a “test mule” for a manufacturer who shall not be named that attempted to use the rear tire for additional fuel storage and it actually worked pretty well.

As to the owner and tractor in question, the entire front wheel assembly came off the tractor during operation. Engineering, via dealer technical support, determined improper ballast was the issue. With regard to the rear end, it was determined the fluid apparently lowered wheel slip down well below 5% which caused rear end failure.

Having said all of that, for the average tractor used for property maintenance, fluid ballast is a cheap alternative and probably fine. I do agree completely that the dealer should have customers’ best interest at heart as far as whatever is done to a machine WRT warranty. Sadly that isn’t always the case and many times that’s not done caused by greed or malicious intent. It’s because someone shot from the hip and made an assumption and it wasn’t correct.

Happens way too often. Now moreso than years ago when we got out of the tractor business because dealer groups are bigger and there are more folks selling without farm backgrounds. My advice to OP would be read your OM, look at your tire brand and check their warranty statement. If everything says fluid works and that’s what you want to do, roll with it.