My Tractor Forum banner

1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,189 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hey guys,
Figured I would share my excitement from friday night. I rolled my uncles yard then took the roller home and loaded up a bucket of firewood for him(not much weight at all).

I pulled into his driveway and turned the wheels and nose dived into the concrete.

It sheared the spindle shaft right in half. Don't ask me how.
No dealers local had the part in stock. Ended up just ordering it online and saved 45$ and will have it wednesday. (Soonest the dealer could get it in also)

I think the force of the tractor sitting on the tire really pressurized one side of the steering cylinder and ruined the seals on the cylinder and the steering valve. There both leaking now.

Heres some funny pictures!




 

·
Murph
Joined
·
1,930 Posts
That really sucks but on the bright side that chrome stack still looks sweet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,945 Posts
If you research that type failure, the "sandy beach" (looks like waves washed the sand) appearance is an indicator of fatigue due to overloading, repeatedly.

Expect it to reoccur, unless you reduce the force on the spindle (more rear weight or a smaller bucket).

The other side is probably showing the same failure.
 

·
Retired Super Moderator - Deceased September 2015
Joined
·
26,679 Posts
Pitty!! The black part of the spindle indicates it has been cracked for awhile. The silver looking part is all that was holding when it snapped. :fing32:
 

·
Bikes/Tractors what else
Joined
·
1,461 Posts
Good one. The corrosion is the give away.

Pitty!! The black part of the spindle indicates it has been cracked for awhile. The silver looking part is all that was holding when it snapped. :fing32:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,189 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Ouch. Time to fill up that rear weight rack. :fing32:
Yes!!

I normally have 2 42lb weights and two 106lb full size tractor weights. and my loaded tires.

I have to take the big weights off when rolling as they interfere with the roller frame.
 

·
MTF Member
Joined
·
152 Posts
Not intended as a derogatory remark, but I am surprised this is not more common with so many GTs being pushed beyond their limits where a SCUT or even a larger CUT may be more suitable for some projects. :dunno:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,189 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Not intended as a derogatory remark, but I am surprised this is not more common with so many GTs being pushed beyond their limits where a SCUT or even a larger CUT may be more suitable for some projects. :dunno:
I couldn't agree more.
I know I was pushing the gt to its limits.

But it was for family and he was in a pinch to get get it done. So me being the nice guy did it for him.

Made more than enough to replace the part tho. From now on I will be using it as intended.
 

·
Proud JD Owner
Joined
·
1,740 Posts
OUCH!!! Nosedive indeed! Glad you were not flipped over the steering wheel and hurt!

My trade in life is nondestructive testing and I dabble in metallurgy. What you have there is a classic case of fatigue failure. The shiny part is the faying surface of the crack, polished smooth by deformation of the material.

When the crack propagates (gets deeper) to the point that the remaining material can no long bear the load, it fails catastrophically via fracture.

If you were to magnetic particle inspect the other spindle, I'd bet you'd find fatigue cracks in that one too.
 

·
Diesels are awesome!
Joined
·
4,449 Posts
That has to be a whole lot of rough driving to break that big old spindle. The other one is probably hanging by a thread, so I'd jack up that side as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,234 Posts
I'd be willing to say - it is needed. If the other one breaks, it may be in a much more dangerous situation !
You got a wakeup call- don't ignore it- Please !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
470 Posts
sorry to hear, but that's why I would not put a bucket like that on any tractor of any size. all of the weight is hanging off the front end putting to much stress on the axes. and I don't care what mfg says they just want someone to buy them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,189 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
sorry to hear, but that's why I would not put a bucket like that on any tractor of any size. all of the weight is hanging off the front end putting to much stress on the axes. and I don't care what mfg says they just want someone to buy them.
My style of loader (Buford bucket) would put more stress on the front of the FRAME.

But the weight on the front axle would be the same.

Where the loader frame mounts don't affect weight on front axle.

Now how far the bucket sits in front of the axle would make a difference.

But if you were under the impression a front mount loader puts more weight on the axle then a mid mount( such as the 40 or 45) you would be incorrect.

But a mid mount would be easier on the frame for sure.
 

·
Enginerd - DieselDork
Joined
·
784 Posts
My style of loader (Buford bucket) would put more stress on the front of the FRAME.

But the weight on the front axle would be the same.

Where the loader frame mounts don't affect weight on front axle.

Now how far the bucket sits in front of the axle would make a difference.

But if you were under the impression a front mount loader puts more weight on the axle then a mid mount( such as the 40 or 45) you would be incorrect.

But a mid mount would be easier on the frame for sure.
The bolded statement above is incorrect. The location of the loader mount has a direct effect on how much loading each of the axles receive.

If you want to prove it to yourself, grab a brick and a bathroom scale. Put them 5 feet apart, and put an 8 foot board across them, with a little hanging off each end.

Now, stand in the middle of the board, and have someone read the value on the scale, if you can't read it.

Walk toward the scale. The number will increase as the scale (representing the front axle) receives more of the load, and the brick(representing the rear axle) receives less.

Walk all the way to the scale. The number on the scale should have just about doubled as you walked.(it depends on how heavy you are compared to the board!) Now, CAREFULLY walk past the scale. The board will come off the brick, and the weight on the scale will show even higher. Why? Because now the scale is receiving not only your entire weight, but also the weight of the board. This is exactly the same situation as a front-mount loader. The front axle takes ALL of the weight of the loader, plus the weight of the load.

The location of the loader mount does affect the loading on the front axle, and it can be significantly higher than a mid-mount loader, all else being equal.

(edited to remove a part I wasn't sure about!)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,189 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Moon dawg, it's my understanding using your example as I walk towards the scale, the force would go up. The load is closer to the measuring point. That is correct. But that's not what is happening to the loader.

If 200lbs is in the bucket 2 feet in front of the axle with the Buford bucket
And 200lbs is in the bucket 2 feet in front of the axle with the 40 loader the weight on the axle would be the same.
Doesn't matter where they are mounted.

If you designed a loader that mounted to the BACK of the tractor and had 6ft arms all the way to the front. And had 200lbs in the bucket 2 feet in front of the axle. The load on the front axle would be the same as the other two loaders.

Maybe I am missing something. But the general research I did on the topic states that the load on the front axle is the amount of the weight and the distance it is in front of the front axle. Wouldn't matter where it is mounted to the tractor frame.
If you wanted to split hairs you could say that the Buford bucket would be slightly more because even empty the entire weight of the loader is in front of the axle. But do it less material, it would probably be the same as the 40 loader anyways.
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top