'/,//
larger when the front axle load is less on
//
100
20
~
p
-~
o,i-0::::::;;:::::2.J.o_o_ _. J-101..o_ _.Jo1..-_ ____,.2.1..oo---...1-oo
-
80
Draw bar pull (kg)
0
F=19. 6Rr - 835
200 -100 0 200 400 where, F : Maximum draw bar pull (kg)
D,·awbar 1>ull (kg)
Rr : Rear axle load (percent of
Fig. 1. Effect of front and rear wheel axle load total weight)
ratio
When the front and rear axle load ratio is
600
_')(_')(_ small on wet soil, the drawbar pull is large
as the travelling resistance of front wheel
is small and thrust of rear wheel is large.
.
-,<
500 The front axle load should be as little as
possible, provided the steering stability is
C, 400 .,.,<:, not lost.
-;
0. ~J,
... v:.~
"'
.,:,
"e
300
~ ..:-..°'' • 2) Effect of trnctor weight
As well known, the heavier the tractor, the
-0
-·
"'
;:;;:
Wet soil
However, lighter tractor shows better per-
100 x--x. Concrete road formance on soft soil as shown in Fig. 3.
The driving force increases in proportion to
I
the driving axle load, but travelling resist-
0 50 55 60 65 ance increases exponentially with tractor
Percentage of rear axle load(%) weight especially on soft wet soil. Con-
Fig. 2. Percentage of rear axle load vs. maximum sequently, drawbar pull is less when the
drawbar pull tractor is heavy.
127
~
~ x-x Wet soil
.
i
-·
500 600
.,, Concrete road
x - x Wet soil
,;
..
et.
'.:: 400 •
,;
et.
1 400
+~0
,9
,"1, .,,~
] 300
:< ~
.,,~ '/
+~ ,;{';,
::E 200
...)( 200 ~
~