J. agric. Engng Res.

(1972), 17, 64-70

A Comparison of Tractor Rear Tyres in their

Resistance to Side Slip
c. J. BAKER*; R. M. COLLlNS*

1. Introduction
Controversy has arisen amongst operators as to the merits of various tractor rear tyres in
resisting side-slip during operation on hillsides. Consideration of such lateral traction appears to
be particularly pertinent to New Zealand because of the necessity to negotiate steep country
during many farming operations. The literature contains little information of tests in this direc-
tion compared with the numerous reports on traction in the longitudinal direction.'
Of 464 fatal tractor accidents in New Zealand in the period 1949 to 1967 inclusive, 7 % occurred
on "very steep" slopes in excess of 30°, while a further 20 % occurred on "steep" slopes between
20° and 29°.2 It is probable that, expressed as a percentage of the number of tractors operating
on these slopes at anyone time, these figures would be considerably higher than those for milder
slopes. Various estimates have been made of the percentage of fatal accidents which arose from a
loss of traction as the initial contributing factor. D. L. King (unpublished data) suggested that
55 per cent occurred through sliding or loss of control, while a study of case histories in 1966, 1967
and 1968 (C. J. Crosby, unpublished data) suggests that 42 %,33 % and 36 % respectively were as a
direct result of insufficient traction alone in one direction or another.
The modern wheeled tractor may have a static lateral tipping angle in the order of 30° with the
rear wheels in their innermost positions, and in excess of 45° with them extended. There are many
dynamic factors which render these static tipping angles far from practical or safe. However, it
follows that in operation on severe slopes particularly, lateral traction is often one of the most
critical factors from a safety viewpoint. Traction aids such as wheel strakes are of considerable
benefit in this respect but these do not in themselves lessen the importance of adequate lateral
traction of the pneumatic tyres.
Tests performed at Massey University in 19693 and 1970 were aimed at examining the resis-
tance to side-slip of some of the different types of rear tyres in relation to the attitude of the tractor
on the slope and the weight distribution on the downhill and uphill rear wheels respectively.

2. Method
The tyres, all new, were 11 in X 28 in, air inflated to 121bjin 2 and attached to a "40hp" tractor
equipped with a safety frame, special testing apparatus and recording equipment. All tests were
performed on short pasture under moisture conditions which ensured penetration of the tread
bars under test.
Description and classification of the tyres, the performance of which is reported below, is as
follows:
Tyre A Cross (bias) ply with straight tread bars at an angle of 45° to the tractor axle
Tyre B Cross (bias) ply with substantially straight tread bars at an angle of 23° to the tractor
axle.
Tyre C Radial ply with substantially straight tread bars at an angle of 45° to the tractor axle.
Because of the impracticability of conducting tests on actual hillsides, a technique was evolved
to simulate approximately hillside operation of a tractor, while permitting integrated recording
of resistance to side slip and the angle or attitude of the tractor in relation to the "contour".
• Agricultural Mechanisation section, Agronomy Department, Massey University.
64
C. 1. BAKER; R. M. COLLINS 65

It was found that testing while on the move was preferable to static testing because of the need
to keep clean tread bars penetrating throughout the measurements."
Three tractors were employed. A test tractor (equipped with a pair of tyres under inspection)
and a load tactor were driven parallel to each other at 0·5 mile/h and about 20 ft apart. Directly
behind the load tractor was an anchor tractor travelling in reverse. A steel cable attached to the
anchor tractor passed around a pulley (adjustable for height) on the load tractor and was attached
to an hydraulic dynamometer which was itself attached to a special frame on the test tractor.
This frame was constructed so that the height of pull on the test vehicle could be adjusted and so
that the projected direction of pull from the cable, irrespective of its angle to the tractor (within
limits) passed through a point perpendicular to the nominal centre of the footprint of the "down-
hill" rear wheel. A semicircular track and roller assembly on the test tractor, facilitated this
latter requirement (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.
66 COMPARISON OF TRACTOR REAR TYRES IN RESISTANCE TO SIDE SLIP

All 3 tractors were initially driven on parallel courses in the same directions. The anchor tractor
was halted and the other 2 continued under power with a consequent tightening of the cable being
reflected in sideways pull on the test tractor. Pull (lbf) and the angle of pull in relation to the
tractor (ie effectively the attitude of the test tractor to the contour) were recorded and integrated
by photographing the cable attachment and dynamometer gauge simultaneously with a self-
winding 35mm camera mounted above the track and roller assembly. This camera was capable
of 3 frames/sec continuous automatic self-winding but in practice was usually triggered manually,
at 1-2 frames/sec, self-winding, to conserve film.
Differential lock was engaged throughout on the test tractor. Although this is not normal
recommended practice during this type of hillside operation, the preferred foot operation of the
"uphill" independent wheel brake as a means of transferring driving torque to the "downhill"
wheel could not be employed in these tests because of the difficulty in thus maintaining a con-
stant driving torque to that wheel.
The height of the horizontal pull was adjusted to give an almost total weight transfer to the
"downhill", or test rear wheel. It was felt that this more nearly simulated hillside operation. In
addition, it was also felt that without this substantial weight transfer it would have been more
difficult to interpret the results through having to aportion the apparent resistance between each
of the tractor's 2 rear tyres-besides, the "uphill" tyre sometimes travelled in the disturbed track
of the "downhill" tyre after some side slip had occurred.
The load tractor, because it was being pulled in 2 directions, required to be substantially
ballasted to maintain traction and steerage.
Each test was replicated at least 3 times and final pull and angle readings were taken from the
exposed and projected film strip.

3. Limitations of Testing Procedure

Several limitations suggest themselves if an attempt is made to equate actual hillside operation
strictly with the method and equipment described above.
(a) The soil reaction perpendicular to the ground surface, against the "downhill" rear wheel
at any point in time was equal to half the static rear end weight of the test vehicle plus that weight
which was transferred from the "uphill" and front portions of the tractors as a result of the
substantially lateral pull. While a similar dynamic redistribution of weight also occurs on actual
hillsides, the static rear end weight distribution would not have been shared equally between the
2 rear wheels. The soil reaction during test was therefore disproportionately dependent on the pull
and the tractive coefficient of the "downhill" wheel and could not be expected truly to represent a
tractor moving across a uniform grade.
(b) On a hillside, the gravitational force acting laterally upon the tractor would do so through
the vehicle's centre of gravity. Thus it could be argued that to be truly representative, the pro-
jected line of pull to the test tractor should have been arranged to pass through a point perpen-
dicular to its centre of gravity.
It is difficult to see any effective means of eliminating the first mentioned limitation while still
permitting measurement of all the forces involved. Besides, any error occasioned because of this
could be expected to have been nearly constant in all tests.
Future tests of this type might well take the form of measurements using a single wheel in a
special frame to avoid both criticisms. However, such tests would have difficulty in taking
account of the contribution of the "uphill" rear wheel, which often travelled in the disturbed
track left by its "downhill" counterpart. Difficulty would also be expected with a single wheel
simulating the longitudinal traction component arising from the tractor slewing. Nevertheless,
future tests might well benefit from realignment of the pull through the centre of gravity although
it is probable that in so doing the main effect would simply be to induce some side slippage of the
front tyres too, thus making interpretation of the results even more difficult.
C. J. BAKER; R. M. COLLINS 67

4. Results and Discussion

Having regard to the limitations of the test procedure outlined above, no attempt is made to
equate any absolute values of the data obtained with a particular hillside and tractor combination.
Rather, the data illustrates the relative differences in performance that might be expected from
the tyres tested.
It is important that the family of curves (Figs. 3, a, b, c) for each tyre be interpreted in the light
of practical operation of the vehicle. As hillside travel under marginal lateral traction conditions

1800 1800
Tyre B
1700 1700
"
1600 / "
1600 /
/
/
1500 1500 /

"',-t-
D
1400 1400 /'" '".
/.

o
c
.. 1300
~

. 1300
..---F·.·.·
"
;'
"....r,/.'
"
0
u
c

...
u; 1200 E 1200
.
on
Cl::
1100
on
Cl:

1000 1000

900 900

800 800

700 700
0 10· 20· O· 10· 20·
Attitude of troctor to contour Attitude of tractor to contour

1800
Tyre C
1700

1600

1500
c
~
1400 ,-'
-..
o
c
1300 ---
0
u;
.
'on 1200
Cl::
1100

1000

900

800

70 0 L-J-...............>--O.-J.--L..-............J-L-J-..................-O.-J.--L..-.I...J
O· 10· 20·
Attitude of tractor to contour

Fig, 3.
68 COMPARISON OF TRACTOR REAR TYRES IN RESISTANCE TO SIDE SLIP

inevitably results in a certain amount of slippage in a downhill direction by the rear wheels, the
important criteria are likely to be
(a) the maximum practical resistance to sideslip attained (lbf)-that is, the early peak resis-
tance obtained before the wheels had slipped further than would be tolerated under practical
operating conditions;
(b) the lateral ground displacement of the tyres (inches) required to obtained this peak resis-
tance; and
(c) the rate of increase of resistance per unit of side slip (lb/in).
Each of these 3 factors presupposes that some side slippage is necessary to maximize resistance.
As with traction in the longitudinal direction, this appears to be S03 and is suggested as being
partly due to soil characteristics- 5 and partly to the effect of the angle of the individual tread bars
in relation to the contour or direction of pull.
The effects from the latter factor were difficult to predict. When the upper-side tread bar of
one tyre was exactly parallel to the line of pull it could be expected to be exerting its minimum
contribution to resisting the pull. On the other hand when the "lower-side" tread bar was lying
at 90° to the line of pull its resistance would be expected to be at a maximum. A shadow effect
may also have contributed in that the "upper-side" tread bars did not penetrate new or turf-
covered ground because of the previous scuffing by their "lower-side" counterparts during
slippage. Thus it appears that the combined effect of both sets of tread bars on one tyre can be
found only by empirical methods and is beyond accurate theoretical prediction.
From examination of the tyre tread bar patterns, only tyre B allowed an unobstructed passage
of soil between the "lower-side" and "upper-side" tread bars over a narrow range of slew angles.
The 45° tread bars on both of the other tyres were shadowed at all angles by the tread bars on the
opposing side of the tyre.
Fig. 4 shows a plan view and composite photograph of the tractor's path during a typical test
run (second run, tyre B). The numbered points indicate concurrent positions of the respective
paths of the right front and left rear ("downhill") tyres. The latter are also represented by the
white pegs in the composite photograph.

'"u
C
o

o"'

25 20 15 10 5 o
Distance u n

Fig. 4.

From the author's experience and a study of cine film of hillside operations it is suggested that
an absolute downhill movement of the rear tyres of more than 24 in is excessive from an operator's
point of view. In fact movement far less than this creates a feeling of some insecurity in the driver
and he is unlikely to continue operating under such conditions. An arbitrary limit of 24 in
displacement has thus been imposed on the interpretation of the results. This corresponds to an
angle of pull of approximately 19° with the test tractor concerned.
Table I gives a summary of the means for each of the criteria, (a), (b) and (c) described above.
C. J. BAKER; R. M. COLLINS 69

TABLE I
Resistance to Side Slip Characteristics of Tractor Rear Tyres

Tyre A Tyre B Tyre C

Maximum practical
resistance to side slip (a) 15651bf 15651bf 15651bf

Angle of tyre (and tractor)

to contour at maximum
resistance 11 0 17° 17°
- -- - - -
Lateral ground displacement
of tyre at maximum
resistance (b) 13·7 in 21·1 in 21·1 in

Average computed gradient

of resistance V.I' displacement
(c) 46'71b/in* 25'3Ib/in 26·0Ib/in

* Significant at 1-0'>,; level of probability.

It would be reasonable to conclude that within the arbitrary range of absolute slip from 0 to
24 in, tyre A gave a significantly more rapid increase in resistance than either tyres B or C. The
maximum practical resistance of each differed very little (even within replications) although an
average total movement of 2( '( in was necessary to reach thi s peak with Band C as compared
with 13·7 in with A.
From the raw data beyond peak resistance (not shown) it appeared that tyre C, after reaching a
peak, behaved rather erratically with further movement. Tyre A appeared to level off until the
longitudinal traction component became noticeable (it would be reasonable to assume that at
45° pull angle, resistance would be shared equally between longitudinal and lateral components).
Tyre B, possibly because of its smaller angle of the tread bars, showed little tendency to decline or
level off. It is probable then, that while initial side slippage or slewing would be better and more
quickly controlled with tyre A than either of the other 2 tyres , excessive slewing (ie more than
24 in movement) may be better controlled with tyre B. It is extremely doubtful, however, if
such a degree of slewing could be confidently controlled at all by the operator as other dynamic
factors, such as front end rearing, may then be more important from a safety viewpoint.

5. Conclusions
In general agreement with Baker and Manson" it is suggested that the cross (bias) ply tyre with
45° tread bars gives a more rapid build up with slewing to maximum lateral traction (within
arbitrary limits) than either the radial ply (450 tread bars), or cross (bias) ply with 23° tread bars,
but that the eventual peak resistances varied little between the 3 tyres.
It would seem pertinent to suggest that future tests might include other tyre types such as
rippled cleats and also parameters such as inflation pressures, vegetative cover, soil type, moisture
content and vehicle speed.

Acknowledgements
The co-operation of, and supply of wheels and tyres by Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. of N.Z. Ltd.,
Goodyear Tyre & Rubber Co. of N.Z. Ltd., C. B. Norwood Ltd., and Andrews & Beavan Ltd ., is grate-
fully acknowledged. Messrs. G. C. Arnold and J. Austin of Massey University assisted with the mathe-
matical analysis and photography respectively and Dr J. L. Manson, now of the University College of
Rhodesia was of considerable help in the design of equipment and early testing.
70 COMPARISON OF TRACTOR REAR TYRES IN RESISTANCE TO SIDE SLIP

REFERENCES

1 Anonymous. Bibliography ofpublications on Tractive and transport efficiency Research. 1962, Trans. Am.
Soc. Agric, Engrs 5, 135, 146.
2 Warren, J. C. Nat. Safety Ass. N.Z. eire., 1968/4
3 Baker, C. J.; Manson, J. L. Traction of pneumatic tyres and four wheel drives. 1969, Agric. contr's
and Chern. appl's Yb., 26
4 Senkowski, A. Ground adhesion problems of wheeled agricultural tractors. 1959. J. Proc. Instn Br. agric.
Engrs, 15 (2), 27
5 Richey, C. B.; Jacobson, P.; Hall, C. W. Agricultural Engineer's Handbook 1961. McGraw-Hill,
New York, pp. 66