Isn't the 590 a size bigger machine? A 580 would be a same class as the 9860 and I would bet it would still out cut the 9860 or 70 for that matter.

 

Quote:
The JD is like a baby to the Lexion. Even the new 70s are no match to it. No matter how much HP they put on it.
Putting more power on a machine that already can't sort all the grain from straw and chaff would not help. In TOUGH straw the rotaries would need 700+ horsepower to match through put of a 590R (same reason Lexion design uses less fuel, nothing to do with engine efficiencies) so I get your point too. The CX 8090 NH would also have excellent through put but would have separation issues as a walker machine. Among these machines, the Deere WTS is a joke.
I'm mystified as to how rotary machines sell in Europe what with their heavy, damp straw, maybe someone can enlighten me?

Don

 

They need to make it if that combine is in a class 8 that they need to make different levels in that class, like 8-1, 8-2, 8-3 or 8-4, 8-4 being the big one. There is so many different variables for that class or any class. Today at noon I saw some different post on this, but not now. Don't know what happen. And about the cursing, did not see that. Also at one time the 590r caught the 9860, what happen to the other two Claas combines.

 

We're about as green as you can get, and I know the 590 will do more than a 9860. More separating area, cleaning, horsepower, etc. We've got a 400 bu tank on ours with only $1000 worth of sheet metal. Whoever (manufacturers?) is classifying combines has got to stop using horsepower and grain tank size. I don't care, a combine is a system unto itself. No bottlenecks should appear when everything is sized right.
Winter is coming, I'm sure everyone on here will have plenty of time to sit around and dream. Dream me up a new class system using separating/cleaning/power ratings so we can get true model to model comparisons throughout the colors.

 

Quote:We're about as green as you can get, and I know the 590 will do more than a 9860. More separating area, cleaning, horsepower, etc. We've got a 400 bu tank on ours with only $1000 worth of sheet metal. Whoever (manufacturers?) is classifying combines has got to stop using horsepower and grain tank size. I don't care, a combine is a system unto itself. No bottlenecks should appear when everything is sized right.
Winter is coming, I'm sure everyone on here will have plenty of time to sit around and dream. Dream me up a new class system using separating/cleaning/power ratings so we can get true model to model comparisons throughout the colors.
Instead of classing them let's test them like Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute ( PAMI ) used to do, sort of the combine equivalent of the Nebraska tractor test lab. If anyone is interested, I'll repost the story behind it.

Don

 

Okay, enough of all the bashing. Since Billygoat removed his nasty posts, I've cleaned up the rest of the rest of the stuff relating to it.

Don, you have a good point about PAMI. We've talked about PAMI before. Yes, I have for years, equated their testing of combines to the Nebraska tests for tractors. PAMI needs to get back into the business of testing combines, too.
As for the so-called class system, it's really quite futile. Just Horsepower and grain tank capacity? Come on! For those who have not read the posts, nor seen the pictures, there's some old, specially-modified John Deere 7700's with 400 or so bu bins. Now I said they were modified, so this is not the place to argue big bin stuff. Anyway, what if someone pulled an engine from a 475 Versatile tractor and fitted that to the same machine? VOILA! A Class IX Model 7700 John Deere, circa 1977!

Yes, you're all right. Big, hairy deal!

I want to see classification based on cylinder width, walker area, sieve area, rotor diameter/length as well as any added features, such as multiple drum threshing systems, dual rotors, etc. as well as perhaps bin size and engine Hp. No, mega headers don't really count, either. Anyone can put a 60' head on a 9870 Deere and maybe go 1 MPH.

Get real! Let's stick with a 36' to 42' head and travel 4-6 MPH.

 

Quote:Okay, enough of all the bashing. Since Billygoat removed his nasty posts, I've cleaned up the rest of the rest of the stuff relating to it.

Don, you have a good point about PAMI. We've talked about PAMI before. Yes, I have for years, equated their testing of combines to the Nebraska tests for tractors. PAMI needs to get back into the business of testing combines, too.
As for the so-called class system, it's really quite futile. Just Horsepower and grain tank capacity? Come on! For those who have not read the posts, nor seen the pictures, there's some old, specially-modified John Deere 7700's with 400 or so bu bins. Now I said they were modified, so this is not the place to argue big bin stuff. Anyway, what if someone pulled an engine from a 475 Versatile tractor and fitted that to the same machine? VOILA! A Class IX Model 7700 John Deere, circa 1977!

Yes, you're all right. Big, hairy deal!

I want to see classification based on cylinder width, walker area, sieve area, rotor diameter/length as well as any added features, such as multiple drum threshing systems, dual rotors, etc. as well as perhaps bin size and engine Hp. No, mega headers don't really count, either. Anyone can put a 60' head on a 9870 Deere and maybe go 1 MPH.

Get real! Let's stick with a 36' to 42' head and travel 4-6 MPH.

LOL Combines, bad day. I feel better now. LMAO

 

Quote:Okay, enough of all the bashing. Since Billygoat removed his nasty posts, I've cleaned up the rest of the rest of the stuff relating to it.

Don, you have a good point about PAMI. We've talked about PAMI before. Yes, I have for years, equated their testing of combines to the Nebraska tests for tractors. PAMI needs to get back into the business of testing combines, too.
As for the so-called class system, it's really quite futile. Anyone can put a 60' head on a 9870 Deere and maybe go 1 MPH.

Get real! Let's stick with a 36' to 42' head and travel 4-6 MPH.

I didn't see the posts in question (at a surface rights court case in Calgary involving neighbors) but if Billygoat was 15 when he posted them he wasn't when he voluntarily withdrew them.
Combinness, I will re-post my earlier PAMI post so more than just you and I know what we're talking about.
The usefulness of the class system as a tool of real world performance indication, died the day New Holland introduced the TR 70. 33 years ago!
And lastly, I hope nobody challenges you as to your math skills. Ha,Ha.You were just making a point.

Do any of you remember PAMI (Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute? From 1975 to 1992 PAMI was the only independent combine testing facility in the world. They would have a reference machine that they would run beside testing for losses, where they came from, convenience features, and would put on 100-200 hours on the test machine making evaluations in several different crops on all makes of combines. PAMI would then make recommendations and the manufacturer would reply. In 1992 government support for this program was cut and the program ended. Now they only do paid for, unpublished work.
If PAMI was still in business of evaluating combines I think a lot of these complaints would be addressed sooner in the developmental process. I think that when manufactures are developing a machine they are not necessarily comparing other machines to their own.
I really really miss PAMI.

Don

P.S.
If the lottery comes through I would personally fund a combine evaluation program at PAMI (no sense re-inventing the wheel). Do not laugh!

 

Here, here!! I have to agree fully with Combiness and Don about the whole combine class rating thing. I for the life of me cannot understand why or how Deere can stick a big motor, rotor, clean grain system and grain tank on the top of a narrow-bodied 9500 and call it a class 8. After being on the forum for a while, I can now see why hp is more of an issue if you have a chopping head for corn and such, but I read post after post saying how dissappointed they are with the 9860. I truly believe and hope that Deere will come out with a new series rather quickly to catch up with what everyone else is doing.

That is why I think these forums are so crucial and necessary, so we can compare and hear real life stories from guys who run new combines in all sorts of conditions. You hear side by side comparisons of all brands and can get a feel from their comments on which would be the best combine for your operation. Some of us aren't fortunate enough to have dealers knocking at our door wanting us to demo their latest and best creation.

I know what has been discussed on this forum has helped my dad make an easier decision on buying a combine.

So, kudos first of all to Alex for starting this forum, and secondly to all of you who are not afraid to stick your neck out and say how a combine has really worked on your farm. I, and I'm sure I can speak for alot of other people, am thankful for your expertice and advice that has been given (along with a few laughs

). I hope that I will be able to help you guys out when called upon.

And by the way daleh, thanks for the COOL pics!

 

Quote:I like to know the figures they do to make up these classes. I asked that a few times on various forums. And never got an answer or chart to show it.

To me the Class thing is totally made up and don't exist.

For the Class. You have to go by Engine HP, bin size, cleaning area, and threshing area. Since those are the main components to make a combine work.

Deere's idea of putting more HP to make into a "class" you are not is ridiculous. Their class 8 is a class 7 compared to their competitors. Deere has no true class 8.


It is strictly horsepower only. Not a good measure, but the only true common trait of all combines.

 

Quote:They need to make it if that combine is in a class 8 that they need to make different levels in that class, like 8-1, 8-2, 8-3 or 8-4, 8-4 being the big one. There is so many different variables for that class or any class. Today at noon I saw some different post on this, but not now. Don't know what happen. And about the cursing, did not see that. Also at one time the 590r caught the 9860, what happen to the other two Claas combines.

Class size is meaningless - it's sensitive to influence by so many variables that it is a poor judge of performance and capacity.

The purpose of the combine classification, by horsepower, is for "tracking" purposes by the AEM (Association of Equipment Manufacturers) and not intended to be a determinant or judge of combine potential.

 

Quote: Also at one time the 590r caught the 9860, what happen to the other two Claas combines.
What we have here is a perfect example of "Grasping at straws", pardon the expression.

Don

 

Hey daleh
This looks like Red River Valley, correct?
This took over 30 hours to soak in. (Good thing we're going off daylight saving time, I need the time)
How do you score a TEN (10) day demo?
If I could get 1.5 demo's with a 590R, I wouldn't need to own a combine at all.
PERFECT!!!

Don

 

I have got to say that who actually cares about what class a combine is. i have been around combines for a while now and could only guess what class the combines are that i run. Simple fact of the matter is, talking about before the 70 series jd's, the 9860 was the biggest machine JD built, same as the 590 is the biggest CAT you can get (yes i do know about the 600) and the 8010 is the biggest red one. I'm sure that Don had posted saying that all these machines were priced about the same. I just think that it is a bit of a cop out to use the excuse that the 590 is in a bigger class than the 9860. Fact is that these are the "big combines" that both companies produce. i have never seen a 590 run, but i have run against several 9860's with 480r's, the 480's with 3 more feet on the front were still overtaking the 9860's while doing a much better sample. I just think that the best way to compare combines sis not by "class" but by cost.

 

Quote: I just think that the best way to compare combines sis not by "class" but by cost.
I think your the first Sneeky. You just nailed it!
Made even more interesting by our galloping Canadian dollar!

Don

 

Guy's I will be the first to admit John Deere's 70 series cleaning area is too small, but what are we not considering? How efficient is their system? How efficient is the system per square inch? Deere's sieves are in the machine and only one required? On the others you have to changed them for each crop, deeres you just open and close? Am I saying Deere is perfect no, is the best probably not, but does it do it's purpose? Yes.

It will only handle x-amount... period... What happens when it's too big and all the grain falls through at the beginning and then chaff falls through at the rear? Too small and it just walks over it... How many of these are due to improper settings? Having a machine for a day to demo set by the "company rep" vs. a farmer/harvester who's had the machines for 10-15+ years and knows how a machine will react vs. what a rep says a book should do or what you try because it worked on your old machines?

I'm not choosing sides here, all I'm trying to get across is the variables we often overlook.

 

Quote:Guy's I will be the first to admit John Deere's 70 series cleaning area is too small, but what are we not considering? How efficient is their system? How efficient is the system per square inch? Deere's sieves are in the machine and only one required? On the others you have to changed them for each crop, deeres you just open and close? Am I saying Deere is perfect no, is the best probably not, but does it do it's purpose? Yes.

It will only handle x-amount... period... What happens when it's too big and all the grain falls through at the beginning and then chaff falls through at the rear? Too small and it just walks over it... How many of these are due to improper settings? Having a machine for a day to demo set by the "company rep" vs. a farmer/harvester who's had the machines for 10-15+ years and knows how a machine will react vs. what a rep says a book should do or what you try because it worked on your old machines?

I'm not choosing sides here, all I'm trying to get across is the variables we often overlook.

However, there needs to that direct relationship between the cleaning system's capacity and engine horsepower. A Lexion cleaning system will near it's capacity as the engine approaches it's 100% engine load (albeit, going quite fast at this point in most conditions) and vice versa. But, with an STS you don't have that benefit. By the time you near an STS's engine limit, it's cleaning system often times has already reached it's capacity. The key is balacne and Deere has yet to prove its STS to be a well balanced machine relative to it's threshing/separating, cleaning and available engine hosepower.

As for STS sieves, they have multiple types of sieves for multiple applications (there is no cure all configuration for any combine). Check out the sieve options under the "cleaning system" at the attached site:

http://www.deere.com/servlet/ProdCatProduct?tM=FR&pNbr=9870SH

 

Quote:Guy's I will be the first to admit John Deere's 70 series cleaning area is too small, but what are we not considering? How efficient is their system? How efficient is the system per square inch? Deere's sieves are in the machine and only one required? On the others you have to changed them for each crop, deeres you just open and close? Am I saying Deere is perfect no, is the best probably not, but does it do it's purpose? Yes.

Change for each crop????.........Are you talking about changing the sieves themselves or just the settings?...........With the 2188 we had before we only adjusted the settings for each crop. We never in 10 years had to change the sieves themselves. With the new AFX 8010 we have now you put the crop in the computer, and it sets the base settings. You can fine tune it from there. We don't have to change the sieves in it either. We harvest corn, soybeans, and wheat.



Quote:It will only handle x-amount... period... What happens when it's too big and all the grain falls through at the beginning and then chaff falls through at the rear? Too small and it just walks over it... How many of these are due to improper settings? Having a machine for a day to demo set by the "company rep" vs. a farmer/harvester who's had the machines for 10-15+ years and knows how a machine will react vs. what a rep says a book should do or what you try because it worked on your old machines?

I'm not choosing sides here, all I'm trying to get across is the variables we often overlook


I think the fact is Deere just wants to up the HP on the same class 6-7 machine to make it a class 8. Then charge you alot more for a class 8 when its not. Instead they should be spending the money to make a real class 8. Extra HP is not going to fix the problem of the fact that the sieves are to small for a class 8. They might be perfect for a class 6-7, but not a 8. True a farmer with experience with a machine should be able to set it better. However a good dealer should know how to set it pretty close. I mean if that dealer sells that machine to you they better know how to set it and explain it. If they can't they shouldn't be selling it.

Case in point we just bought a AFX 8010 this year. It is a totally different learning curve than a 2188. Part of the sale was for the dealer to come out and set it up and get us started in each crop. So they set the combine the first time and explain it. Good thing because we didn't know how to set it. Fact is after they set it I had to only make minor alterations to their settings. It is no different if you rent one to help get done. The dealer sets it up for you before you start.

 

Alex, I have never changed the sieves in our Cats, i have written before in posts that i think that doing so is a waste of time and only achieves small results. I have harvested all kinds of wheat here in Australia in just about all conditions (except for snow, thank you Don!!!) and I can 100% tell you that they are not built to handle X amount and thats it. I have done wheat this year that i have had to do 100 acres to get a bin full and the sample is as clean as ever. The only time they have a problem is when the crop cuts in and out so that you are constantly loading and unloading your sieves, but you will have this problem with any machine. The biggest "problem" with true rotary combines is that your rotor is running at the same speed as your "drum". So in tough threshing conditions you end up over separating and hence overloading your sieves. In a CAT you can run your drum fast while keeping your rotors slow, so not only are the sieves in a cat bigger, they are able to work more efficiently in a lot of conditions because they have less chaff on the sieves. Sorry, this sounds a little like bashing, but for anybody that has read my previous posts in the forums you will know that i try to stay neutral and have pointed out the shortcomings of Cat in the past.

 

You can also order the Lexion 570 and 600 with an infinitely variable rotor, independent form the speed of APS-system (dunno whst's that in english) from 350 to 1.010 rpm. And in addion you can reduce the openings in the basket (?) under the rotors to relieve the sieves. So you can adjust it to every kind of crop or condition. But I dont know if it's also available in US or Australia (your types are kind of different).

 

Quote:Alex, I have never changed the sieves in our Cats, i have written before in posts that i think that doing so is a waste of time and only achieves small results. I have harvested all kinds of wheat here in Australia in just about all conditions (except for snow, thank you Don!!!) and I can 100% tell you that they are not built to handle X amount and thats it. I have done wheat this year that i have had to do 100 acres to get a bin full and the sample is as clean as ever. The only time they have a problem is when the crop cuts in and out so that you are constantly loading and unloading your sieves, but you will have this problem with any machine. The biggest "problem" with true rotary combines is that your rotor is running at the same speed as your "drum". So in tough threshing conditions you end up over separating and hence overloading your sieves. In a CAT you can run your drum fast while keeping your rotors slow, so not only are the sieves in a cat bigger, they are able to work more efficiently in a lot of conditions because they have less chaff on the sieves. Sorry, this sounds a little like bashing, but for anybody that has read my previous posts in the forums you will know that i try to stay neutral and have pointed out the shortcomings of Cat in the past.

It certainly isn't a waste of time changing out the standard sieve, that your machine is likely equipped with for wheat, for a deep tooth corn sieve when in corn and soybeans. There is a definite capacity gain by doing so. My first combine had the standard sieve in it which works well in wheat and soybeans but terrible in corn. I have found that the deep tooth sieve does better in my wheat than the standard sieve does in corn.

 

Quote:You can also order the Lexion 570 and 600 with an infinitely variable rotor, independent form the speed of APS-system (dunno whst's that in english) from 350 to 1.010 rpm. And in addion you can reduce the openings in the basket (?) under the rotors to relieve the sieves. So you can adjust it to every kind of crop or condition. But I dont know if it's also available in US or Australia (your types are kind of different).



Having those automated rotor blanking plates and the front dis-awning plates makes transitioning between crops with a Lexion as easy as a "flip of a switch" and/or the "flip of a handle" vs. manually installing cumbersome (and costly) concave filler plates or complete concaves in other brands of combines. You don't have to worry about getting dirty and having dust fall down the back of your neck just to go from one crop to another.

 

Muddy, might be different with the 500 series with more hp. We only run the 400 series here at the moment and the standard sieves let me do 130-140t/hr in corn and thats the point were i run out of horse power, actually found the rotors to be more of the limiting factor before we put different grates and a low speed rotor kit in the early 400's. As for wheat, i guess i wouldn't know. it has hardly rained in Oz for the last 5-6 years

Arcus, the machines we get in Australia are direct out of Europe, which i think is not very well thought through, hence why we can't get 590's over here. The vario rotors have been around in the lexions for years, the 400R's had them which i think came in about 2002, Muddy should know exactly when.

 

We don't even have these "R" models in Europe.

We only have:


model..........drum-width.........hp (ECE24)

walkers:

510..............1,42m...............220
520..............1,42m...............260
530..............1,42m...............295
540..............1,70m...............295
550..............1,70m...............330
560..............1,70m...............360

Rotor:

570..............1,42m...............425
580..............1,70m...............492
600..............1,70m...............500 (556max)

(Sorry, but it's german)
http://www.claas.de/countries/generator/....lang=de_DE.html

 

[ With the new AFX 8010 we have now you put the crop in the computer, and it sets the base settings. You can fine tune it from there. We don't have to change the sieves in it either. We harvest corn, soybeans, and wheat.

[/quote]



Your preachin to the choir over here on the Lexion page Big A, Cebis in Lexions have been doing this for almost ten years.





As for the seives, we run the standard in all crops, unless our corn is over 24%........Then the deep tooths go in. If they don't, ground speed goes down to 2 mph, which we don't like!

Deep tooth sieves in soys give a horrible sample IMO.

My buddy changes sieves in his 9860 everytime he switches from corn to beans........Say's him and another guy got it down to under 45 minutes, but the nuts are rounding off from doing it so often.