The Combine Forum banner
1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Unfortunately, a lot of the parts that are the same are irrelevant to performance. other than cleaning system the rotor is the biggest factor in seperating. My guess is the case wins in corn and the NH wins in tough beans and tough wheat straw. At least you can get 2 different flavors from the same label. A lot more than you can say for agco. a large single rotor concept is king for corn cuz you get multiple pass corn knocking other corn off the cob. the twin rotors give a lot of centrifigal force which is supposed 2 help in tough conditions.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,774 Posts
What one has to remember is that that 8010 is still a 30" rotor, although with larger concave area than the 88's. The CR has 22" rotors as opposed to 17"ers from the TR days and small CRs. TRs were more than competitive with 2388s in their day (although not in cab comforts!), so an 8010 seems to be all horsepower while a CR is a larger machine. To put it in perspective, a 44 and 66 case combine (and 9560 deere) have 24" rotors -the CR has 2 rotors of almost the same size inside that big yellow body!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
In theory, the NH seems to have a lot of pull towards the center of both rotors where they spin different directions. But theory doesn't always win. For example deere copied cases rotor almost perfectly and put their own theoretic spins and twists to it as well. but I've ran a 9660 up against a 2388 and forget theory the 88 waxed its a$$. besides who cares bout a 9070 and 8010. let's talk 9120 vs. 9080. Supposedly the 9090 is gonna make a debut in europe somewhere (593) horsepower but probably the same machine as the 9080. I wonder if case is producing a comparable monster for the european market??? NH says it will spank a 600 claas now thats a bold statement!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
619 Posts
I have a question on the twin rotor theory. I have been told by more than one TR series owner over the years that in tough conditions the crop would at times be too difficult to seperate from the feeder going into the twin rotors and all the crop would get fed down one rotor rather than both. Which seriously cut capacity or would plug the combine.

My question is, do the CR's do this as well? Anyone on this forum experience this with a CR series twin rotor?
I don't mean to hijack a thread I but have been meaning to ask the question and felt it was a good time to ask here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,259 Posts
Here's a link to a previous thread that may have a little info for oyu if you missed it earlier. http://combineforums.proboards42.com/ind....lay&thread=7897

Anything is possible with 2 rotors sharing the same feeder. That very same 9070 in the picture in that link, ran some morning glory through in a wheat field. The owner mentioned to me that it made a little noise and a few bells went off. So it may have cought one rotor more. Had the morning glory been ripped apart at the front, it would'nt have had a chance to rope and make any noise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
I allready put my 2 cents in that threat, it sounds they worked in tough conditions, but ..that wheat got rain for weeks after it was allready to be combined, maybe you can compare that with canola that was swathed 6 weeks ago and then getting picked..
On the other hand, in august, the wheat could just be combined, so ..you can decide how tough conditions must have been then and now.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
769 Posts
Nice comment.
Why would you say something like that? You probably don't even realise that 580's in the UK are more like the 590's in the US. Unlike 580's in Australia and the US, the UK models are wide bodied machines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,334 Posts
thanks...well its not like class changed the combine after there record got broke just for that reason.... They just tweaked up there combine with a HP chip probably and bam they broke the record...

If cat/class means business they should work on the dealer support in the US not sure about over sea's but its really lacking in several key area's from guys ive talked too...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
769 Posts
Here is some more info for you.

http://www.claas.co.uk/countries/generat....ang=en_UK.html]

And if you read here you will see that the engine and machine were checked by guinness,

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/adjudications/080918_Combine_harvesting.aspx

And here are some notes reqarding the record.

Dear Gordon,

World record wheat harvest – Claas 580, 16th Sept. 2008


I thought it correct that you have a copy of my notes typed up into this letter. They may be referred to when considering the combine output print out.

My Notes

Combine
Claas 580, 10.5m header. Combine identification number 586 01947, engine power programmed to 330 kW( 439 hp)

Engine details Mercedes Model OM 502 LA CID972
Engine family 8MBXL159JRA
Made 2008
Advertised output max = 480 kW / 640 hp – 1800 rpm
Engine number 94299200612368


Crop
Wheat, variety Alchemy. Harvested in 6 blocks. Crop height 24 -26”, ears brackled over and areas leaning and lodged. Harvested moisture content 16.2 -16.4 % m.c.
Stubble height – 20 measurements taken, mean height = 10”, acceptable to farm manager for subsequent cultivations to establish Oil seed rape. Yield from combine data at end of record = 11.14 tonne per hectare
Farm harvest reports from previous day 11 -11.4 tonne per hectare, 16-18% m.c.

Weather
18 0C maximum, 16 0C generally. Overcast sky for 90% of running time, ground conditions generally firm. Period concluded in darkness, temperature dropping to 14 0C.

8 hour period
Started at 12.02, completed at 20.02

Grain losses
I examined areas of the stubble whilst checking stubble heights and discussed the combine loss indication with the driver when in the combine cab. He demonstrated to me that the level was running at 0.5 % of throughput or less.

My examinations suggested that within the combine wheel tracks there were few bold grains per 10 cm x 10 cm. Taking into account the concentration of the header to combine frame width I judged that this was an acceptable loss compared with throughput obtained.


I trust these notes may help you should any further discussion be required.
I judged the whole approach to be that comparable to that which any large operator could have achieved and one which represented a fair commercial operation.

Should you need any further discussion please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best Wishes


Yours sincerely

Bill

W D Basford
FIAgrE
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,774 Posts
And not even with their monster 600. That would be the machine to beat. However, Claas didn't have a big balloon or banner made, so I think its probably a tie
.

The question going back to this blog is -why doesn't anyone try breaking records with an 8010?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
Claas 580, 10.5m header. Combine identification number 586 01947, engine power programmed to 330 kW( 439 hp)

Engine details Mercedes Model OM 502 LA CID972
Engine family 8MBXL159JRA
Made 2008
Advertised output max = 480 kW / 640 hp – 1800 rpm
Engine number 94299200612368

Anyone else catch the possible glitch here? Max power output of engine is 640 hp. Set hp is 439, what says the operator couldn't change the parameter settings on the go and crank out 640 horse?
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top