The Combine Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Looking for info/experience on which rotor would be best for our conditions in N. SK. Wheat, barley, and canola are major crops with lots of straw.
- What are the main differences in threshing between the two?
- Which one would handle tough/damp conditions the best?

I'm too young to have the equity to keep swapping combines if I make the wrong decision, so I appreciate any input.
Thanks in advance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
367 Posts
Small Tube will excel in handling high volumes of straw and/or tough plant matter. At higher rotor speeds and higher MOG volume, you shouldn't see any adverse effect in threshing relative to the AFX. For those crops, I would run a small tube.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
257 Posts
The ST is supposed to handle tough conditions better...but I heard they are a lot harder to set and in HRS it sounds like its harder to get rid of whitecaps. Not sure but whats right...we decided for the AFX. But havent used them yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Thanks for the opinions,
Seems to be less rasp bars on the small tube rotor according to CIH website pictures. Would this possibly decrease threshing/separation efficiency when the conditions are good for small grains???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
367 Posts
What we typically discovered during comparison evaluations of the ST in its early stages was that it is a more sensitive, finicky rotor. Had to adjust cage vane angles and the rotor usually responded better to higher rotor speeds. Compared to the AFX in tough high MOG applications the ST had a throughput and efficiency advantage, but admittedly it takes some tweaking to get it there. There is a trade-off here. The AFX is a bit simpler to set (has a broader sweet spot) but the ST will free up significant capacity if you're willing to make the adjustments to get there. The ST was first and foremost developed for rice and also the tougher, damp cereals that are grown in many rice regions of the US. Also tested well in similar conditions in Canada, especially canola.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,799 Posts
I also believe the ST throws way more grain than the afx. Unless like 9700 says there has been significant changes I would avoid it. For me capacity is decided by how much is left on the ground, not how fast the combine can put it through.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,982 Posts
From the sounds of how much you have to tweak the ST i'm not sure it is a good trade off. The thing is how much capacity are you giving up setting the darn thing while the AFX machine keeps on truckin.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
We have 2 8010's. One with a small tube and one with a regular AFX rotor. We harvest mostly tough cereals and oil seed. The capacity is about the same in dry conditions but when it gets tough the small tube will pull away, alot less pounding and uses less power. We do have more white caps in the small tube and need to add hardthreash concaves in the front. My next combines will both have small tubes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
367 Posts
These were highly dependent on crop type, moisture, and yield/desired throughput. Had the best luck setting them until crop was thoroughly threshed in front and more toward separation (reducing losses) at rear over the grates. The ST responds differently to cage vane adjustments as it doesn't consume the hp in the same manner that the same adjustment would on the AFX.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top