The Combine Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
351 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Wouldn't it be nice if you could drive up to any header trailer and set the header into standardized transport saddles,
without having to shift around the craddle positions?

And what if you could use any combine to remove/ lift any front / header from that trailer at the next destination?

If the computer industry can standardize USB ports, why can't the smaller ag industry standardize header hydraulic and electrical connections?

Here are the seven aspects of the CHIS Combine Header Interface Proposal.

Transport pads /Jack stand positions
Common tie down such as T-hook slots
Feederhouse outer frame perimeter size
Driveshaft configuration and speed
Hydraulic connector configurations
Electrical connector configurations
ISO standards for future drives including CLAD Center Line Auger Drive systems

Voice your opinion here, or pass this request on to your dealer and combine manufacturer while talking to them at dealer meetings, farm shows, etc.
Or tell them that CHIS is what you want for Christmas.

Additional details are in this ASABE paper proposal:
www.asabe.org/standards/ICCHP2007VanNahmen.ppt


Thank You,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,982 Posts
Re: CHIS - Combine Header Interface Standard - hel

I would love it... it would sure be nice to hang one of those hydroflexes on a good combine
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,259 Posts
Re: CHIS - Combine Header Interface Standard - hel

"voice your opinion here"......
......


IMO, nothing more, the manufacturers are slowly moving that way, but I think they realize that CHIS is a comittment and with that comittment comes potential limitations.

With a header to a combine, it is much different than say a 3point tool bar and a drawbar tractor. With a tractor and implement, the tool is allways a seperate operation from the tractor which is nothing more than a power and traction means for the tool.
A combine header is actually an intigral part of the combine. If someone were to come up with something advanced beyond the current header design, and require a different set of guidelines for mounting and driving, then the manufacturers that comitted to CHIS would have limited themselves.

On the other hand, if nothing new comes about, and the manufacturuers have comitted to CHIS, then it would be a nice concept. Seems its getting so that nearly all manufacturers have gove to outsourcing their header builds to one or two companies anyway, why not just extend the header a bit to include the common hook up,...right?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
351 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Re: CHIS - Combine Header Interface Standard - hel

I'll try again later, to upload some images of the Center Line Drive using two SCH drives, and also the use of center divider.
Here is a link to the ASABE paper proposal 05-5008 which contains more details and explanation than the just the Power Point.
http://asae.frymulti.com/azdez.asp?searc....l2005&v=&i=&T=1
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
351 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Re: CHIS - Combine Header Interface Standard - hel

Front view of Center Line Divider Test, just using a 15" GVL narrow row corn divider.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,391 Posts
Lets try again...only 4 years this time! This would be wonderful....but JD is now moving to complete "un-interoperability" with the new X9. which requires heads specifically for it, with encrypted electrical interface system.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
513 Posts
Yeah, with one main copyright change to CUSMA/NAFTA2.0/USMCA (or whatever it ended up being called), there was a main part of it that'd make it illegal for a company to effectively "reverse-engineer" a product to make an adaptable product. Big implications on short-line ag manufacturers, as you could imagine for any header manufacturer (e.g. Honeybee/etc) that literally does that for a living.

Makes sense that manufacturers would not want someone messing with their stuff, or even worse, improving upon it, but at the end of the day it'll make for tougher time to get those improvements on any system, and companies with large legal teams can just sit on any sort of 'attachment manufacturer' until they go out of business (and/or buy them out for their tech for pennies on the dollar).
A little bit worrying, as it is pretty much exactly DRM'd headers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,358 Posts
It's interesting to me that people who speak out on these issues, such as Michael Geist and Richard Stallman are seen at best as prophets of doom, accused of seeking attention. Or in the latter case, simply lambasted as being mad. But they've proven to be correct in their dire warnings about the dangers of intellectual property.

Bit of a rant here.

I know farmers probably don't care much about Google vs Oracle, but this case is about to go before the US supreme court, who is favorable to Oracle. If they decide for Oracle, this could have a ripple affect across all industries. It would close the door to any sort of reverse engineering, regardless of other laws limiting or allowing it. I hope Roberts' cool head prevails there and helps persuade his republican-leaning colleagues to rule very narrowly in this case, that Google is guilty of copying verbatim some of Oracle's files (that were not under an open source license) but not rule on the ability to implement compatible APIs. I'm not hopeful, though. This one could cause a lot of damage.

The irony is that in the case of Deere's proprietary header interface, it comes down to simply a few codes. Numbers. It's not like there's anything really patentable there, or novel. Interoperability simply hinges on knowing what the numbers mean. It's also ironic that the intransigent attitudes of companies like Deere make it so that it's harder and more costly to own a domestically-made machine than it is to buy a machine from a country who might even be called our enemy, because the foreign machines are built using old-fashioned American ideals of self sufficiency, understandability, simplicity, repairability, and durability. And don't phone home either! (that I know of!)

Part of me wants everything to get absurd as quickly as possible so that the whole system will collapse under its own weight. Whatever you want to call our current sociopolitical and economic system, it's starting to show some cracks from stuff like this. Where's the middle ground anymore? How can one encourage companies to innovate while advancing society's knowledge and freedom as a whole? I think the founding fathers were closer to it with their thoughts about strict limits on things like patents and copyrights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,358 Posts
Who knows, maybe the Europeans will fight back on this issue and push an open standard over there. They seem willing and able to do that kind of thing. Especially against US companies that try to push their weight around.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top