The Combine Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,660 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

There are at least three practices different in this vid vs todays as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,940 Posts
😂. I still have Rays book. My memory is letting me down but didn’t he come out with a rebuttal to Pami taking a huge dump in his corn flakes? I remember it coming out in the western producer but I think I was like 15!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,660 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
😂. I still have Rays book. My memory is letting me down but didn’t he come out with a rebuttal to Pami taking a huge dump in his corn flakes? I remember it coming out in the western producer but I think I was like 15!
He did and I think it was included in the PAMI printed research report.
But unlike most old PAMI reports I don’t think that one is available.
Not sure why.

I think the gist of Rays rebuttal was the feed rate was higher on the modified concave to which PAMI replied it just looked that way on the high speed footage as more material was refeeding. Think that was it. Almost 40 years ago.
There was more I’m sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
422 Posts
Thanks for the video. It's interesting to me that someone can basically make up a whole bunch of wild theories and then other people have to put in huge amount of effort to disprove them. I mean, it's possible he was on to some good ideas. More likely though is he just dreamed it up, had a high level of confidence that he had special insight (for some reason) and was able to market those ideas. In short, good old snake oil.

I've been involved with testing of machines in the field. To do it properly takes a lot of time and expertise. I've seen it done better and worse, by different companies and groups. I believe one reason Claas is gaining popularity in the last few years is directly a result of their rigorous and science-based testing approach. You can fool farmers for a while (e.g. class designations based on HP and hopper size) but eventually the truth comes out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
519 Posts
I would say a more fair comparison would be to test a Factory combine, then modify it and test again. We used to run three identical, same year combines, they were all different.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,282 Posts
Is there any test that supported Rays modifications? From everything I heard his modifications had no benefits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
I stuckeld a 995 nh, the new concave made it worse than the wore to wires old one, here the thresh 1/3 separate 2/3 don't work, just makes unthreshed heads in the hopper, in my case pami was correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
422 Posts
You're welcome.

Can you expand?
Sorry, can't really share details (not that I know too much anyhow). Years ago PAMI did testing that was funded by the prairie provincial governments. They wrote nice and detailed reports. Now, testing is nearly all done under non-disclosure agreements.

I think it would be great if a group of farmers got together and did some of their own testing. You can use a drop pan and some other simple measurements and get pretty good data. Have different brands in the same field on the same day and publish the head-to-head performance numbers. It's crazy to me that so much gets invested in harvest machines and there is so little objective data comparing the strengths of difference machines. Grain feedrate at 3% total loss is not the only metric to consider but I'd sure like to know it before sinking a couple hundred grand into a machine. The size of the cab or how fast you can ram crop through are not too important and that seems to be what most demos focus on.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,660 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Sorry, can't really share details (not that I know too much anyhow). Years ago PAMI did testing that was funded by the prairie provincial governments. They wrote nice and detailed reports.
I was a charter subscriber of mailed PAMI reports, Those long gone I look forward to my Consumer Reports publications now for my independent testing fix. They’re kinda weak on combine evaluation though.

So well aware of the role PAMI has played in farm equipment evaluations as well as the sorta PAMI breakup of the early nineties eliminating totally independent evaluation for combines. Publicly published evaluations that is.

Get the feeling we may have met, in 1985 Mike and I flew (as in 4 seater club plane) over to see field testing near Gull Lake?
New Holland TR 96 and first year the Versatile Transaxle 2000 were being tested.
Testing that Sunday was rained out though, stayed over and toured the Humboldt facility with Les Hill on the Monday.

Seems you’ve missed my pledge to put PAMI back in the public published combine evaluation business if Lotto Max ever kicks in.
Hey, 50 mil last night!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,231 Posts
If you wanted to just discount the part about concave blanks and large wire openings on the concave for a moment, it could provide a different perspective. Those choices are very region, crop and climate related, after all, and cover plates and multiple styles of concaves are common place, especially on modern rotary combines. That aside, maybe the beater was in the wrong place on a few of the old classic combines? A concave design shouldn’t cause wrapping if the rear of the concave is zeroed, or should it? In any case it isn’t a factor on a rotary combine.....!



At about that time I used part of Ray’s idea and configured my 1482’s standard small wire concaves with zero clearance on the exit bar while at the same time the intake side was over an inch open. On the last day that I used it, my cousin who had Versatile machines in development on his farm earlier that fall, got out of his 8820 JD and got on top of the 1482. We were doing swathed frozen wheat. He just listened to the modified 8640 bark and was expecting a constant banging and groaning from the International but it was running nice and smooth. He commented that it was the best combine performance he had seen so far, including losses on the ground.

That’s just one experience. Not one to prove John Deere’s are configured the best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
The jd mods mostly did make sense. Maybe because its hard threshing here there were few jd and massey lost lots of market share with the rethresher design.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top