[Combine Pilot]

i think some of you might be interested in this

http://www.producer.com/2015/02/unb...ail&utm_term=0_a5b062b4c9-3a594037e7-87668341

 

[albertabuck]

Anyone know who was the company out of Sask that sued PAMI

I know there was more than once a difference of opinion between PAMI and a manufacturer, but they always gave the manufacturer the ability to have their opinion stated on the report as well. For example one that comes to mind was for the Verstaile 2000 combine. It got tested in some incredibly dry barley that had a lot of straw which led to a higher MOG ratio than normal, which in turn severely reduced capacity to keep losses down. While Versatile did not agree with PAMI's findings, they were still given the chance to have their say and the reasons they stated in the report why they didn't agree.

It will be good to have someone pick up the ball where PAMI left off, for sure, can't say how many times I've looked at those reports for different machines. Used to have a subscription, have hundreds of them that I never look at now because its quicker to read them online

 

[Don Boles]

That is interesting, thanks CP!

I don't know though how you can charge manufacturer without a Nebaska type law where you have to in order to sell your product.
PAMI did not charge other the in "In kind" contribution of equipment.

I would rather a Consumer Reports type model where equipment is simply purchased, manufactures can be present during testing at they're discretion, no charge though.

Sadly, all too late for me, but glad something coming!

 

[Don Boles]

Anyone know who was the company out of Sask that sued PAMI

I know there was more than once a difference of opinion between PAMI and a manufacturer, but they always gave the manufacturer the ability to have their opinion stated on the report as well. For example one that comes to mind was for the Verstaile 2000 combine. It got tested in some incredibly dry barley that had a lot of straw which led to a higher MOG ratio than normal, which in turn severely reduced capacity to keep losses down. While Versatile did not agree with PAMI's findings, they were still given the chance to have their say and the reasons they stated in the report why they didn't agree.

It will be good to have someone pick up the ball where PAMI left off, for sure, can't say how many times I've looked at those reports for different machines. Used to have a subscription, have hundreds of them that I never look at now because its quicker to read them online

Bourgault.
PAMI did midrow banding trails and, going strictly by memory, about 8% of the time midrow better about 8% sideband better, the rest was a wash.
PAMI used faulty test procedures don'tya know!

A friend and I flew (as in a Cessana 172) down to the farm where PAMI was testing the first year with the Versatile AB but unfortunately they were rained out the two days we were there.
So we had a great visit and a tour of PAMI instead.
They were testing the New Holland TR 96 that same year, at the time the best grain saving combine on the planet so it was quite the contrast.

 

[SWFarmService]

My view on this

Pro: Hopefuly we will see some quality control issues improved

Con: at what cost?

 

[Highmarker]

Shame on all you borgault owners!! Lol

 

[hihi962]

I think its pointless really, conditions vary constantly, so its difficult to reproduce equal tests anyway. Then with the added cost, which is obviously passed down to us, I would much rather buy equipment with design features I am after, as opposed to making sure I've got the highest capacity machine out there so I have bragging rights.
Farmers always seem to be the real proving ground anyway, just another company trying to make a buck.