The Combine Forum banner

1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
After touring the Grand Island factory it is clear that the 7010/8010 design is converging with the NH design. The NH design and or 7010 design looks better than the old NH TR series of machines that had more crude mechanical drive systems than the IH 1460 design.

Now the big difference is the rotor unit. The rasp bars and geometry of the twin rotors are very different than the single 30 inch rotor. We got a good look at the insides of both types on the tour.

I no longer have the negative bias I had to the other mechanical parts on the old NH design . So was the IH engineer that went to NH correct in believing two small high speed rotors are better,

I am a color blind engineering type that looks for the best engineering design and cost value when buying equipment.

So whats your opinion ...one or two rotors?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
My experience is only on Case IH machines. It is impressive in terms of grain quality and maintenance. I have some questions and doubts about two rotors. The transmission is more complicated so how come it gets more capacity from HP? Anyhow it would be very interesting to see them in one field. May be some one did?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
I have spoken to a some people who worked for both NH and Case over this issue just after the Case/NH Merger. With them both having knowledge of the two brands, I thought they were best able to answer which had the best output.

The Case chap wasn't very convincing, instead harking on about 'simplicity'. The NH guy, however, did give a fairly good argument.

Basically it is about centrifugal force. The NH Holland with the two small rotors is better able to achieve centrifugal forces, as the material is forced quickly round a tighter angle, which of course is more power hungry, but effective.

The analogy he used was that of driving in your car and coming up against a round-about at speed or bend in the road. The tighter the roundabout or bend the more the force is outwards.

What has to be considered though is that you are comparing a 'true rotary' with a hybrid. Remember the initial drums do much of the threshing on the NH.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Alright, I've read this thread, and I'm sure it can be debated either way between one or two rotors, but what can't be debated is that I have never seen "the" misspelled more times than on this thread:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,199 Posts
[quote author=cihman board=Case thread=1207022240 post=1207059006...I have never seen "the" misspelled more times than on this thread:)[/quote]

Happy April Fools Day.


-Lance
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,768 Posts
The rotor drive system is a big question. Belts are the old fall back, but the reversibility of the case design is a nice feature without the power loss of a hydrostatic system. Having run a 7010, but never plugging it up, I never got to use this feature. However, I have run a TR98 and plugged it up nicely in green peas. A reverser would have been a nice option.

Case has finally got their CVT figured out I think. It makes sense from an engineering and maintenance standpoint. No belts to slip or stretch, and no springs in the pulleys to sack out. However, I would rather smoke a belt than a clutch pack, but the CVTs have sensors for low oil pressure, although there have been problems with them in the 8010s.

As far as threshing goes, I like the NH design because the feedhouse can be almost the same size as the rotor width. the CR970s have a 50 inch feedhouse and 2 21 inch rotors, while the 8010 (and 7010) has a 30 inch rotor and a 54 inch feedhouse. I think that is where the cone wear on the axial flows came from, trying to get a wide swath of material into a smaller hole. Seems that cone wear has been an issue with this. (the 2003 8010s came with welded vanes, but now they are all bolted again like the axial flows).

Both are good designs I think, and now they are running off the same cleaning system (except for the rethreshers) so it should be simple to see which threshing system is best by setting the cleaning system the same and checking the samples.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
664 Posts
every holland i have ever ran hated green material. i think it has something to do with the fact that there is less centrivicle force (less flywheel-like stored energy in the rotors).

Matt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
What do you mean by the "initial threshing is done by the drums"? Remember we are disscusing Cr Nh vs Axial Flow CIH combines. When you say drums I imagine CX combines or some European TF machines.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,982 Posts
Quote: now they are running off the same cleaning system (except for the rethreshers)
Does CI send returns back to rotor?

Don
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,249 Posts
I have always thought a 66 size machine was easier to run than a 88. give a 66 plenty of power and she'll keep up. their is something to the two smaller rotors in a NH. they need some good rasp bars like a AF. It was always rumored, CaseIH had a twin 66 rotor machine before the merger. CVT problems are non existant in 70-80-9010's NOW but at first their was a software problem I had first hand experience with it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
The original chassis did send returns to the rotor but the newer series has a "tri sweep tailings system" which is a series of three padles that impact the tailings and through them onto the grain pan under the concaves/threshing modules.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
Did just one season with 04 8010 ,choose this model over CR cause less moving parts (less maintenance) reverse rotor from cab and main reason I don't believe that twin rotor have even distribution over each rotor and then its uneven on sieve's. Every twin rotor owner should do kill stall and have a look...............

Snorton.

ps. wish CNH would solve dust problem around fueltank/rad. no.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
This is a little like asking which is better, a Chevy or a Ford. I personally like the New Holland and have operated the TR combines since 1978. I have ridden in a lot of CIH combines because they are common in this neighborhood. I have run in the same field with the red machine and I got a cleaner sample. My father was elevating the grain and it was quite noticeable. I think as the machines have gotten bigger, the twin rotor design offers even more advantage to the one large rotor. All of my tractors are red but I have stayed with the twin rotor machine for my combine. There just seems to be an advantage to the smaller faster turning rotors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Quote:every holland i have ever ran hated green material. i think it has something to do with the fact that there is less centrivicle force (less flywheel-like stored energy in the rotors).

Matt


I would think that that has more to do with having to rip all that green straw apart. Thats one thing I have noticed about the twin rotor design.

Allso, our nieghbor demoed a 8010 last harvest and the salesman that was there couldnt say anything bad about a CR. He stated that the CR was better in the sense that it distributes the grain better on the grain pan with its 2 rotors then the 8010 does. Said the 8010 overloaded one side more, so its hard to set the sieves and wind. Allso said that wasnt a problem with the 7010 since it has the narrower sieve like the 9060 and 9050. But I wouls say there are a few companies that make distibuters plates under the rotor for CIH. since the 1460- 1680 era even.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
664 Posts
we usually do a kill stall every day to see how its feeding. and i dont care what people say, we still get one rotor loaded up more than the other. its weird

Matt
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,982 Posts
Quote:The original chassis did send returns to the rotor but the newer series has a "tri sweep tailings system" which is a series of three padles that impact the tailings and through them onto the grain pan under the concaves/threshing modules.
I thought that return system was part of the double return self level shoe system off the TX series.
Aren't all CNH's pretty much the same mechanical set-up there now?
Don
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,259 Posts
Quote:we usually do a kill stall every day to see how its feeding. and i dont care what people say, we still get one rotor loaded up more than the other. its weird

Matt


Check out this picture of the CR9070. Count the flights per rotor, and notice the placement of the divider compared the next couple pics that will be of a TR with the overlapping flights. You should still be able to get the overlapping flights setup for the TR if you are having trouble with favoring one side.


And the TR system. This is a TR97 as I recall, and a small change was made for the 98 and 99s, but the number of flights and basic feeding aproach was the same. The rotors have to be timed even if they're non-overlapping.



I wish a guy could get the larger diameter rotors to fit in the TR. The TRs distribution setup was amazingly well thought out and would've made an awesome seed machine. Too bad they just did'nt catch on in the heavier seed producing areas.

The single rotor has issues too with loading one side. Compromises have to be made with reguards to concaves setting and rotor speed to get the distribution even. (and yes I realize it depends on the area and crop being run, but that also applies to the twin rotors)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,768 Posts
I have seen a lot of divider plates out for the Case's. The TRs have plates built into the side of the machine to adjust the flow.

It is odd that there are 2 different types of Rethreshers between the CI and NH, and I am unsure of why this is. The NH is still the same basic as the TX ones, but I don't know where the case came from. Some people say they are a lot like the Massey rethreshers once were.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
The overlapping rotors were only used in TR95s and early TR96s(pre 1990). The overlapping design was discontinued due to its hp consumption. ex during field test TR86 combine with less hp coud put more crop through than 96 in some conditions due to the large front flighting rotors.
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top