The Combine Forum banner

1 - 20 of 62 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,334 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just curious to what you guys thought of whats next for combines...

going bigger than a 8010 and such

Will they at some point get rid of the hopper on top of the machine and have one to pull behind the machine like the really olden days...

Get rid of the hydrostat's and allowing the hydro to just power other parts

Just thought id ask..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,199 Posts
Size is quickly becoming an issue, since the larger machines already require the removal of wheels for transport. The DOT rules are being pushed. So since we can't get much bigger physically, maybe there will be some major redesign that improves capacity.

As for not having a grain tank and dumping right into grain carts kind of like they do with silage - well we're already there. If you put 12 or 16 row corn head on some of the Class-8 combines, then you need a pretty constant flow of grain carts. All the hopper does is get you a buffer to allow you to keep moving while you switch grain carts. If you are running 4000 bu/hr and have a 330 bu hopper, then that will hold you about 5 minutes.

Maybe the bi-rotor will be the next revolution. When does the patent expire on that anyway? Deere doesn't seem to care about it, but they didn't want anyone else to have it either.

-Lance
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,334 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
A Bi-Rotor????

huh? lol

also i just thought of something funny to say but i won't


i'll behave haha



Yeah transportation rules and enviromentalist wacko's will keep machines down to size..

So i forgot to take that into consideration
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
520 Posts
Quote:you cant get enough horsepower.... so more horsepower

I will start by saying I am sure that is right (ie new Challenger machine is I think 425hp??) That seems to be a common answer by everyone, including the equipment manufacturers, but my question still is what does more power do you in a 9860STS when you can push the shoe to the limit in in the 9660STS and the 9760STS. I don't much care to buy the extra fuel just to say that i have an extra 50 horses under the hood. In my part of the world there are more 9660STS than the larger machines and that is alot of the reason. I might add that I am not in a light crop area either, 45/100 bushel wheat (dry/irrigated) and 100/200-250 bushel corn (dry/irrigated) running 30+ strait and 8 and 12 row cornheads.
On the harvest run the most common STS machine 96X0STS for that reason as well. Same thing with gleaner, more r6x than are r7x and it my understandin that the only difference between those 2 is power and bin capacity.
As for Case etc we are just seeing alot of 2388s, very few 8010s in my area so i really have no other brand comparison to make. There are getting to be quite a few of the big MF/Challenger (9790/670) machines out, we will see if we see any 680s i guess.
I really don't know what is nextin my part or the world the biggest thing i see is bigger and bigger headers (especially with auto hieght and steer.). We are starting to see 39 foot MacDon drapers and i am sure that we will see 16R 30" cornheads soon to match rows with planters. My only question is what do we do when 24 row planters become the thing to have. Hopefully gps can allevieate that.
Bi-rotor, i hope so, i pulled the old videos out on that over break and watched them and it is a neat idea and a very viable option for more capacity w/o a huge increase in physical size.
theres my opinion/rambling, you get what you pay for i guess
,
brad
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
A few years ago (20 probably) there was a guy in Farm Show magazine who built his own articulated combine and I think the articulated design may be a way to increase combine capacity without making them wider or taller. I think the combine in Farm Show had the cab and rotor on the front half with the sieves on the back and the grain tank balanced in the middle. With the articulated design you could make a machine longer without making it so long you can't get around with it plus it would make it easy to put enough tires under it to handle the weight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Quote:You sure they don't rotate the same direction but at different speeds?

From what I have read and the articles I've collected, you would be correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
The key for the future of combines doesn't come down to expanding them in any dimension in my opinion. It isn't feasible to make them bigger and bigger when they are shipped around like they are, transported down public highways, and used in the areas they are, from 5000 acre fields on down to 1.5 acre patches. The mining and heavy construction industry can get away with going bigger and bigger since they dont' deal with the same situations, not so with agriculture.

More emphasis is going to be put on getting more throughput through the existing structure size, or maintaining the same throughput while doing it more efficiently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,334 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
From what ive been told yes the 8010 can be fed alot more HP

But some companies don't just take a combine of a certain size and keep pumping HP In it....for a lil better results.

Now since the 8010 has alot bigger clean area some more HP wouldn't hurt but some people will never be happy.

Also thanks for the link to the thread on the bi rotor i'll check that out

Who's claiming the rights to that one......or who is deere....
(i really can't finish the rest of my statement without getting into trouble..so u red guys use your imagination
)


Also Tier 4 emission restrictions??? we Just got tier 3

and i still think thats a dumb idea


seriously how long will it be till 50% of the equipment used in the ag industry are Tier 3.......10 years?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,118 Posts
Deere bought the rights to the bi-rotor combine and then shelved it.... well not entirely because rumor has it that Deere had at least one if not 2 of these "bi-rotor" combines running around on harvest under the STS skin. Will it be the next replacement of the STS series and the next generation of deere combines like the AFX to the Axial Flows?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Quote:
Also Tier 4 emission restrictions??? we Just got tier 3

and i still think thats a dumb idea


Dumb idea or not, its a done deal and not going away.

As for Tier IV, off highway diesels in the 175-750hp range need to meet those requirements when they are phased in during the 2011-2013 timeframe. This is the final step in the emissions program at this time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Quote:

But some companies don't just take a combine of a certain size and keep pumping HP In it....for a lil better results.



Now if you are implying that good ol CIH doesn't do that, you are mistaken. Dare I point out the 2388?!?!?!?! Yes, my favorite combine, but nonetheless.....

Same feeder, rotor, chopper, grain tank, etc. as the 1480, to get the same cleaning system size we'll have to step up to the long shoe 1680 to be fair.

1978 - 1480 - 190hp (First 30" rotor)
1990 - 1680 - 235hp (Long shoe cleaning system)
2006 - 2388 - 325hp (Max available HP from electronic engine)

Gotta look out with making some accusations, sometimes they come back and bite ya!

http://www.hoober.com/home/axial flow history.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,334 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
That crossed my mind

but your ruining my fun......



But there's alot of difference non the less to a 1680 and 2388

compared to *&&^^.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,334 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Well i won't go praising a bi rotor till it gets alot of use and is proven its the best.......

I would think if one of the major 3 combine companies ran across something like that and it was gold they would do anything to take over the market especially &**&e

Maybe they found some drawbacks......

im still not all that sure on how two smaller rotors are better than one big one... but lets not get started on that subject


So everyone thinks we wont get that much bigger......

id have to agree with the DOT restrictions and with enviromentalist wacko's there is a restriction to just how big we can go.

Thanks for the post on the bi rotor that's kind of a neat idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Quote:
But there's alot of difference non the less to a 1680 and 2388


Name some that I'm not coming up with.

AFX rotor (only arriving as a factory option in 2003) is a biggie, but 98-02 models still had 280hp.

Crossflow fan.

Maybe make an argument in the TSU cam angle, but that is much more of a belt wear issue then a productivity issue.

Thats the only difference in the guts of these machines that has changed. The cab, hydraulics, electronics, and other doo dads that have changed do not significantly affect the productivity and throughput of the machine.

And on a side note, the machine you are refering to as *&&^^ is known as a Deere to most normal people. Brace yourself, it is OK to use its correct brand name (even if you are a die hard red lover, CIH is my pick on some stuff as well). Doing such helps you avoid the appearance of being a close minded numbskull.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Quote:

One thing I am surprised we aren't seeing optional from the factory in combines is non-metal augers, such as those made by the Lundell Plastics Corporation. Everything thing I have seen shows that these UHMW augurs are much gentler on the crop and wear much less that metal augers. Less wear + less crop damage = increased efficiency.


These plastic augers are the cats meow for applications where slower speeds are used, such as bulk seed wagons, food processing, and the like. Running slow and full does VASTLY cut down on grain damage, I agree.

However, when used in places such as unload augers, clean grain augers, tailings augers, bubblers, etc....where the speeds they are turning are significantly higher, you will see accelerated wear and, especially on the ends/discharge where the load is highest and the most force being applied due to maybe pushing a pile of grain (IE. grain tank) there will be a higher incidence of flighting being bent back/snapped off. The bolt on plastic sections used to restore or fix metal augers don't quite see this to the same degree due to the original metal flighting underneath giving support.

Have seen a plastic flighting auger as you are describing used in a high speed application. From what I saw, the last third of the flighting had to be replaced vastly sooner (I'm guessing it got to 1/3 life expectancy) then a metal auger in this area would have been.

After typing that all out, I went looking at the Lundell website. You'll notice on the Lundell Plastics website about how their products are marketed likewise. The full plastic augers are marketed for bulk seed use, among other areas where the augers are going to be turning relatively slower, while the Wearshoes are marketed towards restoring augers.

My thoughts based on opinion and experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,334 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
The cab, hydraulics, electronics, and other doo dads that have changed do not significantly affect the productivity and throughput of the machine.


Those are some pretty major changes when it comes down to it.

not to meniton Sensors and Grain loss monitor

Also yeah i was just being cute with the &**(^ remarke but no reason to name call....

Calm down a bit...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,334 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Deere and Class already have automatic feedrate control (AFC) systems

Doesn't the case have this on the machine....

If i remember right they do..but our dealer says its the first thing they turn off when they get any combine...

just curious

also what exactly does deere and class say this system does for them?
 
1 - 20 of 62 Posts
Top