|
|
Post by Josh A on May 31, 2006 17:46:11 GMT 1
As some folks have already mentioned, with grass silage it is a pain in the arse to either get a big enough swath to feed a big chopper, or have the tractors accelerate fast enough and simultaneously with a harvester. I've been doing drag racing on a field with a thin cut with small swaths... i can tell you it's not easy to keep up with the chopper accelerating up to 30 km/h everytime, on a short field... Just get a Fendt, 60 km/h, and with fast, responsive, variable transmission... ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by eppie on May 31, 2006 18:31:42 GMT 1
Josh, if i had to buy a Fendt 930 to pull a forage trailer, i'd prefer to hook it up to a Schuitemaker Rapide 3000 3 axle self loading silage trailer, with rotocutter that cuts up to 5 cm short.
In this case the operator only has to keep an eye on the swath, being alone on the field. This requires less concentration of the hauler, so he wont get as tired and can continue longer, or sleep shorter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trevor Tyrrell on May 31, 2006 18:38:56 GMT 1
[quote author=josha board=general thread=1143806167 post=1149093776I sure talk a lot about stuff I know nothing about, eh?[/quote]
You're right there - CLAAS built the first Field Shuttle over 10 years ago! Lots are sold and working all over France, Belgium, Holland and Germany mainly with grass-drying companies, because of the long haulage distance.
Foragers will always get bigger, as farms and sheds and tractors and trailers get bigger... I remember everyone saying that foragers couldn't get any bigger than the Jaguar 695 MEGA (354hp) in 1991 - then came the Jaguar 880 (503hp) in 1993 and they all said the same thing again. It was too big. Now the same size Jaguar 890 is our best seller in the UK, and even the Jaguar 900 is to small for some people.....
It's like the chicken and the egg - until larger mowers/tedders/rakes and clamp loaders come along, the biggest forager is inefficient. Time soon takes care of that.
TT
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh A on May 31, 2006 19:50:06 GMT 1
a Schuitemaker Rapide 3000 3 axle self loading silage trailer, with rotocutter that cuts up to 5 cm short. Is this on Renze's wish list perhaps? You're right there - CLAAS built the first Field Shuttle over 10 years ago! Lots are sold and working all over France, Belgium, Holland and Germany mainly with grass-drying companies, because of the long haulage distance. I actually did know that, and I didn't say they didn't. My point was, on Krone's BIGGEST one, they have it in FieldShuttle version. The (possible) prototype shown on the first page:  Is not a FieldShuttle. All I'm saying is, when you're going to that size, I think a FieldShuttle version should be used. Not that Krone introduced it, but that they should follow Krone and make their biggest one, in that version, as it would be near impossible to keep up with a regular one. Either that, or the harvester will definately not be used to it's full capacity. And what about this?  |
|
|
|
Post by eppie on May 31, 2006 21:40:52 GMT 1
All right all right, folks keep saying that the new choppers are too big...
All i wanted to say is that for grass chopping, the optimum has been reached and passed. For corn silage with wide headers, you can make use of a few extra horses, but for grass... Even an FX 450 is overkill for a typical Dutch silage swath, unless the grass is wet and heavy.
But i agree, when 14 meter rakes are getting a common thing, to make big enough swaths, choppers can follow. At least, in large scale eastern Europe and northern America operations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jon B on Jun 1, 2006 15:18:06 GMT 1
Renze While we are on the topic, what is the most common machine used for packing the silage over there. Its the payloaders right? Seems to me that a lot here are using big blades on a 4wd tractor. I can remember having this discussion a few years ago that putting a tractor with blade on a pile is asking for tranny problems, though I know we used a 7710 for a few years no problem. But someone told me once that using a payloader doesn't work too well because of the torque converter or something! Josh The Krone Big X Cargo is a joint venture between Krone and Bomech ( www.bomech.nl ). Look at their site, they make similar units for other choppers, mind you not to the extent as this one |
|
|
|
Post by CMunger on Jun 1, 2006 15:52:51 GMT 1
Jon B, Here they wait untill the crop is in a certain stage. The crop such as they are cutting now, would be "Winter Forage", a mixture of several different plants, oats, grasses, grains, sometime beans. The weather hear enables them to wait untill it's a certain moisture before chopping, The low humidity allows this.. The choppers are followed along side by 3 axle trucks pulling silage trailers. When the truck is full another pulls up and begins to load, they do not want the forager to stop. The same for corn silage, which is the larger season/acreage, they wait untill the corn is at a certain stage, the silage is taken the the dairy, the trucks unload in in pit and the silage is pushed and made into a well shape, well packed pile. The dozing, now, is done with articulated 4 wheel drive tractors. Used to be done with metal tracked crawlers ie Cat and Allis Chalmers. During silage season the country roads are a hazzard, when full of trucks running up and down the road  |
|
|
|
Post by eppie on Jun 1, 2006 19:10:27 GMT 1
Jon,
Yes, an old farm practice book from 1980, said that in the past (probably the early 70's) wheel loaders gave problems on silage stacks because of overheating torque converters and transmissions because of the continuous load of driving litterally -through- (not over) the silage stack because heavy wheel loaders sink in.
especially the American models were known for this, as the early American Caterpillar and Case loaders were designed as scoop machines, where the European machines were built tougher, they were also used for digging, and in jobs where Americans would use a scraper or dozer. Scrapers are very scarce here, even today.
When Case modified a wheel loader design and parts, to form the 1200 crab steer 4wd, they changed the U-joints because wheel loader joints werent up to the continous load of a tractor application. And even a mid 90's Komatsu wheel loader pulling a bale wagon will overheat its transmission and bake the oil seals.
Anyways, with the current powershuttle transmissions on most contractor tractors, you see a comeback of the pit tractor, though many still use wheel loaders.
A local contractor still uses an Ursus 212 2wd as pit tractor, it has done 13,000 hrs without any problems. Off course this is only the same old non-synchromesh 16/8 transmission.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trevor Tyrrell on Jun 1, 2006 23:56:04 GMT 1
All I'm saying is, when you're going to that size, I think a FieldShuttle version should be used. Sorry, I mis-understood you. Yes, only the two largest CLAAS Jaguar's are available as Field-Shuttle versions - and this is likely to be the case in the future when larger machines are introduced. However, to give the maximum choice, 2WD and 4WD version are also likely to be available - as will the current TERRA TRAC Field Shuttle version, the only one if it's kind:  This is Mason Dixon Farms in Pennsylvania who pioneered this development. regards TT |
|
|
|
Post by Josh A on Jun 2, 2006 1:55:16 GMT 1
Yes, only the two largest CLAAS Jaguar's are available as Field-Shuttle versions Are you sure? I've seen the 880, 890, and 900 in Field-Shuttle versions, and a 870 with a hydraulically operated trailer. If you like that "terra trac", you might find this of interest:  Josh |
|
|
|
Post by Trevor Tyrrell on Jun 3, 2006 0:40:52 GMT 1
The 880 was the only Field Shuttle version when it was the biggest in the range. With it's replacement by the 890, both it and the 900 became available in FS versions.
We can build any model to spec (hence the 870 you saw) if we believe it will work, but you have to pay for any re-engineering costs.
TT
|
|
|
|
Post by Tellarian on Jun 3, 2006 10:20:37 GMT 1
Have always thought hat as SP foragers get bigger there is more that should be done to save wastage and utilise plant availability. The bunker / FS versions are one way to go, but, some kind of internal bunker in a normal SPFH might be something to think about. What I am of course referring to is the problem of lost crop when changing trailers / receivers, the outfit either has to stop, or, accept spillage as the spout is swung from one unit to the next. The loss of crop from a 1,000 hp unit would be sizable even though statistacly small as apercentage. The internal bunker could allow crop to accumulate and the machine goes to auto slow down whilst the spout slews and then discharge the bunker and speeds up again. Locally seeing small mountains of maize in the fields does make one wonder. One can also ask if there is any life in the PRO-DX concept - configure it as a forage whenn needed then as a hauler/applicator for the rest of the year.... gymkhana.molenbaix.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by eppie on Jun 3, 2006 20:23:40 GMT 1
Hmm Tellarian, have you ever seen one of those Hesston bunker choppers ? They used to be popular here, they had just a 5 ton bunker but big enough to load up the nasty little corner, the opening pass of the field, or to accumulate during trailer change. a local contractor had one but traded it for a Claas because the machine was old and could only work with a 4 row header. They kept it even though it was worn badly, but they didnt want to miss it in wet seasons. (sometimes the going was so tough that the underpowered hesston needed all its hp to wade through the mud, and the Claas 860 was used to fill the Hesston's bunker) |
|
|
|
Post by pudding on Jun 4, 2006 0:05:47 GMT 1
what ever happened to the heeston machines, was a couple here, they were a concept with many merits, 4wd, unload on the move, bunker for buffering between trucks or difficult conditions, articulated, equal sized wheels for good wieght distribution, ......i like the idea of bunkers on harvesters, used to use one with a uni sweetcorn harvester, made life a lot easier in short runs and opening up paddocks, but then again i suppose in silage, you can run over the crop
|
|
|
|
Post by Jon B on Jun 4, 2006 14:14:01 GMT 1
I think even if you put a bunker on say a V12 Krone or 900 Claas, those machines have such high capacity that it would be full in a heartbeat anyways. ( mind you, I haven't done the math to prove this ). Like, is the size of a bunker maybe 1/2 the size of a 3 axle trailer? What would you be gaining?
And with a 12 row or 14 row corn head, your bunker has to be able to fill a trailer on the go, and I wonder how much room there is.
But then again, I've never been crazy with the bunker idea anyways. In grass or alfalfa, maybe. But in corn, I'm not sure its the ideal solution
|
|
