|
|
Post by Anon on Nov 3, 2007 20:59:19 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by eppie on Nov 4, 2007 11:30:22 GMT 1
The link doesnt work for me, but 6 wheeled conversions are about 10 years old: I remember seeing an article in Boerderij of about 10 years ago, about an English company that built 6 wheel conversions for MF and other tractors. What they did was essentially mounting a bogie like they use under log forwarders, driven by a heavy chain in oil bath. they also needed to extend the lower link arms to get the hitch balls outside of the tires. ==== On edit: I've found what you're talking about at farmphoto: www.farmphoto.com/fpv2/thread.aspx?mid=491448www.dlz-agrarmagazin.de/?redid=189895It wont make it to the market because A. its butt ugly, B. the plastic at the back take away too much view on the rear implements, and C. it will be too expensive compared to a conventional articulated frame style. Probably just to throw up some dust and see how the public responds before they decide any other step. another thing that was mentioned: A Czech prototype based on Tatra individual wheel suspension: www.landlive.de/videos/452/this one has better vision to the work, and the individual suspension on all 6 wheels make it unique. |
|
|
|
Post by Anon on Nov 4, 2007 15:36:18 GMT 1
Could the two machines be the same thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vladmir on Nov 8, 2007 20:50:36 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernhard on Nov 13, 2007 23:44:02 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by guest on Nov 14, 2007 10:20:55 GMT 1
R&D at fendt looks a bid like the R&D of KHD at there galmourday's in the 80'' to much mony, to much dreams.
Let's hope the Yub's of agco learn from there old boss what hapenend with KHD in the 80''.
|
|
|
|
Post by eppie on Nov 14, 2007 22:15:09 GMT 1
guest, i'd have to agree with you...  |
|
|
|
Post by Woodbeef on Nov 14, 2007 23:10:16 GMT 1
guest, i'd have to agree with you... Kinda a different in the ownership department though,ain't they Doc? |
|
|
|
Post by guest on Nov 15, 2007 8:00:21 GMT 1
In the glamourday's of KDH ownership the same structure as AGCO at the moment (share holders and banks)
|
|
|
|
Post by eppie on Nov 15, 2007 19:40:50 GMT 1
Kinda a different in the ownership department though,ain't they Doc? Yes, at KHD they wasted money in the mother company, where at Fendt you might expect their mother company (Agco) to move some of the excess to other daughter companies. |
|
|
|
Post by Bernhard on Nov 16, 2007 19:57:15 GMT 1
The tractor is not a conversion, it is totally new developed. That´s what a Fendt engineer told me Yesterday, when I visited the Agritechnica.
I´m not sure, if they will offer this tractor, it was only shown, cause of testing the market. There was possibility to write down, if there is a need of a tractor at that hp range.
Tractor divison of KHD was only a part of their business. There was more then one factor that KHD went down. It has to do with the bad global economy in the 70. The first probs with the new DX was a minor one for them at these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi Bloke on Nov 17, 2007 23:44:31 GMT 1
If Fendt want to get more power to the ground and reduces ground pressure why don't they go to tracks, or more usefully, quad tracks
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernhard on Nov 18, 2007 8:52:41 GMT 1
The Tractor should be able to go on the road with 60 km/h, and should not be wider then 3 m to meet registration rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by eppie on Nov 21, 2007 18:58:20 GMT 1
It wont be easy, keeping a 4w steered vehicle on the road at 60 km/h... and even harder if they block the rear axle steering on the road because the both rear axles will push it out of a corner.
At farmphoto we (the Dutch guys) had the discussion that 540 hp is too much anyways, because the trend in agriculture is min-till and direct seeding. An 8 meter Vaderstad Rapid needs 260-320 hp according to their website.
However, the 936 has serious problems to get its power to the ground: Larger front wheels cant be put there, or the turning radius will increase because it cant get enough steering angle. Putting it on a wider track, is not an option because it will be too wide.
The most economic solution for getting more power to the ground (traction) for MODERN tillage practice, is a 2+2 version of the 936. It could have 42" tires front and rear, at a narrow trackwidth because the trackwidth has no effect on wheel steering angle with a pivot steered machine. Because a 2+2 will transfer more power over the front axle, they can also use the 936 rear end in a 943 2+2
In Europe, the american articulated tractor has the name to be too big and not manoeuverable enough, but pivot steering is the only way to put wide tires under a tractor and still be narrow enough to hit the road within the 3 meter width limits.
A standard front axle needs room between the frame and the tire, to be able to turn each tire, which means that large tires have to be set at wide track to give them clearance to turn. The result is a wide tractor with a large turning radius.
Sure a 943 2+2 4wd wont be a handy tool for the guys that operate a brush chopper with it, but the standard frame tractor is the tool for those jobs that require more PTO power than traction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernhard on Nov 22, 2007 18:12:38 GMT 1
The tractor isn´t developed for Europe. main market is the east.
Not hard to figure it out, by visiting Hannover. For the most german farmers it is a pain in the arse to going there. Colgne and Frankfurt had been much better places for the former DLG show.
Hannover was choosen only for the east european market.
|
|
