The end for trailed foragers?

Martin Holden said:

I've heard this from my old JF/Kongskilde colleagues. You have to remember the first ES was made in 1987!! It's not a new concept! I demonstrated one over in the U.K. around 1997/'88 and the chopping was fine but the overall length around smaller farms was a problem

Click to expand...

Martin Holden said:

I've heard this from my old JF/Kongskilde colleagues. You have to remember the first ES was made in 1987!! It's not a new concept! I demonstrated one over in the U.K. around 1997/'88 and the chopping was fine but the overall length around smaller farms was a problem

Click to expand...

RWG Contracts said:

You have to use the smilies that are in the forum to smile : ) but delete the space thumbs up is ( y )

Click to expand...

mtx.jag said:

I heard the Teagle Toucan is on the way back,and is going to take the silage world by storm..again..

Click to expand...

holywell farmer said:

Turning into have I got news for you this forum.

Click to expand...

Cowabunga said:

Rated power at 2100. Maximum torque at 1600. Very little torque rise between the two and a very steep fall immediately below 1600 made for a very poor experience compared to even the same power of tractor with the Ford six cylinder engine. This had maximum torque at 1200 rpm and it didn't suddenly fall off a cliff below that. Although maximum torque in absolute terms of the 7610 and a 7810 were pretty much identical, as well as maximum power, 900 rpm working range and a steeper torque rise made these a far more productive and useful engine than the four turbo.

They were like chalk and cheese in heavy work. On transport up a steep hill the four cylinders were equally hopeless, because you could rev the nuts out of it but if you changed up a gear you would inevitably reduce the revs to below 1600 where it would never recover from.
The slack governors exacerbated the poor performance of these engines, causing the driver to make very regular and large adjustments to the throttle according to load to maintain constant revs where needed. They were the worse performing engines ever to be fitted to a tractor. Probably the most thirsty per unit of work done and of their time as well.

It was a great pity, because the transmissions were as good as any and better than most. Until they introduced the 8x4 synchro, which is another shambles in terms of drivability.

Click to expand...

traadilooar said:

Question. it's no wonder posts (especially mine) sound agressive. I put smiley face things in when i typed it on my phone but they don't seem to be on the posts!?!? Can you not use smiley things?

Click to expand...

smcapstick said:

I purposely put smileys on my posts, even though I absolutely detest them. Without them, a frank and concise comment always looks aggressive.

Oh, I almost forgot -

Click to expand...

Aircooled said:

The endless shortage of labour must be one of the main reasons for the decline in numbers and leads on to greater interest in wagons etc

I have a tm 135. Nice tractor to spend the day in but does the powerstar engine put out as much torque as a cummins or Same engine?

Click to expand...

Cowabunga said:

Depends on which models you compare. The Powerstar has at least a 35% torque rise in some applications which makes it a 'constant power' engine. That means that it's maximum power may be produced at lower than rated revs and in the case of several versions will still output its rated power down to around 1500 revs.
Best design of tractor built with this type of engine would have rated PTO speed at the engine revs that produces maximum power, not at rated speed. This gives maximum output with significant torque backup to overcome overloads and recover.
The Cummins B engines can have similar attributes but better specific fuel economy at the revs above maximum power. The Same air cooled engines are not 'constant power' and have a lower torque rise and significantly less maximum torque relative to their rated and maximum power, which coincide. I run a Same and a Powerstar turbo six cylinder, but not a Cummins, although I have driven Cummins installed in a Maxxum. [plus an 8.3 litre in Magnum]

Click to expand...

mengeleguru said:

Come on you lot I only put forward some interesting facts & your soon off the point.

I'm in New Zealand at the moment and most of you would be out of work here.

There's not many self propelled ,grass baskets or foragers because the cows never come in, the sun is shining, and a few round bales to keep it tidy.

No huge slurry stores,no vast acres of maze, just cows steadily doing what they do best.

So perhaps less is more done well not chasing your arse .

A little & often is perhaps more profitable.

So with the forager job make the best silage some how instead of racing arround
to pay for the big kit that looks good.

Click to expand...

mengeleguru said:

Come on you lot I only put forward some interesting facts & your soon off the point.

I'm in New Zealand at the moment and most of you would be out of work here.

There's not many self propelled ,grass baskets or foragers because the cows never come in, the sun is shining, and a few round bales to keep it tidy.

No huge slurry stores,no vast acres of maze, just cows steadily doing what they do best.

So perhaps less is more done well not chasing your arse .

A little & often is perhaps more profitable.

So with the forager job make the best silage some how instead of racing arround
to pay for the big kit that looks good.

Click to expand...

Martin Holden said:

Bang on! I agree with you that the grass conservation business has been "trivialised" by recent activities and innocently by the grassmen group, who have good intentions (Gareth is a a decent chap and does lots of good work for charities and keeping old classic tractors in the limelight is great) but it's had a knock on effect of making the industry of grass a bit of a game IMHO! Grass as I have said over many posts is a valuable commodity and not to be taken lightly. You're right about NZ dairy trade - I have good old contacts out there (by the way are you looking up MD while you're there?!) and NZ dairy trade works on a much more lean way than ours

Click to expand...

Cowabunga said:

Depends on which models you compare. The Powerstar has at least a 35% torque rise in some applications which makes it a 'constant power' engine. That means that it's maximum power may be produced at lower than rated revs and in the case of several versions will still output its rated power down to around 1500 revs.
Best design of tractor built with this type of engine would have rated PTO speed at the engine revs that produces maximum power, not at rated speed. This gives maximum output with significant torque backup to overcome overloads and recover.
The Cummins B engines can have similar attributes but better specific fuel economy at the revs above maximum power. The Same air cooled engines are not 'constant power' and have a lower torque rise and significantly less maximum torque relative to their rated and maximum power, which coincide. I run a Same and a Powerstar turbo six cylinder, but not a Cummins, although I have driven Cummins installed in a Maxxum. [plus an 8.3 litre in Magnum]

Click to expand...

Aircooled said:

So in layman terms why do Same's pull so well?

Click to expand...

Kevtherev said:

Very good at putting power down and good traction

Click to expand...