2 combines vs. 1

[Two Tone]

The CH is not a cheap combine,I bought a 1 yr old CX8.80 on tracks for less than a new CH on wheels,the CH is wider on the road than the CX and a lot lower spec,still can't work out where new Holland are targeting this model,not heard of any up this area yet,not sure this combine has been particularly well thought out,looks dated in comparison with the class alternative as well now.

Sort of proves my point a bit.
What did the one year old CX8.80 cost new and how much did it depreciate in one year, because to most 2nd hand purchasing farmers, it is just too big!

The CH is about £220k bought new with a 28’ header and rated at about 40 tons/hour in wheat.
How much is a CX8.80 new and how many tons/hour is it?

What spec has the CX 8.80 got that the CH 7.70 hasn’t?

As regards width on the road, they all have to be under a certain width legally.

 

[Bumble Bee]

From my experience, tracks are not the best option for direct drillers. They seem to leave a shallow square profile rut where a tire would not cut in. Quite the opposite of what you would expect!

 

[Flatlander]

From my experience, tracks are not the best option for direct drillers. They seem to leave a shallow square profile rut where a tire would not cut in. Quite the opposite of what you would expect!

Your always going to have some form of rutting. Tracks leave a berm on headlands but I’ve had both running in soften fields and in very wet conditions that leave wheeled units in the shed. Both instances the tracks win in my opinion. The foot print of the track would require some enormous wheels to even come close to being the same. Make servicing easier around the front axle area too.

 

[Bumble Bee]

Your always going to have some form of rutting. Tracks leave a berm on headlands but I’ve had both running in sifter fields and in very wet conditions that leave wheeled units in the shed. Both instances the track win in my opinion. The foot print of the track would require some enormous wheels to even come close to being the same. Make servicing easier around the front axle area too.

I don't think it is so much to do with the size of the footprint. It looks to me to be the multiple wheels within the tracks that gradually push the soil down.
When you lay a stone lane you generally 'track it in' to bed the stone down. It's a similar principle.

 

[Two Tone]

I don't think it is so much to do with the size of the footprint. It looks to me to be the multiple wheels within the tracks that gradually push the soil down.
When you lay a stone lane you generally 'track it in' to bed the stone down. It's a similar principle.

During the wet autumn of 2012, I borrowed a Challenger 85 to put on my 4 metre combi-drill to get some wheat in.
Despite making sure the tines were deeper than the track ruts, you could see exactly where each track had been and the headlands were a terrible mess!
It was an absolute sod to work on the sides of any banks without it trying to slide down hill all the time and I had to back up on numerous occasions and have another go at trying to keep straight.
However, I’d not have been able to drill anything without it!

 

[snarling bee]

Flat track challengers were never designed to have linkage on. Any twin track will be unbalanced with mounted gear that is being lifted up and down.

 

[snarling bee]

The advantage of tracks on a combine are as much to do with header stability as ground pressure or transport width.

 

[Flatlander]

During the wet autumn of 2012, I borrowed a Challenger 85 to put on my 4 metre combi-drill to get some wheat in.
Despite making sure the tines were deeper than the track ruts, you could see exactly where each track had been and the headlands were a terrible mess!
It was an absolute sod to work on the sides of any banks without it trying to slide down hill all the time and I had to back up on numerous occasions and have another go at trying to keep straight.
However, I’d not have been able to drill anything without it!

Two track tractor are poor in wet slippery conditions. As soon as your wanting to steer away from a wet patch the track nearest the wet won’t out power/grip the other and it will steer you right into the wet. they Have a place but some expect them to produce miracles. I went to tracks mainly because of bad back and the smooth ride in the field but if it’s too wet for wheels it’s too wet for tracks on a tractor.

 

[HAM135]

Sort of proves my point a bit.
What did the one year old CX8.80 cost new and how much did it depreciate in one year, because to most 2nd hand purchasing farmers, it is just too big!

The CH is about £220k bought new with a 28’ header and rated at about 40 tons/hour in wheat.
How much is a CX8.80 new and how many tons/hour is it?

What spec has the CX 8.80 got that the CH 7.70 hasn’t?

As regards width on the road, they all have to be under a certain width legally.

Not convinced residuals will be great on the CH,I would think my 8.80 will be worth more than the CH at 10yr old,have you looked under the guards of the CH compared to the flagship CX's,CX is far heavier built, levelling sieves on CX& CR's are far better than CH,9300lt tank on CH for a combine on 28ft head is not nearly big enough,6 walker CX on tracks is no bigger to move than CH on wheels,when you can buy an ex demo CX or CR 8.80 on tracks for roughly the same as a new CH on wheels I know where I would put my money.

 

[JonL]

The studies I've read on tracks vs tyres show tracks compact similarly but that compaction is shallower so more easily removed

 

[Two Tone]

Not convinced residuals will be great on the CH,I would think my 8.80 will be worth more than the CH at 10yr old,have you looked under the guards of the CH compared to the flagship CX's,CX is far heavier built, levelling sieves on CX& CR's are far better than CH,9300lt tank on CH for a combine on 28ft head is not nearly big enough,6 walker CX on tracks is no bigger to move than CH on wheels,when you can buy an ex demo CX or CR 8.80 on tracks for roughly the same as a new CH on wheels I know where I would put my money.

I take you point regarding CH grain tank size and this was a point I made when I saw and drove it on 2 occasions.
I am very familia with the CX 8 series and yes, I agree that the construction of it is a much heavier design.

However, the the CX 8 range was designed by a first generation CAD.
The CX 5 & 6 ranges were designed by the next generation CAD’s, which said that with a few alterations of shaft speeds and angles of wrap, using existing technology from earlier TX ranges, would achieve similar results at a much cheaper build cost. Hence the CSX, which lead to the CX 5 & 6 ranges.
Yes they are lighter, but extremely reliable. I have run a CX6080 for 10 harvest with virtually no problems whatsoever. Only needing a new Inteliview 3 screen 2 belts and having to add grease nipples to the rear axle stub axles!

The smart-sieve on it actually can cope with steeper side slopes than the SL grain shoe. However, opti-fan does an even better job when going up and down slopes.

I have helped several TFF members buy 2nd hand combines and it stuns me how well CSX and CX 5 & 6 series hold their value. Their sizes and reliability help sell them.

The CH 7.70 is based on a CX 6.90 but has 25% higher output . The CH7.70 has only been on sale from 2021, so we don’t yet know what the residual values of it will be.

Its development work actually took place in South America where farmers their were asking for such a machine.
NH took on board a lot of what was learned from the “Dual Stream” development concept and what they ended up with is something with even higher capacity, but for less cost!
The designer Marcel Verhoeven, is the same guy who designed the TS, CSX, CX 5 & 6 and the Dual Stream concept.
Its straw rotors are not the same as the CR rotors, because it has a conventional drum in front of them where most of the separation takes place.

In many ways, it is similar to the original TF series but with one BIG difference: Straw quality is the best that NH have ever produced, even better than a straw walker combine, because it doesn’t require a Rotary Separator and the concave distance can be run wider. Because it still has a drum, it also guarantees a far more even distribution of grain over the full width of the grain pan than the the CR. Broken grain damage is also greatly reduced compared to any CX or CR.

For the time being, NH have decided that it is so much lighter than the CX 8 series, that they won’t be fitting tracks to it. They say that if you want the extra traction, 4WD is available at substantially less cost and the whole concept of the CH combine is substantial capacity for a much lower purchase price, that will gain them attracting purchasers who would normally buy other brands.

The only things that I wish it had, were a bigger grain tank (NH say this adds to the weight) and that they stuck with the original grey plastic in the cabs, rather that the new black.

The idea of a 28’ header was something I mentioned to Hedley Cooper (NH headers) to fit 24 metre tramlines in 3 passes. The combine being so light that the 2 middle passes do less damage to the soil than the heavier CX and CR combines using a 41’ header, even with tracks.

In your position @HAM135, of the choice between a brand new CH, or a 2nd hand CX8.80 with a wider header on tracks for less money, you probably made the right decision. I pity the depreciation knock the previous owner had to swallow!

Time will tell what its residual values of the CH7.70 will be here. But it is definitely on my wish list!

 

[Foxcover]

I take you point regarding CH grain tank size and this was a point I made when I saw and drove it on 2 occasions.
I am very familia with the CX 8 series and yes, I agree that the constitution of it is a much heavier design.

However, the the CX 8 range was designed by a first generation CAD.
The CX 5 & 6 ranges were designed by the next generation CAD’s, which said that with a few alterations of shaft speeds and angles of wrap, using existing technology from earlier TX ranges, would achieve similar results at a much cheaper build cost. Hence the CSX, which lead to the CX 5 & 6 ranges.
Yes they are lighter, but extremely reliable. I have run a CX6080 for 10 harvest with virtually no problems whatsoever. Only needing a new Inteliview 3 screen 2 belts and having to add grease nipples to the rear axle stub axles!

The smart-sieve on it actually can cope with steeper side slopes than the SL grain shoe. However, opti-fan does an even better job when going up and down slopes.

I have helped several TFF members buy 2nd hand combines and it stuns me how well CSX and CX 5 & 6 series hold their value. Their sizes and reliability help sell them.

The CH 7.70 is based on a CX 6.90 but has 25% higher output . The CH7.70 has only been on sale from 2021, so we don’t yet know what the residual values of it will be.

Its development work actually took place in South America where farmers their were asking for such a machine.
NH took on board a lot of what was learned from the “Dual Stream” development concept and what they ended up with is something with even higher capacity, but for less cost!
The designer Marcel Verhoeven, is the same guy who designed the TS, CSX, CX 5 & 6 and the Dual Stream concept.
Its straw rotors are not the same as the CR rotors, because it has a conventional drum in front of them where most of the separation takes place.

In many ways, it is similar to the original TF series but with one BIG difference: Straw quality is the best that NH have ever produced, even better than a straw walker combine, because it doesn’t require a Rotary Separator and the concave distance can be run wider. Because it still has a drum, it also guarantees a far more even distribution of grain over the full width of the grain pan than the the CR. Broken grain damage is also greatly reduced compared to any CX or CR.

For the time being, NH have decided that it is so much lighter than the CX 8 series, that they won’t be fitting tracks to it. They say that if you want the extra traction, 4WD is available at substantially less cost and the whole concept of the CH combine is substantial capacity for a much lower purchase price, that will gain them attracting purchasers who would normally buy other brands.

The only things that I wish it had, were a bigger grain tank (NH say this adds to the weight) and that they stuck with the original grey plastic in the cabs, rather that the new black.

The idea of a 28’ header was something I mentioned to Hedley Cooper (NH headers) to fit 24 metre tramlines in 3 passes. The combine being so light that the 2 middle passes do less damage to the soil than the heavier CX and CR combines using a 41’ header, even with tracks.

Time will tell what its residual values will be here. But it is definitely on my wish list!

NH had the pre-production machine here in East Yorkshire a few years back, with different numbers on the side. We guessed it was something vastly different to a CX or CR because they were really serious about keeping people away from it and wouldn’t run it in any fields directly next to roads.
Looked small but was moving at a fair pace.

 

[Renaultman]

I take you point regarding CH grain tank size and this was a point I made when I saw and drove it on 2 occasions.
I am very familia with the CX 8 series and yes, I agree that the construction of it is a much heavier design.

However, the the CX 8 range was designed by a first generation CAD.
The CX 5 & 6 ranges were designed by the next generation CAD’s, which said that with a few alterations of shaft speeds and angles of wrap, using existing technology from earlier TX ranges, would achieve similar results at a much cheaper build cost. Hence the CSX, which lead to the CX 5 & 6 ranges.
Yes they are lighter, but extremely reliable. I have run a CX6080 for 10 harvest with virtually no problems whatsoever. Only needing a new Inteliview 3 screen 2 belts and having to add grease nipples to the rear axle stub axles!

The smart-sieve on it actually can cope with steeper side slopes than the SL grain shoe. However, opti-fan does an even better job when going up and down slopes.

I have helped several TFF members buy 2nd hand combines and it stuns me how well CSX and CX 5 & 6 series hold their value. Their sizes and reliability help sell them.

The CH 7.70 is based on a CX 6.90 but has 25% higher output . The CH7.70 has only been on sale from 2021, so we don’t yet know what the residual values of it will be.

Its development work actually took place in South America where farmers their were asking for such a machine.
NH took on board a lot of what was learned from the “Dual Stream” development concept and what they ended up with is something with even higher capacity, but for less cost!
The designer Marcel Verhoeven, is the same guy who designed the TS, CSX, CX 5 & 6 and the Dual Stream concept.
Its straw rotors are not the same as the CR rotors, because it has a conventional drum in front of them where most of the separation takes place.

In many ways, it is similar to the original TF series but with one BIG difference: Straw quality is the best that NH have ever produced, even better than a straw walker combine, because it doesn’t require a Rotary Separator and the concave distance can be run wider. Because it still has a drum, it also guarantees a far more even distribution of grain over the full width of the grain pan than the the CR. Broken grain damage is also greatly reduced compared to any CX or CR.

For the time being, NH have decided that it is so much lighter than the CX 8 series, that they won’t be fitting tracks to it. They say that if you want the extra traction, 4WD is available at substantially less cost and the whole concept of the CH combine is substantial capacity for a much lower purchase price, that will gain them attracting purchasers who would normally buy other brands.

The only things that I wish it had, were a bigger grain tank (NH say this adds to the weight) and that they stuck with the original grey plastic in the cabs, rather that the new black.

The idea of a 28’ header was something I mentioned to Hedley Cooper (NH headers) to fit 24 metre tramlines in 3 passes. The combine being so light that the 2 middle passes do less damage to the soil than the heavier CX and CR combines using a 41’ header, even with tracks.

In your position @HAM135, of the choice between a brand new CH, or a 2nd hand CX8.80 with a wider header on tracks for less money, you probably made the right decision. I pity the depreciation knock the previous owner had to swallow!

Time will tell what its residual values of the CH7.70 will be here. But it is definitely on my wish list!

I think as we go more and more towards no till actual weight will become more of an issue, carrying grain is one thing that is fairly easy to manage and carrying less a very easy way to reduce weight, your comments in next generation CAD and higher shaft speeds to reduce weight are also very interesting. I don't think it's just combines that will be looked at, also drills, tractors, spreaders and sprayers are getting stupendously heavy, with labour availability it's totally understandable, I do believe however as automation hits the next level and driverless machinery comes to market, we will see more smaller machinery.

 

[Two Tone]

NH had the pre-production machine here in East Yorkshire a few years back, with different numbers on the side. We guessed it was something vastly different to a CX or CR because they were really serious about keeping people away from it and wouldn’t run it in any fields directly next to roads.
Looked small but was moving at a fair pace.

Was that in 2019?
I was told about it at Cereals 2019 and that they were looking to try it in the U.K.
Yes, it was going to be badged as a CX6.90 so as not to give the game away as to its real identity.
Another prototype CH was certainly running in Brazil in 2018.

 

[Foxcover]

Was that in 2019?
I was told about it at Cereals 2019 and that they were looking to try it in the U.K.
Yes, it was going to be badged as a CX6.90 so as not to give the game away as to its real identity.
Another prototype CH was certainly running in Brazil in 2018.

Could have even been 2018. The years fly by

 

[Flatlander]

I know someone who’s had 4wd and tracks and 4wd
he says tracks alone are quite capable for wet conditions

My combine is tracks and hydraulic rear wheels. When you flick the switch to add the 4wd little happens until you want to turn. Then it’s quiet a differenice. My 40 ft flex head is heavy and will take the weight from the steering axle 4wd really helps.

 

[SilliamWhale]

I may be going around the bend but I'm sure I've read somewhere that tracks don't offer a significant soil compaction benefit over tyres. I might be imagining it though I defer to our resident combine expert @Two Tone ?

I've been direct drilling for a while and going to tracks over tyres wouldn't be a big deal for me. I'm happy with tyres as we have the structure. I'm not bothered about balers either.

 

[Renaultman]

I've been direct drilling for a while and going to tracks over tyres wouldn't be a big deal for me. I'm happy with tyres as we have the structure. I'm not bothered about balers either.

Point taken, I was thinking more the huge digestate and slurry tankers, The 6000l + sprayers and the 12m drills.

 

[Salopian_Will]

The CH is a light weight “pocket rocket” combine and that is why they have decided (so far) not to sell it with tracks (I think you will find that if there is sufficient demand, this may change. It can be done).
Try comparing the output and price against the Flagship CX and CR models (on wheels) and there just isn’t a sensible value for money comparison.

You will take a huge knock of depreciation when selling a proper CX or CR at the other end. The problem comes in selling those Big CX and CR machines 2nd hand, because they are too big for most 2nd hand buyers and nobody want anything that size. Hence the CH is a market filling ploy by NH.

If you really want tracks for traction, buy the CH 4WD version at a fraction of the extra cost.

The true reason why NH started fitting tracks was because no tyre manufacturer could guarantee a single tyre (each side, rather than Duals) that could carry the weight of a 41 foot header and a full tank of grain. Claas had already started using ‘Challenger’ type tracks and so most perceived that this is why NH followed suit. As it happened, Not strictly true!

I am going to concede on some of my points. Haynes have got a ch7.70 with 122 drum hrs on the clock for 136k. That is a serious amount of combine for that amount of money in anyones book and depreciation doesn’t matter as much that price.

Agricultural Machinery in stock at Haynes | Kent and Sussex | New Holland

View the wide range of used Haynes Agricultural machines available from Haynes Agricultural in Kent. Explore models in stock and our affordable used machine offers.

www.haynes-agri.co.uk

 

[JJT]

I am going to concede on some of my points. Haynes have got a ch7.70 with 122 drum hrs on the clock for 136k. That is a serious amount of combine for that amount of money in anyones book and depreciation doesn’t matter as much that price.

Agricultural Machinery in stock at Haynes | Kent and Sussex | New Holland

View the wide range of used Haynes Agricultural machines available from Haynes Agricultural in Kent. Explore models in stock and our affordable used machine offers.

www.haynes-agri.co.uk

Makes this one look expensive