Claas Senator - freeing up a blockage

[Cowabunga]

In their day the MF 500 and 600 were good combines. They remained in production for far too long though. Too expensive to build. Too complex. Too much to go wrong. Needed replacing years before they were (replaced).
MF completely lost their dominant position to a near zero market during the production life of that design and have never recovered much.
I had a 625 SuperII with powerflow table. No cab. Very noisy. Eventually fried.

 

[Exfarmer]

In their day the MF 500 and 600 were good combines. They remained in production for far too long though. Too expensive to build. Too complex. Too much to go wrong. Needed replacing years before they were (replaced).
MF completely lost their dominant position to a near zero market during the production life of that design and have never recovered much.
I had a 625 SuperII with powerflow table. No cab. Very noisy. Eventually fried.

I have to disagree, we were sold a pup, as everyone in my area were, duped by the MF sales team.
The truth was the engineering was never up to scratch, the innovations such as multi flow , the returns rethresher was not fully developed before it was released, then not modified till many years later after years of agro for the poor operators
Massey’s had the UK market in the palm of it’s hand , but it stolen by the other makes due to the chronic unreliability.
I am not sure if the Canadian built versions of the same models had the same issues but I suspect not and may often have been due to the machines here using British steel bearings etc. I am not certain. It was however true that it was only the entry of the Canadian built 7 and 800 series machines that they started to reclaim a reputation but they had lost their market by then to Claas and Deere.
Probably a lot of the issues were the building of combines in an area, where there was no history of engineering. This sid not work for several companies that located in the area thanks to a government who encouraged this development in. Incidentally of course it was this same government who encourageda Certain Mr Mann to import the Claas combine to try and get Harsewinkel back on its feet

 

[Cowabunga]

I have to disagree, we were sold a pup, as everyone in my area were, duped by the MF sales team.
The truth was the engineering was never up to scratch, the innovations such as multi flow , the returns rethresher was not fully developed before it was released, then not modified till many years later after years of agro for the poor operators
Massey’s had the UK market in the palm of it’s hand , but it stolen by the other makes due to the chronic unreliability.
I am not sure if the Canadian built versions of the same models had the same issues but I suspect not and may often have been due to the machines here using British steel bearings etc. I am not certain. It was however true that it was only the entry of the Canadian built 7 and 800 series machines that they started to reclaim a reputation but they had lost their market by then to Claas and Deere.
Probably a lot of the issues were the building of combines in an area, where there was no history of engineering. This sid not work for several companies that located in the area thanks to a government who encouraged this development in. Incidentally of course it was this same government who encourageda Certain Mr Mann to import the Claas combine to try and get Harsewinkel back on its feet

Can't see what you are disagreeing about. They did not develop the design, which was overly complex from the start. We both agree with that and that they lost the plot and their dominant market share, down to near zero market share by the time the French machines ended production of that basic design.

By the way, the French machines were less well built and rusted away far sooner than the earlier Kilmarnock built models.

I also owned an MF 307 combine from new [before buying the used 625]. That was really quite an impressive performer for its size, apart from the dire mechanical reel speed control on the 8ft6 tables.

 

[Sharpy]

I have to disagree, we were sold a pup, as everyone in my area were, duped by the MF sales team.
The truth was the engineering was never up to scratch, the innovations such as multi flow , the returns rethresher was not fully developed before it was released, then not modified till many years later after years of agro for the poor operators
Massey’s had the UK market in the palm of it’s hand , but it stolen by the other makes due to the chronic unreliability.
I am not sure if the Canadian built versions of the same models had the same issues but I suspect not and may often have been due to the machines here using British steel bearings etc. I am not certain. It was however true that it was only the entry of the Canadian built 7 and 800 series machines that they started to reclaim a reputation but they had lost their market by then to Claas and Deere.
Probably a lot of the issues were the building of combines in an area, where there was no history of engineering. This sid not work for several companies that located in the area thanks to a government who encouraged this development in. Incidentally of course it was this same government who encourageda Certain Mr Mann to import the Claas combine to try and get Harsewinkel back on its feet

If you are referring to Kilmarnock not being an engineering area you are wrong. Plenty of engineering heritage round here, supporting the mining industry amongst others.

 

[yellowbelly]

Here you go @Exfarmer @Cowabunga a little trip down memory lane for you........

1976 ish?(I think it was R reg) MF 525 12' cut. Eat you heart out all you Lexion boys - you don't know you are born

 

[New Puritan]

Once drum is turning freely via bar through casting take a gander round, if the walkers aren’t going fast enough that can cause the drum to block up for no obvious reason.... could be a slack/knackered belt for the walkers

Thanks @jamesy - I'm sort of hoping it's a slack belt, but I'm waiting for a sodding tyre to turn up so I can change it over for the split one on the front so I can get the combine out the shed and open the side panel up to look at it when it's running. I can't get to the farm for a few days but I will update the thread when I can go and investigate further. The weather's still holding atm.

Just out of interest @jamesy - is there much combining to be done in the Orkneys? I've got to go up there for work in January, I like going to new places and having a nose and seeing what / how people farm.

 

[jamesy]

Thanks @jamesy - I'm sort of hoping it's a slack belt, but I'm waiting for a sodding tyre to turn up so I can change it over for the split one on the front so I can get the combine out the shed and open the side panel up to look at it when it's running. I can't get to the farm for a few days but I will update the thread when I can go and investigate further. The weather's still holding atm.

Just out of interest @jamesy - is there much combining to be done in the Orkneys? I've got to go up there for work in January, I like going to new places and having a nose and seeing what / how people farm.

There’s a fair bit still to be cut, but it’s rained every day at some point for the last week at least!

 

[MF 168]

Can't see what you are disagreeing about. They did not develop the design, which was overly complex from the start. We both agree with that and that they lost the plot and their dominant market share, down to near zero market share by the time the French machines ended production of that basic design.

By the way, the French machines were less well built and rusted away far sooner than the earlier Kilmarnock built models.

I also owned an MF 307 combine from new [before buying the used 625]. That was really quite an impressive performer for its size, apart from the dire mechanical reel speed control on the 8ft6 tables.

I run a 520 super ll from about 1980 ish. Kilmarnock built as far as I know and apart from the cab been an utter utter sweat box on a warm day it's a fantastic little combine. 15 acres a day no bother and cheap as chips to run. They are a bit of a maintenance headache with poor access which I suspect was some of the problem. Lads didn't want the hardship of stripping stuff out of the way to check bearings so kept going until it stopped. No multiflow on mine and any others I know of had it thrown off which massively improved them. I will say if I had the acres and money to burn I'd have a 865 in a heartbeat.

 

[Mursal]

Alright lads enough, so you all know hardship


"Maintenance headache" ..................
Must right that down as, we have a few of them

 

[Exfarmer]

Can't see what you are disagreeing about. They did not develop the design, which was overly complex from the start. We both agree with that and that they lost the plot and their dominant market share, down to near zero market share by the time the French machines ended production of that basic design.

By the way, the French machines were less well built and rusted away far sooner than the earlier Kilmarnock built models.

I also owned an MF 307 combine from new [before buying the used 625]. That was really quite an impressive performer for its size, apart from the dire mechanical reel speed control on the 8ft6 tables.

Werent the 307s Austrian built, certainly it was an Austrian design. I do know a very good friend who had the wider model with the table which could be narrowed down, this drove him to despair.
I thankfully had no experience of the French machines.
The dreadful biuld quality was of course common experience in both British and French industries across the board, is it perhaps this which contributed to the fact that the European market became totally dominated by German built machines.

 

[bobk]

Here you go @Exfarmer @Cowabunga a little trip down memory lane for you........
View attachment 717102
1976 ish?(I think it was R reg) MF 525 12' cut. Eat you heart out all you Lexion boys - you don't know you are born

Good crop of barley

 

[Cowabunga]

Werent the 307s Austrian built, certainly it was an Austrian design. I do know a very good friend who had the wider model with the table which could be narrowed down, this drove him to despair.
I thankfully had no experience of the French machines.
The dreadful biuld quality was of course common experience in both British and French industries across the board, is it perhaps this which contributed to the fact that the European market became totally dominated by German built machines.

No, the 307 and larger 506, like the late model 187 [I think they were called] were French built.
Dominated by German built machines? Maybe in combines, but by dint of Claas and JD being there and International Harvester being there as well to an extent.
Otherwise the UK was very strong in agricultural machinery until Mrs Thatcher came along. She wasn't entirely to blame of course and she did sort the Unions out, who were largely but not entirely to blame also. We still had MF at Coventry [In decline due to outdated designs and investment allocated elsewhere] and New Holland into this century. Case/IH were also strong until late in the day when the UK was deemed to be not the place to invest.

None of these manufacturers chose the UK to invest for the future. Only JCB has done so. CNH pay lip service to us for now, but it seems like it's only a matter of time before they decide to extend the Austrian assembly shed.

 

[New Puritan]

Here you go @Exfarmer @Cowabunga a little trip down memory lane for you........
View attachment 717102
1976 ish?(I think it was R reg) MF 525 12' cut. Eat you heart out all you Lexion boys - you don't know you are born

That combine's GPS was working well by the look of that photo.

 

[yellowbelly]

Good crop of barley

Yeah, I thought that too - so much so it prompted me to go and look in the office to see exactly when it was

So, if @New Puritan will excuse me for hi-jacking his thread and taking it way off topic, here goes...

Picture was taken in 1981 in winter barley. Considering it was only 12' cut, even allowing for the Multi Flow fluffing the straw up a bit, the straw trails wouldn't look out of place today behind a 18'/20' more modern machine.

That year she cut 105ac WW, 104ac WB, 69ac SB, 17ac Oats and 24ac Peas. Total 319ac.

As @Exfarmer, @Cowabunga and @MF 168 are discussing reliability, repairs etc the records show the repair costs for 1981 amounted to £195.87 (parts only) - a staggering 61.4p/ac Included in that was a returns auger at £94.69, which IIRC, was quite a common item
As that was so low, I looked at 1982's repairs, we seem to have had a bit of a drive train hiccup - £643.12 (for a similar acreage cut) including a clutch plate (£64.60) and gearbox housing and parts (£314.37). There was also the regular Multi Flow drive belt for 24 quid

 

[yellowbelly]

That combine's GPS was working well by the look of that photo.

40' tramlines and a 12' table - it was easy-peasy

 

[Cowcorn]

Yeah, I thought that too - so much so it prompted me to go and look in the office to see exactly when it was

So, if @New Puritan will excuse me for hi-jacking his thread and taking it way off topic, here goes...

Picture was taken in 1981 in winter barley. Considering it was only 12' cut, even allowing for the Multi Flow fluffing the straw up a bit, the straw trails wouldn't look out of place today behind a 18'/20' more modern machine.

That year she cut 105ac WW, 104ac WB, 69ac SB, 17ac Oats and 24ac Peas. Total 319ac.

As @Exfarmer, @Cowabunga and @MF 168 are discussing reliability, repairs etc the records show the repair costs for 1981 amounted to £195.87 (parts only) - a staggering 61.4p/ac Included in that was a returns auger at £94.69, which IIRC, was quite a common item
As that was so low, I looked at 1982's repairs, we seem to have had a bit of a drive train hiccup - £643.12 (for a similar acreage cut) including a clutch plate (£64.60) and gearbox housing and parts (£314.37). There was also the regular Multi Flow drive belt for 24 quid

And this was supposed to be a bad combine?
If she munched her way through 314 acres costing sfa in parts she mustnt have been to bad.
The old fella had a 525 which he hated and loved depending on how well it was going. It got traded for a JD 1055 which was ultra reliable but couldnt hold a candle to the 525 when it came to output.
The spectre of the525 was raised by my father when we aquired our current machine a MF 29XP and not in a favourable way and then when the 29 breezed through 200 acres without a stop he announced that its just as good as the auld massey.

 

[yellowbelly]

And this was supposed to be a bad combine?

Noooo....I didn't say that. As you rightly say, to cut those sorts of acreages, in the type of crops in the picture, the 525 was a good machine.

What I did say was that the Multi Flow was a pain in the @rse.

If it blocked (belt slipping/broken or a blockage caused by stopping forward travel and not reversing IMMEDIATELY) and you didn't hear the warning buzzer (easily missed with all the other noise and no cab) it was very easy to fill the straw walkers with straw. The first you knew about it was when the engine revs started to drop 'cos the WHOLE combine was that full of straw that the drum was starting to block

Un-blocking that lot was a mammoth job - it all had to come out of that little hatch on top of the walkers. Crawling up and down on the straw walkers was a very painful, mucky and hot task - there's absolutely no air in there either

 

[Cowabunga]

Noooo....I didn't say that. As you rightly say, to cut those sorts of acreages, in the type of crops in the picture, the 525 was a good machine.

What I did say was that the Multi Flow was a pain in the @rse.

If it blocked (belt slipping/broken or a blockage caused by stopping forward travel and not reversing IMMEDIATELY) and you didn't hear the warning buzzer (easily missed with all the other noise and no cab) it was very easy to fill the straw walkers with straw. The first you knew about it was when the engine revs started to drop 'cos the WHOLE combine was that full of straw that the drum was starting to block

Un-blocking that lot was a mammoth job - it all had to come out of that little hatch on top of the walkers. Crawling up and down on the straw walkers was a very painful, mucky and hot task - there's absolutely no air in there either

It was indeed a pain in the arse, especially in a laid crop, when stopped for whtever reason, to have to immedistely lift the table to clear the auto table height control sensors in order to simultaneously reverse to prevent the straw blocking the secondary separater.

For those that aren’t aware of its function and design, the straw dropped off the end of the walkers and was then accellerated around a sharp bend, where any grain left in the straw was seperated by centipetal force and dropped into an auger and hence to an elevator. Can’t remember whether it was carried up to the tray under the open bottom walkers or to the returns. The straw then exit quite low down, which didn’t leave much room for a heap.

Another feature worth mentioning about these machines is the short returns elevator that ended in a fast spinning rethresher that seperated any unthreshed grain from the heads and flung it all across the width of the grain pan, to be sieved again. Lots of other combines returned to the front of the drum and concave, where it would take some of its capacity away.

They also had quite a large concave wrap-around angle and high inertia drums with heavy cast separators to even out the peak loads if the feed was uneven. Also the walkers were considerably wider than the drum and concave in order to get a thinner mat of straw over them, again for better separation.

Quite advanced but overly complicated imo. The biggest downfall was that it was not a design for cab installation and the engine was to the side of the driver with the attendant noise and heat. Also the main drives were, as a result, buried behind the side console/dashboard. barsteward of a place to collect dust and maintain properly.

Today’s combines have far simpler and fewer drives.

 

[yellowbelly]

In their day, they were good combines, and round here , probably had 95% of the market share as we had a top MF dealer (P&B).
As @Cowabunga says, they were relatively wide. The sieve area was probably similar to other makes, but because they were wider, that meant they were shorter. Because of the rethrasher arrangement, this meant you could get in a vicious circle with returns (especially on hillsides). The returns overloaded the sieves, so you got more returns which overloaded the sieves even more, and so on, until the bottom returns auger couldn't cope and blocked up.

The 600 series were the same design as the 500 series, only everything was 'stretched' to give a bigger capacity. Unfortunately nothing was made stronger to cope with this 'stretching' making them weaker - resulting in a lot of grain pans breaking and sieves shaking themselves to pieces.

John Deere brought out the 1000 series, NH brought out the 8000 series and Claas the 100 series and it was the beginning of the end for MF combines (around here anyway). P&B even sold Claas combines for a while, until they were threatened with losing the MF franchise.

 

[Exfarmer]

Wechanged from the 515 mk 2 to a JD 955, the outputs were similar the 515 was faster in a crop of wheat but no different in barley, die to the far longer walkers on the Deere.
Both returns went back to the pan under walker, on the 515 which often caused overloading on the rethresher. I think that was sorted on the 525 with a far heavier duty version. It was the sheer complexity of the Massey machi es which were their downfall. The constant failure of wobble boxes, auger gearboxes and one particular favourite the walker bearings, often leading to a need for new walker shaft and belt.
Yes the JD when you got to the field, you had to open the auger manually, and let down the steps but I can think of little else where it trailed the Massey. Certainly it would cut all day every day without missing a beat