Contractor dumps 40ft header

[Spencer]

I first saw steiger gates in australia, 60ft of fencing you could take down and tighten again with a ratchet
Thats when they still practised mixed farming

Cocky gates they’re called

 

[Canada Farmer]

Can never understand the problem with small gateways when chainsaws and pipes are freely available.

Ever seen 16ft gateways with either 10,12 or 14ft gates and the balance boarded up?

 

[Pilatus]

If one farms/ contract farms within a small radius ( 5 to 8 mile radius) one large 40/45ft combine great) but spread that distance and altitude 25 +mile radius,two 25ft+ combines is the way to go.
Plenty of old farts like me willing to drive a combine!!!?? till. 10pm.But then my concentration could lead to
an accident.

 

[Cowcorn]

On the other flat fields of east Anglia a 40 wpuld be no problem but if you have to cut up mountain down bog then a 25 is probably a safer bet !! Thats coming from a 12 foot jockey btw so no real experience of big headers !!!

 

[Two Tone]

There are good reasons for having various sizes of header for different situations.
But a 40’ header in my situation would be useless on a lot of the steep and undulating ground we Combine.
I have both a 20’ and 25’ header for my Combine. The 25’ didn’t cost anything because it was a prototype. However there are many situations where even this is too big and would have to be taken off every time we change field, whereas the 20’ wouldn’t.

I see the benefits of a 40’ (12.1 metre) header for controlled traffic farming. But I do wonder if manufacturers have missed a trick in not having an 8.1 metre size, that would also work for this purpose on a much smaller and lighter Combine, without needing very expensive tracks to be able to carry the weight of it.

A local Estate and Farm Manager to us decided not to replace its 20’ Combine because its driver was retiring. They decided to use a contractor who turns up with 2 40’ Combines. Their average field size it 12 acres with lots of Cotswold stone walls, hedges and 24’ (2x12’) field gates.
By the time he has moved one Combine, it has finished the field before the 2nd Combine gets going. The Manager ended up spending all day, constantly moving Combines and headers. Not to mention the nightmare of having enough tractors and trailer to keep them both going.
Life would have been so much easier if the had replaced the Combine and found somebody else to drive it.

 

[glasshouse]

There are good reasons for having various sizes of header for different situations.
But a 40’ header in my situation would be useless on a lot of the steep and undulating ground we Combine.
I have both a 20’ and 25’ header for my Combine. The 25’ didn’t cost anything because it was a prototype. However there are many situations where even this is too big and would have to be taken off every time we change field, whereas the 20’ wouldn’t.

I see the benefits of a 40’ (12.1 metre) header for controlled traffic farming. But I do wonder if manufacturers have missed a trick in not having an 8.1 metre size, that would also work for this purpose on a much smaller and lighter Combine, without needing very expensive tracks to be able to carry the weight of it.

A local Estate and Farm Manager to us decided not to replace its 20’ Combine because its driver was retiring. They decided to use a contractor who turns up with 2 40’ Combines. Their average field size it 12 acres with lots of Cotswold stone walls, hedges and 24’ (2x12’) field gates.
By the time he has moved one Combine, it has finished the field before the 2nd Combine gets going. The Manager ended up spending all day, constantly moving Combines and headers. Not to mention the nightmare of having enough tractors and trailer to keep them both going.
Life would have been so much easier if the had replaced the Combine and found somebody else to drive it.

You wouldnt put two big combines in a 12 ac field surely?

 

[Two Tone]

You wouldnt put two big combines in a 12 ac field surely?

I think that they worked in two fields beside each other. As soon as the 2nd one got going in its (2nd) field, he had to move the 1st one to another (3rd) field. They had to dedicate 2 tractors and trailers to each Combine. But there was a lot of time wasted in taking headers on on off. It was a huge logistical nightmare that just didn’t work.

2 x 20’ Combines would have completed harvest just as quick, because they wouldn’t need to remove the header every time they changed fields.

And we haven’t even mentioned the in field trees and electric poles!

 

[glasshouse]

I think that they worked in two fields beside each other. As soon as the 2nd one got going in its (2nd) field, he had to move the 1st one to another (3rd) field. They had to dedicate 2 tractors and trailers to each Combine. But there was a lot of time wasted in taking headers on on off. It was a huge logistical nightmare that just didn’t work.

2 x 20’ Combines would have completed harvest just as quick, because they wouldn’t need to remove the header every time they changed fields.

And we haven’t even mentioned the in field trees and electric poles!

My point exsctly

 

[ajd132]

I think that they worked in two fields beside each other. As soon as the 2nd one got going in its (2nd) field, he had to move the 1st one to another (3rd) field. They had to dedicate 2 tractors and trailers to each Combine. But there was a lot of time wasted in taking headers on on off. It was a huge logistical nightmare that just didn’t work.

2 x 20’ Combines would have completed harvest just as quick, because they wouldn’t need to remove the header every time they changed fields.

And we haven’t even mentioned the in field trees and electric poles!

Hence why if you run a 40 ft combine, you set yourself up to run it logistically with gateways etc.
You’re post is irrelevant to combine size it’s poor planning. Why get two 40ft combines in contracting if there is no way to handle them? If your logic about 20ft combines is correct then he should be able to handle 4 of them so equivalent to the two 40footers...

 

[Two Tone]

Hence why if you run a 40 ft combine, you set yourself up to run it logistically with gateways etc.
You’re post is irrelevant to combine size it’s poor planning. Why get two 40ft combines in contracting if there is no way to handle them? If your logic about 20ft combines is correct then he should be able to handle 4 of them so equivalent to the two 40footers...

Whilst I agree with you that that both the Estate and the contractor hadn’t thought about it well enough, only 2 20’ combines would have completed its harvest every bit as fast as the 40’ machines, because they would not have had to remove and refit the headers for every field.

I come from Suffolk where we had much larger fields. It so depends on the size of farm and the fields as to what size header is the most efficient for the circumstances. More importantly, the terrain of the fields. There is no way a 40’ Combine could have harvested some of the fields I have to. The ground is not only far too steep and undulating, it is boggy.

 

[Chae1]

Why not just have low 14’ gateways and lift the header over?
Personally I’ve never found dropping the header an issue, most of our fields have to be accessed from the rd anyway though. It’s only a two minutes job off and trailer driver will usually already have a tractor hitch to the trolley and be ready to go. Any distance and stick it behind the combine.
Also been on tracks means it will go through a 12’ gate.

Gate size not important with a Montana! Just go over the top of them.

Does anyone know where this contractors dumped these 40ft headers? Because there probably worth a few £. I think the biggest drawback with 40ft would be baling/drying out swath. I'm struggling following 30fters this year, with big crops of straw.

 

[DRC]

I’m surprised that a header hasn’t been designed that folds up like the maize headers do on the forage harvester .

 

[ploughman1963]

I’m surprised that a header hasn’t been designed that folds up like the maize headers do on the forage harvester .

I thought Ransomes did one? Like me - somewhat superceded now

 

[Nzed]

I think that they worked in two fields beside each other. As soon as the 2nd one got going in its (2nd) field, he had to move the 1st one to another (3rd) field. They had to dedicate 2 tractors and trailers to each Combine. But there was a lot of time wasted in taking headers on on off. It was a huge logistical nightmare that just didn’t work.

2 x 20’ Combines would have completed harvest just as quick, because they wouldn’t need to remove the header every time they changed fields.

And we haven’t even mentioned the in field trees and electric poles!

I’d be surprised if 2 20’ would do it as fast as 2 40’ combines. When a 40’ combine gets into a 12 ac field it gets it done pretty fast which isn’t a bad thing. The hassle of moving again comes around quickly but the jobs done.
Trees and poles are a pain with any header size, I find that with a 40’ header you get out of the fiddlier areas and short work etc so much quicker which is an advantage.
Certainly not for every farm size and contour but a 40’ header is very manageable when you get used to it.

 

[bumkin]

I thought Ransomes did one? Like me - somewhat superceded now

leyley victory there is one in north Wales somewhere

 

[DRC]

The days when I used to drive our combine through town with the header on. Laverda 132 with 10 foot header .

 

[Spencer]

I’m surprised that a header hasn’t been designed that folds up like the maize headers do on the forage harvester .

There’s plenty of them on the continent, geringhoff make one.

 

[glasshouse]

I’m surprised that a header hasn’t been designed that folds up like the maize headers do on the forage harvester .

Freely available in europe

 

[glasshouse]

Whilst I agree with you that that both the Estate and the contractor hadn’t thought about it well enough, only 2 20’ combines would have completed its harvest every bit as fast as the 40’ machines, because they would not have had to remove and refit the headers for every field.

I come from Suffolk where we had much larger fields. It so depends on the size of farm and the fields as to what size header is the most efficient for the circumstances. More importantly, the terrain of the fields. There is no way a 40’ Combine could have harvested some of the fields I have to. The ground is not only far too steep and undulating, it is boggy.

and the twenty foot ones done it at half the cost.
Its not the header size that matters, its whats behind it

 

[Norfolk Olly]

I’m surprised that a header hasn’t been designed that folds up like the maize headers do on the forage harvester .

Very popular in Italy

Home | CLAAS

The official home page of CLAAS: CLAAS farm machinery, from tractors, combine harvesters and forage harvesters to telehandlers, balers and forage machines.

www.claas.co.uk