New holland CH combine

[Colin]

The JD CTS lives! Likely to be great wee combine. Its got less moving/ shaking parts than a walker! We run a NH cr just now with the dynamic feed roller, essentially its only there to make a proper stone trap work and bung up when cutting big crops of rye straw! This would give you a proper stone trap and good separation. I would also disagree with @glasshouse we bale behind straw walker machines as well as our CR and the straw from them is often quite mashed up, depends on conditions/operator etc I suppose though. Don't really like the NH header pressure control system though, claas is better, I can't get the nh to cut low enough consistently.

 

[Colin]

In terms of output, the Tucano 480/580 punch well above their weight. The Axial Flow is not comparable, we've had them back to back here on demo and we went with the 480 despite being a happy former owner of a AF1680. I wanted the Case, but couldn't go past the hybrid Tucano.

So you have the single rotor 480? What sort of output in good crops of wheat( the only type you have obviously, farming near some of the best farmers on the planet).
Whats the output limit on it, power or separation? I prefer ones that are underpowered so it gives you a simple limit to run to
Claas contour following is better than the CR we have when you want to scalp the ground.
However I've been told that I'm not allowed a new combine for a few years so by the time we get there we'll know how these things run.

 

[PSQ]

So you have the single rotor 480? What sort of output in good crops of wheat the only type you have obvious, farming near some of the best farmers on the planet)

2018 in lovely dry ripe wheat (!) I could nudge it just over 40t/hr spot rate before the loss monitor lit up.
2019, normal 16/17% conditions, it was a fair bit less (someone else drove last year, sure he said 32-34t/hr).
“Farming *near* some of the best farms on the planet...”. - (sighs) damned by faint praise ?

 

[Colin]

NH have been experimenting with the CH idea in South America for a while, where the larger, more expensive CX and CR’s aren’t so popular. The CH is described as a “Pocket Rocket”.

The Limiting factor of any Straw walker Combine is the Straw walkers. This was how and why the TF was originally developed.

The Dual Stream Project also proved that by reducing the amount of MOG work the Walkers needed to do, lead to a dramatic increase in performance and the allowed the Sieves to run at maximum capacity on a CX. But wIth the CR, it only gave a minor increase in capacity.

So this why the CH has been developed. To provide a very fast, High capacity, small, light weight, cheaper Combine.


With regards to the numbers:
The CX 6080 is rated at 25t/hr in wheat.
Add a DS and that raised it to 37.5t/hr

Cascade triple sieve pushed the output of a CX 6.80 Elevation to 27.5 t/hr, but was never tried with DS. It was suspected that if it had been, 40t/hr.

The CH, which is based on the CX 6, but with Rotors instead of Walker also has a capacity 40t/hr.

Remember when 40t/hr was world beating

 

[Colin]

I cannot see the point in making a hybrid smaller than then current CR range.
Lots of unnecessary cost, complexity, and weight.
In terms of CR they have probably gone as far as they can with output, same the Axial Flow, so perhaps this is to test the water prior to introducing a bigger range and phase out the CR.

Where is the limit though? Bigger headers needed to feed them, ground following etc etc. Or do we go down the smaller, lighter, cheaper route?
Going by what a bit of hot dry weather does to peoples crops maybe what we need to get the maximum throughput is a heap of irrigation so there are bigger crops to cut!

 

[Colin]

2018 in lovely dry ripe wheat (!) I could nudge it just over 40t/hr spot rate before the loss monitor lit up.
2019, normal 16/17% conditions, it was a fair bit less (someone else drove last year, sure he said 32-34t/hr).
“Farming *near* some of the best farms on the planet...”. - (sighs) damned by faint praise ?

Are you not still surrounded by forward thinking, progressive sorts? I thought that the borders was famous for that!!!!

 

[PSQ]

Are you not still surrounded by forward thinking, progressive sorts? I thought that the borders was famous for that!!!!

The days of farmers doing the ‘same old’ just because it’s ‘aye been done that way’ seem to be long gone, thankfully.
Theres lots of farmers trying new methods and technology and sharing their experiences and tbh it’s an exciting time to be in farming, but that’s not just a Borders thing.

 

[Colin]

The days of farmers doing the ‘same old’ just because it’s ‘aye been done that way’ seem to be long gone, thankfully.
Theres lots of farmers trying new methods and technology and sharing their experiences and tbh it’s an exciting time to be in farming, but that’s not just a Borders thing.

Too right, its ALWAYS a great time to be alive. Still plough and PH yet though,

 

[shelly reynolds]

Imitation is the highest form of flattery apparently , 20 years to late by my reckoning.

 

[bravheart]

Are you not still surrounded by forward thinking, progressive sorts? I thought that the borders was famous for that!!!!

Not sure all his neighbours are born n bred Borderers though.

N H seems to think was a record getting a neighbours yellow binder to work 8 hours non stop, they can’t be that bad.

 

[Two Tone]

I cannot see the point in making a hybrid smaller than then current CR range.
Lots of unnecessary cost, complexity, and weight.
In terms of CR they have probably gone as far as they can with output, same the Axial Flow, so perhaps this is to test the water prior to introducing a bigger range and phase out the CR.

Where is the limit though? Bigger headers needed to feed them, ground following etc etc. Or do we go down the smaller, lighter, cheaper route?
Going by what a bit of hot dry weather does to peoples crops maybe what we need to get the maximum throughput is a heap of irrigation so there are bigger crops to cut!

I am waiting for @fergie35 to quote on this thread something that he mentioned to me about which CR model the CH kept up with, in tonnes/hr performance. Which is way above its weight and no doubt many tens, if not over £100k more! I was stunned by exactly how far up the CR range he was talking about. But I don't want to steal his thunder, so will leave it to him to post. However, my 40 tonnes/hour quote now sound like rather a large underestimation!

I am convinced that these super-giant Combines are just too big. You waste so much time taking the header on and off that you would be far better off with a smaller, lighter, more manoeuvrable Combine going at a much faster forward speed.
On top of which they are so heavy, that they require tracks at christ knows how much extra cost!

My ideal would be a lighter Combine with an 8.1 metre header that fits in with 24/36 metre tramlines and go like hell forward speed.

I have had 3 TF Combines and have got very used to high forward speeds. Dual Stream also allows me to travel at high speeds. It sounds to me that the CH will travel as fast, if not faster.

I watch other Combines going and they all look like they are stuck in 1st gear, probably because they have too wide a header on them.

Wider, heavy headers require tracks to carry their weight and both seem to have become a very expensive fashion accessory!

Nigel Honeyman, NH's UK head of Harvesters often quotes that NH has asked him if they should build a 50-foot wide header. His answer is that they should build at least one, because "Somebody will always want to buy it!"

Years ago we watched Combines speed up as they turned around on the headlands. I have to slow down as I go over the headland tramline so as to be able to stay in the seat!

The designer of the CX5/6, Marcel Verhoeven whose idea it was (maybe slightly influenced by yours truly!) to design, build and test the CH, asked me my thoughts on tracks for these ranges and agreed with me that they are probably not necessary because of their much lower weight. A powered rear axle being available for greater traction if needed.


............Or do we all want to be that "Somebody" Nigel talks about and buy the biggest willy waver?

 

[Flat 10]

I am waiting for @fergie35 to quote on this thread something that he mentioned to me about which CR model the CH kept up with, in tonnes/hr performance. Which is way above its weight and no doubt many tens, if not over £100k more! I was stunned by exactly how far up the CR range he was talking about. But I don't want to steal his thunder, so will leave it to him to post. However, my 40 tonnes/hour quote now sound like rather a large underestimation!

I am convinced that these super-giant Combines are just too big. You waste so much time taking the header on and off that you would be far better off with a smaller, lighter, more manoeuvrable Combine going at a much faster forward speed.
On top of which they are so heavy, that they require tracks at christ knows how much extra cost!

My ideal would be a lighter Combine with an 8.1 metre header that fits in with 24/36 metre tramlines and go like hell forward speed.

I have had 3 TF Combines and have got very used to high forward speeds. Dual Stream also allows me to travel at high speeds. It sounds to me that the CH will travel as fast, if not faster.

I watch other Combines going and they all look like they are stuck in 1st gear, probably because they have too wide a header on them.

Wider, heavy headers require tracks to carry their weight and both seem to have become a very expensive fashion accessory!

Nigel Honeyman, NH's UK head of Harvesters often quotes that NH has asked him if they should build a 50-foot wide header. His answer is that they should build at least one, because "Somebody will always want to buy it!"

Years ago we watched Combines speed up as they turned around on the headlands. I have to slow down as I go over the headland tramline so as to be able to stay in the seat!

The designer of the CX5/6, Marcel Verhoeven whose idea it was (maybe slightly influenced by yours truly!) to design, build and test the CH, asked me my thoughts on tracks for these ranges and agreed with me that they are probably not necessary because of their much lower weight. A powered rear axle being available for greater traction if needed.


............Or do we all want to be that "Somebody" Nigel talks about and buy the biggest willy waver?

Tracks needed for sensible transport widths? Many 6walker combines too wide to move sensibly?

 

[Two Tone]

The JD CTS lives! Likely to be great wee combine. Its got less moving/ shaking parts than a walker! We run a NH cr just now with the dynamic feed roller, essentially its only there to make a proper stone trap work and bung up when cutting big crops of rye straw! This would give you a proper stone trap and good separation. I would also disagree with @glasshouse we bale behind straw walker machines as well as our CR and the straw from them is often quite mashed up, depends on conditions/operator etc I suppose though. Don't really like the NH header pressure control system though, claas is better, I can't get the nh to cut low enough consistently.

I think it is a pretty safe bet to say that we will probably see a "CHR" before too long with a proper drum in front of the CR rotors, instead of the DFR! It will solve the problem in presenting a much more even and uniform feeding of grain and MOG across the full width of the sieves. It's just a question of greater efficiency.

 

[Two Tone]

Tracks needed for sensible transport widths? Many 6walker combines too wide to move sensibly?

Not really. It's far more the weight problem, especially the weight of the wider headers. There are plenty of 6 walker combines that don't have tracks.

....Or it's a clever marketing ploy by the manufactures!

 

[Colin]

TBH the tracks give you more traction but I see just as much, or more compaction from them. Maybe need narrower bodies and wider tyres!

 

[PSQ]

The designer of the CX5/6, Marcel Verhoeven whose idea it was (maybe slightly influenced by yours truly!) to design, build and test the CH, asked me my thoughts on tracks for these ranges and agreed with me that they are probably not necessary because of their much lower weight. A powered rear axle being available for greater traction if needed.

Tyre technology has moved on so far for medium sized combines that the weight can be spread over a far longer footprint with the like of Michelins CerexBib than was ever the case with the ubiquitous Goodyears, and without necessarily increasing the width.
It would be nice if they were standard issue though, rather than an overly expensive option, as it would take away the chance for a combine to be specced on sh!t tyres (and I always buy 2nd hand).

 

[teslacoils]

I'd take tracks, especially if it's going to move at speed, simply for stability. Maybe someone needs to design some inexpensive tracks, given how few hours the do on a combine each year.

 

[Badshot]

I'd take tracks, especially if it's going to move at speed, simply for stability. Maybe someone needs to design some inexpensive tracks, given how few hours the do on a combine each year.

Or maybe design them to be swapped to a tractor once harvest is done?

Stocks h track anyone?

 

[warksfarmer]

TBH the tracks give you more traction but I see just as much, or more compaction from them. Maybe need narrower bodies and wider tyres!

Absolutely agree with this. Tracks have 3 benefits on a combine only.

1. They keep wide headers leveller so you don’t get the wavy effect on stubble where tyres flex due to the weight of the bigger headers.

2. They allow you to keep cutting in wet weather where tyres get stuck.

3. Road transport width.

They absolutely do not reduce compaction. I can see lines today from last years combine tracks even after cultivation as well as no till drilling. Actually I think they do more damage to the soil than big tyres.

 

[snarling bee]

I have to slow down as I go over the headland tramline so as to be able to stay in the seat!

And that is why you want tracks more than anything IMO. Reduced combine width is a bonus you don't always see - you can't ride kerbs with tracks, and with so many overhanging trees and hedges the wing mirror width is more of a problem.