Combines Do I need to lenghthen auger for 25 ft head on TR86

JD, Here's the basis for my comments. We have been running nothing but 4WD since 1990. We had the largest rear tires on the machine that we could get from the factory until a few years ago. Then we upgraded to 1050 Michelins on the front and 750 Michelins on the rear. To do this we had to set the rear axle back in order to clear the return elevator. Now, with huge tires, when I'm running in mud I can turn the 4WD on and off, and it makes no difference in the machines ability to go through the mud, just changes the speed. Believe it or not, that's the fact. When the 1050's fall through, no amount of pushing from the rear is going to help. The rear of our machine NEVER falls through, because those tires only have 6 psi in them, and they don't even need that for the load. When the front falls in, I have not been able to steer unless I use the brakes. Maybe what I should have said was that large radial tires make a lot more difference than 4WD. If you made me go back to the little tires offered by the factory, I agree that 4WD would always work better than 2WD, but the damage caused to the field is substantial. In our ground, give me a 2WD with big radial tires over a 4WD with factory tires any day of the week. The compaction will be less in all conditions and I'll cut circles around the factory setup in mud.

I kinda had a feeling your where making a contrast between front tiresIJ Still though, a smaller rice and cane front tire with RWA and r and c's back there to, will make less of a rut than larger tires. It will cut deeper yes, but still make a smaller rut. If the land in question this is on has a clay subsoil, the r and c tires will provide more traction and control than larger tires with less tread depth which slip and spin on the surfaceIJ The solution to the whole messIJ Not have wet weather during harvest! Wouldn't that be nice every year! If you would, what kinda price tag do those Radials you run cost you front and rearsIJ I think a setup of 20.8 -42_R2's duals up front and a large rear like you have would be the best for my soils. Plus the duals are so much cheaper than a large radial and if one goes flat, you can move the machine around. I have some Michlens, 18.4-46_R2 on a tractor that are the pullingest tires I've ever set on. I would like this tread on front of my combine! Thanks, JD

JD, I've been out of town over the holidays and just now getting back on the computer. last year in the US a set of the heaviest 1050 Michelins would run you about $3600 each, or maybe even more. You need axle spacers or frame extensions to gain clearance and should really use 3 piece rims. This all adds up to a lot of money, so on the 2nd machine we went with the 900 Trelleborgs. They are rated for mounting on the factory 27" rims. The Trelleborgs have really deep tread which extends all the way out to the edge of the tire and a really heavy carcass designed for low pressure. I suppose they have tread nearly equivalent to RandC tires. They shed the mud well and have good traction. When run at identical pressure to the Michelins (14.5 psi) on identical machines, they might have been able to keep up with the Michelins, but made deeper ruts. The Michelins really don't make much of a rut, they just float on top untill the ground just gets completely soft. Then, they fall in a few inches and you loose traction. You can back out and repair the field pretty easily because the damage is isolated and not very deep. We don't run duals because our soils will pack between them when muddy. We have all the tractors and the graincart on tracks. The combines are the only "wheels" to hit the field during harvest. If I were to go with a set of duals, I would look at the 710x70-38. I know that Wold has had a set of these running for several years on a combine without problems. That would get enough tire on the ground to let the machine apprach track performance, but it would be extremely wide and probably couldn't be hauled on a trailer. Our's with the 1050's is wide enough.