Combines Header stands and attachment standard

[scooter]

Most of what you say makes sence, esp standardizing supporting areas for transport on trailers. I kind-of question the standard throat size. I know I have run four different widths since I started farming 30 years ago. This looks to me like it depends on size and design of machines. Maybe a standard to go to the nearest 10 in whould work today. I.E. a 56in throat would be designed to 60in and a 44in would be designed to 40in. I am not sure if this would work, but I thought I would throwing out.

 

[john_holland]

your ideas make sense, and would probably be a helpful from an engineering standpoint, but i can't think of any time that market consolidation and globalization has ever helped me, so if it were up to me i would vote no, just my .02

 

[FarmBuddy]

I'm not advocating or trying to change the feederhouse "throat" opening, because that needs to be different depending on combine class size and threshing system. It's even offset to the right for a fine Natural Flow Gleaner. I,m just advocating to standardize the outer feederhouse frame size, sometimes referred to the "picture frame" dimensions. Here are the current approximate frame widths x heights: AGCO Challenger, Massey and Gleaner = 69" x 34" high Cat_Claas lexion = 72" x 30" high CNH Case AFX and NH CR and CX = 74" x 29" high JD 50 and 60 series STS = 70" x 31" height What if we settled on one of these dimensions for a 2008 target dateIJ Say 74" since that is the current largest size or maybe 84" so everyone has to move forward and largerIJ Equal pain, but a lot of gainIJIJ Your thoughts are appreciated. We can get this done!!

 

[Unit_2]

like John up above said it makes sense but I just don't see where it will help me. Just gives the combines manufacturers a reason to add another $5K to the price of the already over priced combines.

 

[FarmBuddy]

Sorry we couldn't help you Unit 2. Combines would not seem so over priced if the capital investment in them were utilized better. If you put 200 hours on yours this past year, you only used it about 21% of the available US harvest hours, being very generous. That may be a questionable investment for you. US "harvest dates" start in (mid) May and runs at least through October or about 160 days, conservatively. If half of these days were sunny and 12 hours long (easy enough),you have 80 days x 12 daylight hours which is 960 hours to use a combine. let's consider a rental rate of, say $100_hour x the 960 sunny hours, this equals $96,000 potential income. Frankly, that works and you could pay for one that way. It just better be pretty durable and built hell for stout, not much for pretty, kinda like a Cat. By the way, tracks let you run a few more days. It's no wonder Machinerylink makes sense to ToProducers. Why tie your money up in a capital investment if you are just going to use it part time during 4-5 weeks per yearIJ Just my observations and something you might want to consider. If you go this route, you do need to be willing to give up the security of seeing a combine sit in your shed all winter and be patient for it's arrival a week before your earliest harvest, or whenever your contract date is. Good luck and thanks for the comments. Tell Joe hello for us.

 

[Brodale]

I agree with Unit 2. It will increase the cost to all producers. Not everyone can do a harvest run for six months of the year to make these machines pay as you have suggested. Many of us are livestock producers who must stay at home. Therefore your mathematical theories are very much out the window. Also, in a great many areas a red head goes on a red combine, green on green, etc. and there is no interchanging. Hence no need to have that option which of course will add to the cost.

 

[Unit_2]

FarmBuddy, Most years my combines run six months out of the year and I put a lot more than 200 hrs. on them and I still say they are over priced. And who the heck is Joe.

 

[NHD]

Farmbuddy, I'm glad you brought up this subject. I hope progress toward standardized hookups and stands to accommodate trailers continues. I didn't see much comment from other sites, but you brought the facts out real well. I'm a big fan of Machinerylink's program. most of all I would like to see the the size of the face plates standardized at 74" wide and the height is even more important.Of course the header frames need to be made wide enough too.I had a terrible time last summer fitting a Honybee draper and a JD pickup header on a NH CR combine. The honeybee adapter cost $2500 and the JD pickup needed considerable cutting torch work.

 

[FarmBuddy]

Glad to hear you are using your combines 6 months out of the year. That's reasonably efficient and should cash flow if you don't have too much support equipment setting still. I thought you might know Joe Wilder. If not, skip the Hello to Joe, but glad to see you read my reply. AGV

 

[FarmBuddy]

Brodale, it's understandable that not everyone can take time off for a six month harvest run, especially if you have a livestock operation. So paying for a combine via extra harvesting may not be an option for you. An alternative to high capital investment in an under utilized combine or any piece of equipment for that matter is to hire a custom harvester, a neighbor, or a short term lease or rental. Regarding the standardized header features, combine manufacturers will probably always have a header to combine interface. If this were standardized in the next generation of combines, (like the principal of category 1, 2, 3 system 3point hitch and PTOs on tractors back in 1950's) then cost per combine and headers would be less due to commonality. The jackstand standardization aspect of this proposal would at least make it easier to use your same header trailer for various colored headers. Do you think you could accept and benefit from just that part of the proposalIJ AGV