Whoa Hoss! Slow down a tad bit here! You are implying taking away All the things that make the Gleaner rotaries great combines. For starters, longitudinaly oriented rotors WIll NOT feed nicely in tough conditions, period. When that crop coming up the feeder is fed into the rotor intake that is spinning sideways, the crop will and does get bunched up. And then you're trying to thresh bunches and ropes instead of a flat, thin mat of crop. longitudinals are fine for corn, ok for nice, dry conditions in other crops, but bad news in tough conditions. The tines and egg shaped separation area in the green STS's are there to strip and fluff that crop back out of the bunches and ropes. It is a cure for the symptoms, not the cause. I am not familiar with the Massey rock protection system, but again, nobody that I'm aware of has any better rock protection than the Gleaners and the crossways rotor is the reason. When a rock gets to the rotor, a cylinder bar will force it downward and trip the rock door. Axials, to my knowledge, still rely upon the front feed drum to stop rocks and that, in my opinion, limits feeder capacity. The STS's have already got a reputation for only catching about 20% of the rocks. You also say we should eliminate the distribution auger and accelerator rollsIJ And take away what makes for the highest capacity cleaning system that existsIJ The whole idea of the accelerator rolls is to reduce shoe load by doing the great majority of cleaning BEFORE the grain gats to the chaffer. It is much easier to blow chaff out of the grain in mid air than to have to lift it away from the grain on the chaffer. We cut our share of beans and have noticed no more grain damage than anyone else with other makes. But our beans sure come in a lOT cleaner and free of dirt. What technology do the Masseys have that help to reduce sideways ahift of grain on slopes that would match or excede the Gleaner setupIJ This is one area that I'll take the extra moving parts in exchange for a far superior cleaning system! My split flow idea would help to eliminate the overthreshing on the left side of the concave. The small P3's have less overthresh in this area than the larger P3. If we combine two small P3 rotors and have the crop go in opposite directions, there would be minimal overthresh. As for the twin discharges, we always have to rake our straw to get it dry enough to bale anyhow so it's a moot point for us. I'm sure that for areas that you'd prefer a single windrow, it shouldn't be too difficult to contrive an apparatus that would divert one windrow onto_next to the other one. They do it with haybines and swathers. How much bother is it to remove the rotor from the MasseyIJ Can you do it in 30 min. like we canIJ How many inboard drives do they have compared to zero for GleanersIJ Once we reach maximum useable capacity in the current large P3's, we may be able to increase capacity without going wider by increasing rotor diameter. We could gain concave area and considerable cage area for separation by doing that. That also would not require any major design changes that I can foresee. The only trouble I see with that is the larger the rotor diameter gets, centrifical force is reduced. It's something to think about anyhow. Anything would be better than going longitudinal though!!