Combines PAMI research reportsIJ

[IAFarmer]

Don- What is the address of the PAMI reports- sounds like something I would be interested in seeing, too. If I can get it, maybe I could paste it to MSWord and send it to you. Or post it hereIJ

 

[JAG]

Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute link: http:__www.pami.ca_ Publications list: http:__www.pami.ca_pamipubs_grp4.htm I see a TR 96, TX 36, Gleaner R72, CIH 1666, JD 9500 on the publications list; didnt dig yet to see if theres newer stuff or not. Please post if you find better!

 

[NHD]

Thanks for the info. I can't down load the reports I want. I doubt the TR-96 and the 9500 report are available on line we probablyhave to get printed copies by joining. It said on the website to give them my name and address and they would do the rest. Got any ideasIJ

 

[tx68]

Well I just looked through the pami combine list hoping to find something interesting. I notice that none of the combines I have operated are listed in their test section. When there is a reference to a certain combine being the best they ever tested, since they tested so few, it may not mean so much. What crop(s) did they test these machines with. It does not say. They want you to subscribe without knowing if their information is any use. They do not give any sample reports stating some sillyness about it being too hard to turn them into electronic documents. Not very impressed overall.

 

[John_W]

PAMI stopped testing combines and other equipment some years ago. Test and test summaries are available on this Alberta site. Combines were usually tested on windrowed wheat, barley and canola, which are their main crops. Some of the later reports that I have found don't require Acrobat, but many longer reports do. This Aberta ag site should lead you to most of old and new PAMI stuff.

 

[Cowboy]

Those combine reports used to be available on line,and I remember some testing in wheat and barley crops and they would measure the amount of material going thru at a predetermined amount of total loss.If I remember correctly the TX36 had the most capacity with the tr 96 and R72 Gleaner close behind and the 9500 quite a ways back especially in barley.

 

[UpFr]

PAMI, unfortunately, is going the way of the dinosaur it would seem. My opinion is that the work they did in the 70's and 80's got the combine manufacturer's attention and they acted accordingly. What sort of looked like a Nebraska Tractor Test Program for combines in western Canada, I think, got overwhelmed with the different permutations of threshing system configurations and the explosive growth in alternative crops. The end result being too large of a program for any one small organization, like PAMI, to tackle. The real tragedy in the PAMI exercises for combine evaluations is that the testing was done in local conditions and in a narrow range of crops and conditions, which the reports always tried to explain, and this information spread far and wide and was accepted as "truth" for a larger range of crops and conditions. The end result, a lot of interesting information, but questionalble application.

 

[NHD]

Summary of New Holland TR96 Self-Propelled CombineCapacity: In the capacity tests. the MOG feedrate* at 3% total grain loss in Argyle barley was 629 lb_min (17.2 t_h). In Bonanza barley at power limit, total loss reached only 1.5% for a MOG feedrate of 664 lb_min (18.1 t_h).In wheat, total loss did not get above 1.5%. At engine power limit, combine capacity was 883 lb_min (24.1 t_h) in Katepwa wheat and 756 lb_min (20.1 t_h) in Neepawa wheat.In barley crops, the New Holland TR96 had approximately 2.3 times the capacity of the Machinery Institute reference combine at 3% total loss. In wheat the New Holland TR96, at less than 1.5% total loss, had about 2 times the capacity of the reference combine at 3% total grain loss.Quality of Work: Pickup performance was good in all crops. It picked cleanly at speeds up to 6 mph (9.6 km_h) and fed the crop evenly under the table auger. Feeding was very good for all crops and conditions, however the table auger plugged frequently in bunchy windrows.The powered stone roller and trap door provided good protection from stones and roots entering the rotor.Threshing was very good. The New Holland TR96 threshed aggressively and smoothly in all crops. Unthreshed losses and grain damage were low in most crops. Straw breakup was severe in dry conditions. In tough conditions, combine throughput was reduced.Separation of grain from straw was very good. Rotor loss was low over the entire operating range and did not limit combine capacity.Cleaning shoe performance was very good with the Peterson chaffer. When properly adjusted, grain loss over the shoe was low and did not limit combine capacity. The grain tank sample was clean in all crops.Grain handling was good. The 230 Imp bu (8.37 m) grain tank filled evenly and completely in all crops. Unloading was slow, taking about 170 seconds to unload a full tank of dry wheat. Unloader discharge height was high but the optional downspout prevented grain loss when unloading on windy days.Straw spreading was fair. The straw was spread over about 15 ft (4.6 m) with most of the straw falling in two narrow windrows at the outer edges.Ease of Operation and Adjustment: Operator comfort in the New Holland was very good. The cab was relatively dust free. The heater and air conditioner provided comfortable cab temperatures. The seat and steering column could be adjusted to suit most operators. The cab windows were tinted. Visibility was very good forward and to the sides. The view of the feed intake area was partially blocked by the steering wheel. The rearview mirrors provided good visibililty to the rear.Instrumentation was very good. Instrument bars located at eye level were very easy to see, except in direct sunlight. The instruments monitored all important functions and had built-in warning systems. Controls were very good. All controls were conveniently located, responsive, and easy to use.loss monitor performance was good. Only shoe loss was indicated. However, since shoe loss did not limit combine capacity, the loss monitor was used very little. The reading was meaningful only if compared to actual losses.lighting for nighttime harvesting was excellent.Handling was very good. The combine was easily maneuverable and stable both in the field and while transporting. Steering was smooth and responsive.Ease of adjusting the combine components was good. However, it was difficult to measure the opening on the cleaning sieve. Ease of setting the components to suit crop conditions was very good.Ease of unplugging was good. The feeder reverser worked very well and was easy to use for unplugging the table auger and feeder. The operator seldom had to leave the cab to clear a slug. The rotors did not plug during the season. Ease of cleaning the combine was good. Clean-out doors were provided for the clean grain and return elevator cross augers.Ease of lubrication was good. Few grease points made daily lubrication quick and easy. The fuel inlet was high making it difficult to fill from most gravity flow fuel tanks. Ease of performing general maintenance and repair was fair. Specifications outlined in the operator's manual for tensioning certain chains was confusing.Engine and Fuel Consumption: The engine started easily and ran well. In most conditions, the combine was run at or near power limit. When harvesting in damp or tough conditions, MOG feedrate at power limit was reduced. Average fuel consumption for the year was 8.0 gal_h (36.4 l_h). Oil consumption was insignificant.Operator Safety: The operator's manual emphasized operator safety. All moving parts were well shielded. The New Holland TR96 was safe to operate if normal safety precautions were taken and warnings heeded.Operator's Manual: The operator's manual was well written and contained useful information on safety, servicing, lubrication, trouble shooting, setting and specifications.Mechanical History: A few mechanical and electrical problems occurred during the test.*MOG Feedrate (Material-Other-than-Grain) is the mass of straw and chaff passing through the combine per unit of time.Summary of Case IH Self-Propelled Combine

 

[NHD]

Here is the 9500 comparison.Summary of John Deere 9500 Self-Propelled CombineCapacity: In the capacity tests, the MOG feed rate* at 3% total grain loss in Harrington barley was 425 lb_min (11.6 t_h). Combine capacity was 530 lb_min (14.5 t_h) and 535 lb_min (14.6 t_h) for the two Katepwa wheat crops.In the barley tests, the John Deere 9500 had about 1.3 times the capacity of the PAMI Reference II combine when compared at 3% total grain loss. In the wheat tests, the capacity of the John Deere 9500 was about 1.1 times that of the Reference II in the Katepwa "A" crop and 1.3 times in the Katepwa "B" crop.Quality of Work: Pickup performance was very good. The pickup picked cleanly in all reasonably well supported windrows and no plugging occurred.Feeding was very good. The table auger and feeder were aggressive, feeding crop smoothly and seldom plugging. The stone trap provided very good stone protection. Objects up to 3 in (75 mm) in diameter were emptied from the trap. No cylinder raspbar or concave damage was noticed.Threshing was good. In hard-to-thresh crops the concave had to be adjusted as close as possible. Faster cylinder speeds than recommended were necessary and concave blanks were needed. Grain damage was lower than for the Reference II combine.Separating was good. Straw walker loss limited combine capacity in nearly all crops.Cleaning shoe performance was excellent. Shoe loss was very low in all crops and it was tolerant to uneven loading.Grain handling was very good. The 197 Imp bu (7.2 m) grain tank filled evenly in all crops. The unloading auger was hydraulically positioned and had adequate clearance for all trucks and trailers encountered. The auger discharged the grain in a compact stream and unloaded a full tank of dry wheat in about 95 seconds. Being able to unload at only high or low idle made topping loads inconvenient.Straw spreading was good and chaff spreading was very good. The straw was spread evenly over about 25 ft (7.6 m) while the chaff was spread up to 20 ft (6.1 m).Ease of Operation and Adjustment: Operator comfort was very good. The cab was clean, quiet, and roomy. The air conditioner and heater provided comfortable cab temperature. The seat and steering column were adjustable to suit most operators. The operator had a clear view forward and to the sides and large convex mirrors were provided for rear visibility. The incoming swath was partially blocked by the steering wheel.Instrumentation was very good. All important machine and engine functions were monitored with a combination of gauges, a digital display, warning light, and audio alarm. The console in the corner post of the cab contained most routinely checked operating information and was convenient to view. The overhead console was not as convenient to view but the warnings were clearly marked and didn't have to be checked unless an alarm sounded. The controls were good. The combination arm rest_control console kept most controls conveniently placed regardless of seat position. Most functions were electrically controlled and responded well. The unloading auger swing was inconvenient to make fine adjustment and the automatic pickup speed control did not respond suitably for slower operating speeds.The loss monitor was very good. It was well suited to the combine's loss characteristics and was easy to adjust to show sudden changes in loss. It proved a reliable indicator in all crops encountered.lighting was good. Forward lighting was adequate although more light was often required to shine through the dust at the feeder. Optional side lights were useful for windrow conditions.Handling was very good. The steering was smooth and responsive, and the wheel brakes were seldom required for cornering. The hydrostatic was smooth and responsive and the gear ratios were appropriate for suitabte harvest speeds. The combine was stable in the field and while transporting.Ease of adjustment was good. Most components were very easy to adjust from the cab. However, the concave indicator was too coarse to be reliable and the sieves had to be adjusted with a special tool which was awkward and inconvenient. The concave proportioning was not convenient since the gauging ports did not line up with the tightest cylinder to concave clearance position. Ease of setting the components to suit crop conditions was good. Once the concave was adjusted to its tightest position and the operator became familiar with the aggressiveness required for proper threshing, setting became quick and easy with little fine tuning required.Ease of unplugging was very good. The header reverser worked well and neither the cylinder nor tailings plugged during the test season. Ease of cleaning the combine completely was good. Some areas, such as the grain pan under the straw walkers were not easily accessed.Ease of lubrication was very good. There were only a few daily grease points and all were easily accessed. Ease of performing routine maintenance was very good. Most drives utilized spring loaded idlers and the large hinged side doors provided easy access.Engine and Fuel Consumption: The engine started quickly and ran well. It had adequate power for all conditions encountered. Average fuel consumption was about 5.7 gal_h (25.9 l_h) and oil consumption was insignificant.Operator Safety: The John Deere 9500 had several unique safety features. It was well shielded and no safety hazards were apparent. Normal safety precautions were required and warnings had to be heeded. The operator's manual emphasized safe operating procedure.Operator's Manual: The operator's manual was very good. It was clearly written and well organized. It contained useful information on safety, operation, adjustment, trouble shooting and machine specifications.Mechanical History: A few mechanical problems occurred during the test.*MOG Feedrate (Material-Other-than-Grain) is the mass of straw and chaff passing through the combine per unit of time.

 

[NHD]

A newer report. Summary of Ford New Holland TR96 Self-Propelled CombineCapacity: In the capacity tests, the MOG feederate* at 3% total grain loss in Harrington and Heartland barley was 755 lb_min (20.5 t_h) and 865 lb_min (23.5 t_h),respectively. Combine capacity was 910 lb_min (24.8 t_h) and 1440 lb_min (39.2 t_h) in Katepwa and Biggar wheats.In the barley tests the New Holland TR96 had about 2.4 times the capacity of the PAMI Reference II combine when compared at 3% total grain loss. In the wheat tests, the capacity of the New Holland TR96 was about 1.7 times that of the Reference II in the Katepwa crop and 2.5 times in the Biggar crop.Quality of Work: Picking performance was good. The pickup picked cleanly in all reasonably well supported windrows and no plugging occurred.Feeding was good. Although critical settings were required the table auger and feeder were aggressive, feeding crop smoothly and seldom plugging. The stone trap provided good stone protection and often prevented dense wads of crop from entering the rotors. Objects up to 6 in (152 mm) in diameter were ejected from the feeder. No rasp bar or concave damage was noticed.Threshing was very good. The rotors and concaves were aggressive resulting in low unthreshed losses in all crops encountered. Crop fed smoothly into and through the rotor cages in nearly all conditions encountered. The rotors did not plug at any time during the test.Separating was very good. Free grain loss from the rotors constituted the majority of total grain loss but was usually 1.5% or less when engine power limit was reached.Cleaning shoe performance was excellent. Shoe loss was very low in all crops when the material was distributed uniformly onto the grain pan.Clean grain handling was good. The 240 Imp bu (8.7 m) grain tank filled evenly in all crops. The unloading auger had adequate reach but excessive clearance for most trucks and trailers encountered. The auger discharged the grain in a compact stream and unloaded a full tank of dry wheat in about 130 seconds. Unloading without loss in windy conditions was difficult when using only the standard discharge spout.Straw spreading was good. Straw was spread evenly up to a maximum of 22 ft (6.7 m). Only a small portion of the chaff was spread with the straw.Ease of Operation and Adjustment: Operator comfort was very good. The cab was clean, quiet and was well suited for one person. The air conditioner and heater provided comfortable cab temperatures. The seat and steering column were adjustable to suit most operators. The operator had a clear view forward and to the sides and large convex mirrors were provided for rear visibility. View of the incoming swath was only blocked slightly by the steering wheel.Instrumentation was very good. All important machine and engine functions were monitored with a combination of gauges, digital displays, warning lights and audio alarm. The vertical console to the right of the operator contained most routinely checked operating information and was convenient to view. The horizontal console, to the right of the operator contained mainly engine instrumentation. It was slightly less convenient to view. The controls were very good. Most of the controls were located to the right of the operator with only a few to the left, on the floor, in the steering console and above the operator. The frequently used controls were conveniently located close to the operator while the less frequently used controls were placed out of the way. Mechanical controls were used for the engagement of combine functions while electrical controls were used for some hydraulics and for adjusting component speeds. The floor mounted unloading auger position control was very convenient to use.The loss monitor was fair. The combine loss monitor could be operated in either a time or an area base mode. The loss monitor gave accurate indication of shoe loss. However, the loss monitor did not give accurate indications of total combine performance since rotor loss was not monitored.lighting was very good. Short, medium and long range lighting was very good for the pickup header and could be adjusted to suit wider headers. The portable service light was very handy.Handling was excellent. The quick steering response and short turning radius allowed the New Holland TR96 to pick around sharp windrow corners without the aid of wheel brakes. The hydrostatic control was smooth and responsive and the gear ratios were appropriate for suitable harvest speeds. The combine was stable in the field and while transporting.Ease of adjustments was good. Most components were very easy to adjust from the cab. However, the tailing sieve was inconvenient to adjust when it was set at the lower slope. Accurately gauging the clearance between the rotors and concaves was difficult. Ease of setting the components to suit crop conditions was very good. Once familiar with the combine's performance setting was quick and little fine tuning was required.Ease of unplugging was very good. The header reverser backed material from the header and also enabled feeding material slowly into the combine. The rotors did not plug at any time during the test. Opening the lower access door usually allowed the tailings return to clear when re-engaged. Occasionally material between the auger flighting and elevator paddles had to be removed by hand. Ease of cleaning the combine was good, The open grain tank was unrestricted which made cleaning easy. Restricted access to the bubble-up auger sump and tailings return auger made cleaning inconvenient.Ease of lubrication was good. Daily lubrication was quick and easy. Ease of performing routine maintenance was good although changing oil in the final drives and rotor gear cases was difficult. Most belts had spring loaded idlers and the chain drives had draw bolt tighteners for simplified maintenance.Engine and Fuel Consumption: The engine started quickly and ran well. It had adequate power for conditions encountered with sufficient torque reserver to recover from overloading. Average fuel consumption was 7.5 gal_h (34.2 l_h) and oil consumption was insignificant.Operator Safety: No safety hazards were apparent. However, normal safety precautions were required and warnings had to be heeded. The operator's manual emphasized safety.Operator's Manual: The operator's manual was very good. The manual was clearly written and the table of contents and index made finding material easy. A separate engine manual and 971 header operator's manual were supplied.Mechanical History: A few mechanical problems occurred during the test.*