small sq baler input HP

[jimg]

It looks like both Deerre and NH balers are held in about equal esteem here so....I looked up the specs on the various 14" bale models for both companies and was surprised to find that all of the Deere balers used the same input HP. OTOH the NH models proceed in an increasing input HP from light to HD. I also noticed that the NH products are heavier than the comparable Deere model. (It appears the NH 565 is equivalent to the Deere 328 etc). What does this say about the baler itself? Clearly from inputs given here the Deere balers hold up very well. So, I dont think its a duty rating issue. Is the Deere design just so much more efficient? Running a baler which requires significantly less HP and that weights several hundred pounds less seems to be the best of all worlds. Why then is the NH product so popular?

 

[rambler]

Well, it comes down to a color war - you are basically asking if Chevy or Ford is better, you know - shame on you! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

JD is a big company that makes all kinds of things, including pretty good balers.

NH was a rather small company that only made hay & forage equipment until the past few decades. As a smaller, less diverse company, they had to have a darn good product to overcome brand loyalty, etc. & remain a healthy, expanding company that relied upon only balers to make them profitable.

In short, NH has made a darn good baler for 50+ years - perhaps a little better than the rest. Just the fact that they survived against the big lines is proof of that.

You need to compare the number of strokes, and how many bales in an hour you get. NH speeded their balers up quite a bit - couple models perhaps a bit too much - and takes more hp to make more bales in an hour.

HP is a poor way to rate a baler, by the way. It takes about 50 hp to push a bale out & tie a knot. So your tractor needs a strong enough drive train to handle 50 hp hammering on that shaft. However, the flywheel stores a lot of energy between strokes, so it might only take 15 hp (constant) from your tractor to keep it baling just fine.

In short, it only takes 15 hp to run the baler, but it takes parts that can handle a 50 hp shock load from the flywheel....

--->Paul

 

[jgh]

20060318

Paul, that's probably good, well-said advice. I have an 80HP (PTO) 8000# tractor using an old 273 NH baler and it slams me around in a manner of speaking. Not sure I'd want to be on a smaller machine, esp with a newer baler.

J

 

[jimg]

Im not buying the 'its a color war' line. Thats not where I wanted this thread to go anyway. The specs give numbers and those arent up for lots of interpretation and certainly arent subjective. I want to understand how JD could make a comparable baler that req'ed so much less HP. What is it about the JD design that accomodates this? Is it really that much more efficient or ? Its also really hard to imagaine that the JD and NH balers model for model dont give roughly comparable output or that the NH flywheel would be so much lighter esp when their balers weight more. Looking at the specs youll see that the JD 328 is equivalent to the NH565, JD 338 is roughly equivalent to the NH570 and the JD 348 is pretty much the same as the NH575. In function and efficiency they look pretty much alike or enough so that theres no argument that one would make more hay than another. Also even though the JD baler is rated at 35hp it must certainly made to handle significanlty more w/o failing.

 

[Soundguy]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Im not buying the 'its a color war' line. Thats not where I wanted this thread to go anyway. The specs give numbers and those arent up for lots of interpretation and certainly arent subjective. I want to understand how JD could make a comparable baler that req'ed so much less HP )</font>

What part of the posters message did you not read. one reason the poster gave was that NH sped up someof it's bailers.. speed would mean more 'mean' hp use, per unit time, due to more hay bale production per unit time... so the poster said to reference the bale/hr rates given for those machines.. ball's in your court..

Soundguy

 

[cowboydoc]

I agree with soundguy. Where did he not give you good information and how did he make it a color war? He joked about it but he didn't make it that way in his post. Rambler is one of the smartest guys on this site in relation to real farming and equipment. You picked the wrong guy to bash.

 

[jimg]

soundguy and cbdoc: Youre reading something into my post that isnt there. Im not bashing anyone or any company(s) and I did read his posting. First, let me make it clear that my initial question has nothing to do w/ pitting one mfg against another for the purpose of making the other look bad. Second I did read the specs and nothing there gave me a clue why one line could operate on significanly less HP than the other. As far as I could see they looked identical (or nearly so). I also see no bales/hr rating for either line.

 

[jimg]

>>one reason the poster gave was that NH sped up someof it's bailers.. >>speed would mean more 'mean' hp use, per unit time, due to more >>hay bale production per unit time... so the poster said to reference the >>bale/hr rates given for those machines..
OK, fair enough...what spec indicates that the baler is running at a higher rate? If its strokes/min then those specs arent different exc for the mid models. If not pls point out which published spec would tell me this.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

I can't answer your question as to why NH wants more hp on their balers but I can speculate that by requiring higher hp tractors on their high capacity balers they cover themselves in case some guy rips out the pto on his 50 hp tractor pulling a 575 /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

As for bales per hour, first you need to determine how many strokes per bale you are trying for. If you say 15 then that gives you roughly 6 bales a minute or 360 bales an hour roughly. It all depends on how your field is laid out and if you are doing a lot of turning like required on some irregular shaped fields.

I will say this, if JD is only requiring a 35 hp tractor on their largest small square baler then they better have some fine print somewhere as that small of a tractor will not handle that baler with a thrower and a wagon on hills. Heck, a 35 hp tractor won't handle just the wagon on a hill when fully loaded.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

I sent a e-mail to JD and to NH. The JD rep was very fast and replied to my question immediately. I asked him "Why does JD require a min hp of 35 to run a 348 small square baler while NH requires a minimum of 75 to run the 348's rival, the 575. "

His reply,

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Mr. Turk: I'm on-line at home this afternoon. I saw your email and I thought I'd try to respond to your inquiry at this time.

I hope everything I say dosn't sound biased, but I'l just be honest. We're better. Our tractors get more PTO hp "to the ground" - less parasitic losses. That's why NH Kubota etc. don't like to talk about PTO horsepower. They like to only like to talk about engine horsepower. However, the secret is how much you get the ground and how much your left for the other things you do.

Thank you,

Wade Malcolm
Deere & Company - Agricultural Equipment Division
One John Deere Place
Moline, IL. 61265
)</font>

I will say I was impressed with how fast he replied (especially on a Sunday) but will leave my thoughts about his response out of this.