new tractor idea possibly....

[boggen]

while most of the stuff will be computer controlled. some things it would be nice to have a manual over ride leveler on some things. example for upper / lower link cylinders near area were they would be need to connect to an implement.

perhaps near cylinders for the "balance wheels"

ability to move far left tire forward/backward, or far right tire forward/backward. to make attaching implements easier. besides getting back into the cab errr (truck) that that might be a optional package.... then again...

been thinking about different package option. for the main front drive wheels. and being able to swap them out for "tracks" kinda like the tracks you might find to replace car wheels for them far northern that see snow/ice majority of year....

==============

trying to figure out how to deal with all the piping to get over the "flex joints" in the machine. more so hyd oil for the hydrostatic transmissions. i could see far left engine being on. and then wanting to move the far right tires. and needing large enough pipes to get oil from the far end to the other end.

thought about making the joints hydraulic joints. instead of greasing them. making them large enough on the (inside) to allow hyd oil to pass through them. but also hinge a few degrees.

another issue is how to lock the joints. when in transport mode. so the middle section does not drag across the pavement... this goes for implements that are attached as well. do some transport tires just drop down? or another set or 2 of balance wheels fold out? or does locking the flex joint / hing make things sturdy enough that entire machine becomes one solid mass. and you just need balance wheels / transport wheels on far ends of the machine?

hhmmmss never thought about weight per tire / axle limits that are out there.... arghs!!!! down with the bloody pirates!


pops the ground with the fist... err wheel! *shakes head no afterwards*

 

[swines]

One of the goals of large tractors is to lower the ground pressure to prevent compaction. Multi-wheel tractors and tracked drive systems are done as much to lower the ground pressure as traction - as compaction is a real problem. You need to solve that problem.

There's a real balance between the weight and resistance of the towed equipment, versus the tractor weight required to pull the equipment (to maintain traction), the surface area of the drive wheels/tracks required to put the power to the drawbar, and the overall pounds per square inch load on the ground reduced as much as possible to avoid compaction.

How do you convince a farm operation to reinvest in new equipment that is specific to your design? They already have 60-foot wide seed drills / planters, discs, cultivators, etc. - that represent hundreds of thousands of dollars in many cases and your design offers no real benefits to offset a total reinvestment in equipment.

Having been to Montana, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, etc. where big ag equipment is used - they really don't have problems transporting the equipment between fields. I've passed many pieces of equipment, both passing and oncoming with no problem maneuvering around the equipment being towed or transported. I think you have a solution in search of a problem as I don't see any advantages to what you're proposing.

 

[boggen]

One of the goals of large tractors is to lower the ground pressure to prevent compaction. Multi-wheel tractors and tracked drive systems are done as much to lower the ground pressure as traction - as compaction is a real problem. You need to solve that problem.

There's a real balance between the weight and resistance of the towed equipment, versus the tractor weight required to pull the equipment (to maintain traction), the surface area of the drive wheels/tracks required to put the power to the drawbar, and the overall pounds per square inch load on the ground reduced as much as possible to avoid compaction.

How do you convince a farm operation to reinvest in new equipment that is specific to your design? They already have 60-foot wide seed drills / planters, discs, cultivators, etc. - that represent hundreds of thousands of dollars in many cases and your design offers no real benefits to offset a total reinvestment in equipment.

Having been to Montana, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, etc. where big ag equipment is used - they really don't have problems transporting the equipment between fields. I've passed many pieces of equipment, both passing and oncoming with no problem maneuvering around the equipment being towed or transported. I think you have a solution in search of a problem as I don't see any advantages to what you're proposing.

excellent post! i am eager to respond, but need to take off for a bit. i am acutely wondering myself. to be all honest. i sat down few days ago and went with an idea, like many folks do, working out various problems for projects / jobs. will respond later tonight to your thread. hopefully something can be determined... or at very least thought out / brainstormed about....

 

[boggen]

before i forgot, need to figure out a way to lower the "balance wheels" to below the engine box frame if possible. or the main frame that holds the engines. curving / denting them in some. to allow for balance wheels to swing out... instead of 2 limited hinges between each section of machine going with a single hinged spot. both to help with connecting / disconnecting multi sections together. but possibly give room for balance wheels.

===================

traction, weight, compaction....

what originally started this idea off....was weight distribution. part of it was, just looking at current age tractors. and seeing this heavy box between 4 to 12 plus tires....

see attach diagram below...



continue onto next attach diagram below...



continue onto next attached diagram below...



the bucking bronco. can be found on many threads here on TBN (tractorbynet.com) more so for gravel and dirt driveways / roads. and dealing with wash board or ripples within the driveway/road. and dealing with various compaction issues with base layer.....

remember a tractor really does not have any sort of "suspension" nor do implements. when they hit something hard the jump up. and then come crashing back down. the suspension that is in the field, is the ground itself. and the soil will just compact more to absorb the shock / load being placed on it...

is part of not driving faster... higher MPH (miles per hour) is do to try and keep the bucking bronco effect down to a min? and/or trying to keep dirt/soil from flying up off the ground?

bucking bronco effect. is just not from front wheels and rear wheels on tractor bouncing up and down. and being transferred back to the implement. it is the very "UN-noticable" amount of speed that happens as tractor bounces around vs staying at a non stop constant MPH measured down clear down into 100's or perhaps 1000's of a MPH ((do not take 100's or 1000's of a MPH as fact, i honestly do not know, but trying to get idea over, that most folks might state it as more of a vibration than anything....))

why do folks use a "vibration machine" to compact soil in trenches? and why is it normally noted to only back fill 4 to 6 inches and then compact the dirt in trenches?

 

[boggen]

need to write down a few reminders for myself, before i forget them.... this machine and implements like a plow or disc. and causing engine box to angle backwards. to place more weight on implement and in that bottom plows and discs. vs placing all the weight of engine box on the front drive wheels.

================
getting back to things....

still working out on the "balance" wheels for this machine. a few previous posts. went over hydraulic accumulators, or shocks/suspension a motor cycle front tire has. partial goal is to help remove the "bucking bronco effect" and limit how many times the bouncing from front to back happens. reducing overall compaction.

================
a good portion of this thread. has had some emphasis placed on "hilly fields". were i live there is a lot of old strip mine grounds, and bunch of valleys. were there is need of some sort of "grass way" to let run off water get out of the field without causing very much erosion. and to me, this machine needs to be able to handle this. now if you get out into other parts around me. you have fields that few hundred acres of nice flat ground. for these fields. the slop change happens over a very long distance. and at most you have little patches here or there. that are little more moist than others.

in this wide open fields. this machine really does not need complexity of "limited hinges" (flex joints) and with that said... 40 feet width per machine and 13.5 feet between flex joint, is just some random number. a machine could easily be 80 feet long and spacing between flex joints being say every 20 to 40 feet. and if things fold up correctly. could unfold out to 160 feet width. and then 2 to 4 feet plus how ever the implement folds out to be long. or how ever many machines are set side by side and attached together...

other words to above.... / comparison....



==================
i been thinking about the "implements" and more so storage of them... with them not needing to fold up on top of each either. compared to currently implements that have 2 to 3 wings per side. perhaps a couple "stands" could be welded on top of each implement. so a fork lift could come along and "stack" implements one on top of each other. so many high, into a shed. or off into a corner...

===================
i been thinking of how 2 machines would unfold along with implements that are attached unfold. perhaps for hooking / unhooking implmements it might be better of the 2 machines hinged on front corner. so when folded up in transport mode, the machines are in the center, and the implements are on the outside folded up.

that way you could drive down a "lane" unhook implements on each side, drive little further down lane, hook up some other implements on each side. and then drive on to the field...

====================

How do you convince a farm operation to reinvest in new equipment that is specific to your design?

convince? na. not worth trying hook someone on some marketing statement. if it works and does better job than what is out there. and long term it pays off. (bottom dollar), and like with everything, learning, understanding, comprehension, knowledge, teaching, sharing of info.

to be honest, i do not see how throwing bigger diameter wheels and more of them on a tractor. really helps. you eventally hit a limit... to how many you can place on a tractor of current age. before returns and effects take a noise dive.

larger diameter wheels yes end up with a larger size patch of tire on the ground. and help reduce PSI on the ground. but to what extent? tires traveling in same groves. or spaced so front tires make groves and back tires run over the high spots of front tires make. you are still compacting a large patch of soil in front of the implement.

===================
when you switch tires/wheels over to tracks, there is a big difference. were the tracts give a much larger surface area that is contact with the ground. and all the little rollers along the bottom portion of track, pushing the track down into the ground besides the front sprocket and rear sprocket. helps things even further to reduce PSI placed to the ground.

tracks i would imagine make a lot more sense for farmers that have large fields were most of the time they are just driving straight. problems with tracks the longer the distance from front to back of the entire track. the more likely things are going to need to slip and slide. when turning. the sharper the turn the more slip / sliding of the tracks happen. more slip / slide the more wear on tracks.

not to mention all the mechanical pieces that move on tracked machines, would state by nature a higher cost of maintenance to keep tracks in good working order.

tracks do remove "bucking bronco" effect. and help remove "tire slipping" as tires turn and slip when loosing traction in a field.

current age tracked tractors. are still limited though. before getting into it. RAIN, just does not cover an entire field in same exact amount. one portion of a field might be really wet, another really dry. or you might have "spotting" were there are patches that are wet and/or really dry. a tracked tractor will be forced to drive through these patchs, no way around it, if they want to keep implement going down the field and keep things nice and straight. while tracked units will keep on going. through the wet areas with tearing the areas up to bad. the implements bottom plows, discs, etc... are going to see a wide variety of forces across the entire length of the implement. one side might hit a hard dry compacted area and pull hard backwards on the tractor. ((the tongue hooking to tractor acting like a hinge / fulcrum)) will cause other side of implement to be pulled forward some what if in it is in more loose soil.

what i am more looking at this machine on this thread. is a way to allow the "front drive" wheels with the hydrostatic transmissions and variable displacement pumps... is to allow wheels to get more torqure to them for those hard dry compacted areas. to drive that section through that spot. while other section of this machine, tires not having as much torque placed to the wheels.

was also looking at this machine. as possible way to let tires that are not in a "wet spot" help pull tires that are in "wet spots" through those wet spots. if computer senses wheel slip. (sudden higher RPM of change on axle going to tire or perhaps torque sensor). it would reduce RPM's for that wheel and perhaps place more torque / RPM's to other nearby wheels. to offset things... assuming machine is wide enough to get tires on good ground to grab traction in.

 

[boggen]

around here roads i am guessing are as narrow as they could possibly get away with. and are littered with guard rails, road signs, mail boxes, ugly nasty ditches with no shoulder to get on to. if you run into a tractor with implement you might be SOL. and the truck or car has to go into ditch to get around the tractor/implement combo. the other areas that are like WOW. nice wide shoulders, easy going ditches, wider width of roads. then in other spots (the true hilly billy sticks) were you have single lane gravel roads. and if county shoulder just barely large enough to get to full size vehicles to pass each other, and most of these roads are turning every direction going up and over hills, etc... removing any chance of looking clear out in front of you of were you might be able to pull over, and let on coming traffic by.

to me yes, width of tractor / implement / machine is a big thing. and as i said before there are many other areas around here that have nice roads and everything, and running a wide tractor and implement never really even clicks of needing to watch out for other things..

One of the goals of large tractors is to lower the ground pressure to prevent compaction. Multi-wheel tractors and tracked drive systems are done as much to lower the ground pressure as traction - as compaction is a real problem. You need to solve that problem.

There's a real balance between the weight and resistance of the towed equipment, versus the tractor weight required to pull the equipment (to maintain traction), the surface area of the drive wheels/tracks required to put the power to the drawbar, and the overall pounds per square inch load on the ground reduced as much as possible to avoid compaction.

How do you convince a farm operation to reinvest in new equipment that is specific to your design? They already have 60-foot wide seed drills / planters, discs, cultivators, etc. - that represent hundreds of thousands of dollars in many cases and your design offers no real benefits to offset a total reinvestment in equipment.

Having been to Montana, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, etc. where big ag equipment is used - they really don't have problems transporting the equipment between fields. I've passed many pieces of equipment, both passing and oncoming with no problem maneuvering around the equipment being towed or transported. I think you have a solution in search of a problem as I don't see any advantages to what you're proposing.

i am out of ideas. not even something to go on some tangent about that does not matter. and not really sure if anything noted even comes close to answering your questions...

at moment machine is being geared towards fields that are hilly, and to handle all the various implements out there. fold up and be as compact as possible for transport. with quick unfold and go to work doings. and implements that are easy to attach / un-attach. figure if those can be nailed down making wider machines would be much easier...and just doing math and figuring measurements for longer frames and like for wider machines. perhaps just having some "short sections" of the machine on the far ends, and then going with "much longer" sections in the middle. to let the ends of the machine be better able to handle things better.

 

[boggen]

lost post that went with above diagram. didn't realize internet went out due to rain / power flickering. and hit reply button, and it was washed away :/



from 13.5 up to 30 feet length and now looking at 40 feet length. just to find room for transport wheels, and balance wheels.

drew some implement diagrams and how they would hook up, along with engine box tilt. and looks like space between front drive tires and main frame that engies and everything connects to. this space looks like i will need to be increased some. though moving frame (front and back) frames closer together might give some needed room.... it is not like an engine is actually a box. but has more of a half circle bottom on them.. i would just worry about "twisting" the frame over the distance if they get moved to close together. if not nearing that at 2 feet distance from outside front and outside back of main frame...

still undecided on "balance wheels" and transport wheels. been tempted to go at 3 to 4 feet width keeping engine box 2 feet, and giving an extra foot on front and extra foot on rear of engine box for transport wheels and balance wheels.

never thought about it. about tipping engine box to 45 degree angle over front balance wheels. and folding implement up right on top of the engine box. and use front balance wheels as one side for transport wheels. and dropping a couple wheels down on rear side of engine box for the other side for transport wheels.

 

[boggen]

yet more and more attempts.... to deal with front balance wheels



thought about moving front drive wheels further in front of the engine box. so entire engines could tip further forward. to a point were some transport tires could be lowered. and just carry the implements folded up on top of the engine box... and actual length and weight of implements all depended on how much balanced wheels unfolded out for "transport" to keep things from tipping over when going down the road...

getting to the point were there will be 2 sets of axles. like a typical tractor / car / truck. :/ trying to keep as much weight on the main drive wheels. as possible or weight transfer to implement... the whole quickly being able to swap between transport mode and field mode, and attach/un-attach implements. is proving more difficult than what i thought it would. then again never really thought about it. how many folks i am sure went over this time and time again....

i realize even current tractors still get front weights placed on the very front of them. even the big boys.... just to keep front tires on the ground. but this machine. is in idea "multi tractors" with just the rear tires, transmissions, and engines. and the front wheels just serve to keep the stinking machine from falling on its face. and also hopefully reduce the bucking bronco effect of compaction.

small tractors in 20HP to tractors 450HP range. all of them some were along the lines get some sort of front weight added to the front of the tractor. to keep the front end of tractor from coming off the ground. the larger the engine and lower gear the transmission is placed in. the more torque at rear tires. all this means being able to lift more weight on the front end of the tractor off the ground, if there is sufficient weight / drag from implements to do such a thing. but this machine is reducing over all "torque" at the rear axle. by spreading the torque across the entire length and multi wheels. this reducing the "counter weight" on the front that would be needed across the entire machine... but reducing amount of counter weight that is need on front of machine and also, reducing how far the counter weight sticks in front of the drive wheels. hhhmmsss....

 

[boggen]

*rubs chin*
swines quote....

There's a real balance between the weight and resistance of the towed equipment, versus the tractor weight required to pull the equipment (to maintain traction), the surface area of the drive wheels/tracks required to put the power to the drawbar, and the overall pounds per square inch load on the ground reduced as much as possible to avoid compaction.

is adding more weight to a tractors front. end up causing more compaction? vs say moving the rear axle on a current age tractor "further back" (see above attached diagram)



an ugly attempt to show a comparison...

this machine. i am more looking at combining multi "smaller" tractors than above diagrams. to keep the counter weight on the front end light as possible. and keep it from sticking out as far. by placing tires from a 4WD or MFWD tractor and placing them all on the "rear axle" exception for a couple front wheels just to keep machine from falling flat on its face...

hhhmmmsss..... another way might be stating, is spreading the weight out over the entire width of machine and implements. vs a good portion of all traction, weight, placed in center of the tractor errr on rear end of a current age tractor....

and getting out of some possible "implement width" problems (once they get folded up and road width doings)

 

[boggen]

this might be a better comparison. in attempt to get idea across of multi smaller tractors pulling smaller width implements. the implements and rear wheels are combined for this "new tractor idea aka machine" but instead of just using those smaller size engines. larger size engines are used to obtain the higher efficiency of the bigger engines. to a point... hopefully combining other things and making better overall efficiency in the overall machine. that a larger size tractor would see. along with allowing for that dynamic weight change for rear tires.