HP to pull disk

[284 International]

Flat vs full tires is a good way to describe it. I'm interested mostly because of the differences I hear in how people describe their equipment handling things. My 5 1/2 foot disk will stop my IH 464, but I hear people describing comparable machines handling much larger implements. Comparing my 4 foot offset disk to this 5 1/2 foot, the 8 footer would be an immovable beast.

Others pull disks much larger than mine without trouble, so I'm not sure where the difference lies.

 

[pjbci]

Others pull disks much larger than mine without trouble, so I'm not sure where the difference lies.

I think a lot of the times the difference lie in mans inability to accept that their tool (tractor) isnt big enough for the task at hand! Ha. By the way I would really like to see that 20 hp yanmar mentioned earlier bury that 8ft disk to the hubs with no problems.

 

[284 International]

I think a lot of the times the difference lie in mans inability to accept that their tool (tractor) isnt big enough for the task at hand! Ha. By the way I would really like to see that 20 hp yanmar mentioned earlier bury that 8ft disk to the hubs with no problems.

I guess I was unclear: I don't have an 8 foot disk, and my Yanmar struggles with a heavy 4 foot disk cutting deeply. My IH 464 isn't a massive machine, but it's well over 6500 lbs, and 45 PTO horsepower, so should, by most recommendations, be more than ample for a 5 1/2 foot disk. Mine is sufficient, but in some conditions the disk's load is still too heavy without easing the wheels down to decrease the pull.

 

[pjbci]

No no. Somebody else earlier claimed that their yanmar would bury an 8footer with maximum angle set to the blades. I think it was the 3rd post. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[284 International]

I'm the only guy who mentioned a Yanmar. I meant that the Yanmar can pull my (relatively) heavy disk across very dry, hard soil, because it isn't actually cutting anything. In soft conditions, the full cutting weight of the same disk will stop my 464 dead in its tracks, even though it is 4 times as heavy and has over twice the horsepower.

I believe wolc123's 20 horsepower machine is an Allis Chalmers C, a much different machine vs my 20 horse Yanmar.

 

[MMagis]

Please stop telling people this garbage. Someone may think you know what you're talking about. It's been established that you don't.

The fellow may just know what he's talking about.:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

No, he doesn't. High school physics proves that.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

Assuming equal weight per disc, a pull-type will pull significantly easier than a 3-point. If you handle the 8 ft, 3-point without any trouble, then you will certainly have no issues with the 10 ft pull-type. I use an 8-foot pull-type behind my 43 hp, 4wd tractor and it doesn't even know it is back there. The 6-foot, 3-point I had previously, pulled significantly harder. I like my equipment on the small side for my available power because it lets me get the job done before soil conditions are perfect. I personally cant stand 3-point discs, but there are many folks who dont know no better so you should have no problems selling yours. You will also notice significantly less fuel usage with a pull-type disc compared to a 3-point. The fuel is saved because less "work" is done with the pull-type, but the ground gets ready to plant sooner because all areas are worked to a uniform depth rather than some places not touched at all and others worked extra deep as occurs with the more ridgid 3-point disc. Pull-type discs are always adjustable on the angle so you can simply set it less aggressive if you are concerned with power. I can use my 8-footer at the most aggressive angle behind my 43 hp, 4wd in any field conditions, but I have to set it up at less angle behind my 20 hp 2wd. After the ground is worked a couple passes after plowing, even that 20 hp 2wd will handle the 8-footer at the steepest angle. I have yet to see a 3-point disc that I thought was worth more than its weight in scrap metal.

Still spouting that delusional nonsense? And it's nonsense at it's WORST.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

No, he doesn't. High school physics proves that.

High school physics proves he has no clue what he's talking about

Years of experience proves proves he has no clue what he's talking about.

MILLIONS of hours of research/use by farmers AND manufacturers prove he has no clue what he's talking about.

Common sense proves he has no clue what he's talking about.

.......The moon is made of green cheese, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are real, the earth is flat, "Im from the government and I'm here to help you", and outdated, obsolete drag disc's are the answer to the worlds energy problems..................All concepts with one thing in common......No one in their right mind would believe any of them for a second.


There's a perfectly good explaination why equipment manufacturers quit building drag disc's over 50 years ago, and all but a few ended up rusting away in fencerows decades ago.

It's sort of a pet peeve of mine....people posting ridiculous, unfounded nonsense on the internet where others are looking for accurate information. As mentioned, someone might actually listen to what he's posting (over and over) .

 

[Egon]

Assuming equal weight per disc, a pull-type will pull significantly easier than a 3-point. If you handle the 8 ft, 3-point without any trouble, then you will certainly have no issues with the 10 ft pull-type. I use an 8-foot pull-type behind my 43 hp, 4wd tractor and it doesn't even know it is back there. The 6-foot, 3-point I had previously, pulled significantly harder. I like my equipment on the small side for my available power because it lets me get the job done before soil conditions are perfect. I personally cant stand 3-point discs, but there are many folks who dont know no better so you should have no problems selling yours. You will also notice significantly less fuel usage with a pull-type disc compared to a 3-point. The fuel is saved because less "work" is done with the pull-type, but the ground gets ready to plant sooner because all areas are worked to a uniform depth rather than some places not touched at all and others worked extra deep as occurs with the more ridgid 3-point disc. Pull-type discs are always adjustable on the angle so you can simply set it less aggressive if you are concerned with power. I can use my 8-footer at the most aggressive angle behind my 43 hp, 4wd in any field conditions, but I have to set it up at less angle behind my 20 hp 2wd. After the ground is worked a couple passes after plowing, even that 20 hp 2wd will handle the 8-footer at the steepest angle. I have yet to see a 3-point disc that I thought was worth more than its weight in scrap metal.


Think they still make Pull Type Disc's.:thumbsup:

Pull-type Disc Harrow

http://www.kello-bilt.com/images/stories/kello225dow.jpg

 

[MHarryE]

Disk weight, blade size, gang angle - all make a huge difference. I have a 7 1/2 foot 3 point 18" blade disk that is way too small for my tractor but is handle for some small jobs. I have a 13' tandem wheel type disk with 4 - 3" x 3" x 1/4" angles added to stiffen the frame and 2 large sections of railroad rails added for weight. It had 20" blades to start with but are worn down to nearly 18". It digs much more deeply than the 3 point ever could. If I put as much weight per blade on the 3 point I would need to fill the bucket of my loader with concrete to hold the front end down. But if the tandem ever gets too tough to pull I can lower the wheels a bit to reduce the cut. I have seen disks at auction where the farmer had pulled one or two end blades off each gang, apparently for easier pull. That is always an option if you find a good deal on a disk larger than what you feel you really need and then find you have trouble pulling it.