My last point is if the hst doesn't do anything better, why have it?
I never said they "don't do anything better". As for 5% losses, that's optimistic to say the least. Any manufacturer of hydrostatic pumps and hydraulic motors has information readily available that shows the efficiency of the components across a range of speeds and loads. You *might* find a sweet spot in which the coupled losses of the pump and motor total 5%, but it most certainly will not be across the entire range of operation. And if we need to find such a "sweet spot" in the range of load and operation in order to *support* an argument about how efficient they are, then how relevant to an "efficiency comparison" discussion is that?
You don't need to rev it up if you have a 10 hp motor, it will happily chug at low rpm if the hst and aux gear box are sized right.
Once again, visit a manufacturer's website. Design a machine in your head or on paper, and come up with a pump you feel will be appropriate. (This is what equipment manufacturers do.) Now, see if the pump you have chosen, (based upon what it's capable of delivering to do the job you want it to do), has a recommended set of parameters its supposed to operate in. There WILL be a spec for an rpm range. And "sizing" the hydrostatic pump "right" need to take that into account. Minimum rpm is one of the most important considerations, but the possibility of overspeeding shouldn't be ignored either.
Do you understand the concept of drawbar hp and that it is limited by the weight of the tractor?
Yes I do. This thread topic though is about HST power consumption, and it simply cannot be argued that HST is as efficient at transferring available engine hp into useful work. Do the losses in a specific application make HST impractical? Probably not....never said they did. But that doesn't change the fact that they're less efficient. And in many applications that "built-in" inefficiency is made up for by up-sizing the powerplant.
I agree, a single stage roller chain drive at low speeds, is extremely efficient, one of the most efficient actually. Doesn't really have a place in the conversation about tractors.
I didn't *just* mention chains. There are also belts and gears. ANY of those simple things will transfer power more efficiently from the engine into useable work.
Unless we conveniently re-define what "efficiency" is, HST is less efficient. Debating it on a forum is hardly necessary when we can visit websites from manufacturers with hard numbers. Applications in which HST is not chosen, is NOT completely due to the cost. It's ridiculous to say that it is.
Some of these discussions kind of swerve into a ditch. Owners with *this* brand or *that* brand of something, or that have chosen *this* type of equipment over *that* type, seem to find it necessary to convince others that what they've chosen is the way to go. I don't understand it myself, it's not as if something I own is less satisfying to me if someone else has chosen something different to use....