Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it's worst day!

[_RaT_]

Re: Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it\'s worst day!

WAR, oh wow, is this what you call war? Unbelieveable that a minor discussion from Art and others about what some of us may find interesting regarding misunderstandings about HST and some liken it to war. I call it intelligent discussion, the idea of articulating your facts and diseminating them in front of others. A little unsensitivity training is needed. No Girlie men. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Ole_Hickory]

Re: Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it\'s worst day!

<font color="blue"> You guys have way too much time on your hands... </font>

/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif I must have too much time on my hands,I spend a lot of time here reading etc.

Anytime Art makes a post I have found you can pretty much bank on what he says.The same can be said for Bird.

 

[KiotiJohn]

Re: Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it\'s worst day!

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( WAR, oh wow, is this what you call war? Unbelieveable that a minor discussion from Art and others about what some of us may find interesting regarding misunderstandings about HST and some liken it to war.)</font>
If you had read the post right, you would realize that I was referring to the whole process of this argument, not this particular thread. However, you chose not only to misread it, and make light of it, you decided to be offense to anyone who disagrees with you by the statement "no girlie men," which doesn't belong anywhere in this forum. John

 

[_RaT_]

Re: Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it\'s worst day!

Sorry John, that was mean. No time out, just spank me. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif Rat...

 

[KiotiJohn]

Re: Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it\'s worst day!

/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[_RaT_]

Re: Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it\'s worst day!

Girlie Man Remark

 

[KiotiJohn]

Re: Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it\'s worst day!

Come to think of it, I remember that routine. I've heard Arnold use that term before. Funny in its proper context. John

 

[cowboydoc]

Re: Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it\'s worst day!

<font color="red">One thought - the quoted 20%-30% loss number may then not be referring to the difference between a hydro and a gear system but rather the absolute loss in the hydro system. </font>

Yes you are exactly right Tim. But nobody ever takes the dang time to read what is said. Let's just go pop off some more about the hydro war.

Here is my exact quote. <font color="red">But I don't care what people say I know that the hydro robs more than a couple hp. It's more like 20%. Take 20% off the 58 hp and I'm down to where I am now. </font> Notice for the tractor we were talking about the gross hp is 58hp. The 30 YEAR OLD TEST that Art so flamboyantly put up is exactly what I said, a 20% plus loss in hp. I never said it was a 20% loss compared to gear. But here we go with everyone assuming and then trying to make something out of nothing just because it was a quote about a hydro, in a deere forum about why I didn't want a hydro. How that got blown up into this is beyond me.

 

[art]

Re: Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it\'s worst day!

In prior posts you had infered 20% up to a forty percent loss from a hydro! I would take that as being a loss over the gear just like many others here have. The truth is there are many occasions that a hydro can actually be a major advantage over a gear in pulling! Did it mean you didn't know that many of the gear drives rob so much? Yes the tests are thirty years old and they were done on tractors that many have lived there lives out, but just think as to the improvements over the time and how much better they are today.

 

[cowboydoc]

Re: Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it\'s worst day!

First of all the 30-40% loss that I mentioned is in a combine. I wasn't even talking about a tractor!!! Again don't bother to read the post and what was said. Anyone that runs a combine can tell you that is true. They're great for what they do which is combining. They weren't meant to be pulling a load. If that was true and the hydro was so great in the combines why not put them in the 7000, 8000, and 9000 series tractors? Why go with the IVT when the hydro was already available? Seems pretty stupid to spend millions in R&D to develop the IVT when if the hydro was so great that was already in production was just as good. This is probably the most ridiculous debate over hydro yet. I said there was a 20% loss in hp. Your test that you posted showed a 25% loss. Proved exactly what I said. Never one time in a post did I say that the hydro was 20% less efficient than the gear tractor. What you want to infer and try to make into a debate is your problem.

And if they're so much better today where's the proof? I have yet to see an official test. I know what people say that I've talked to and it's still running the same as what you showed.