Technology in Farm Machinery Field

[nomad]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Changing the CG of anything does not affect it's weight at all. CG is a relative point used to simplify the analysis of how an object's mass acts in a system. )</font>

Maybe, I wasn't clear enough. I'm not saying/claiming that by changing CG, its weight of tractor will change. I'm only reducing applied power, say, for a plow by tractor by changing CG (center of gravity) of tractor. For cars, CG's position doesn't change much as nothing is attached to them. But, tractors are different; sometimes you attach a field cultivator with many feets length, sometimes you attach a 3pt fertilizer spreader with many feets high. So, CG position in tractors often change depending on the attachment. So, this should be reconsidered and change in CG position should be taken into account if we are aiming to lower fuel consumption. RobS mentioned that this is already being done by adding weights on tractors. Correct application, but manual and insufficient adjustment of CG's position. This should be automatically done on tractor depending on the attachment, i.e. total weight and volume occupied by them. Yes, I'm aware of that this is a very difficult work to be done. But I have an idea. In old days, the idea was the money. lol. If this (CG adjustment) was needed in the luxury cars, research center would work hard like the bees. Who cares about the farmers? except Nomad;-)?

 

[Egon]

Kinda curious obout this center of gravity on luxury cars. Are they all midmount engines for a minimum effect of polar inertia?

Egon

 

[yellowsocks93]

Reminds me of the Ferguson system on our Massey 135. New things have got to be tried or how will we know they will not work well for us? I think you idea may work. Never know it may catch on like the Ferguson system and be on every new tractor in the future.

 

[Villengineer]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( For cars, CG's position doesn't change much as nothing is attached to them. )</font>
For car's the CG doesn't need to change much to have a drastic affect on the dynamics of the car. That's one of the reasons sports cars and race cars sit close to the ground and have very stiff supensions.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( If this (CG adjustment) was needed in the luxury cars, research center would work hard like the bees. Who cares about the farmers? )</font>
Hate to inform you, but this has already been done. See the several year old Lincoln Mark VIII, which would automatically lower it's center of gravity as speed increased. The entire car would actually lower a couple inches by the time the car got into the 100mph range. Also there are some 4x4 vehicles which adjust their height, and thus their CG, to allow better performance on highway.
In the industry I work in, CG location is of the utmost importance as both performance and safety are at stake. There are a few manufacturers using active suspensions to change the CG but mostly to prevent roll-over in the secondary plane. Unfortunately, the amount of weight that would need to be moved in the primary plane makes it unfeasable to accomplish automatically either with the suspension or other means. Without actually doing any CG or force analysis, my educated guess would that the same would apply to most tractors. Off the top of my head, most likely this would be most usefull on CUTs since they are relatively light to start with. The larger tractors would require so much weight to be moved that it wouldn't be feasable. The problems I see with apply it to CUTs is that you would most likely lose several of the features that attract people to them now.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I'm only reducing applied power, say, for a plow by tractor by changing CG (center of gravity) of tractor. )</font>
Here's the problem I see with this. Now this has been a few years ago, but when I worked on farms where we used large tractors and plows we always added A LOT of weight as far out in the front of the tractor as possible to keep the front wheels on the ground. Transfering power to the ground usually wasn't much of an issue, thus the wheel stands. We definitely weren't saving any fuel as the tractor was now doing work to simply move that extra weight. To carry that extra weight around at all times, no matter how you arranged it would have been very inefficient.

 

[Villengineer]

Mid-mount engines are a compromise between trying to achieve a 50:50 front to back weight ratio (ideal for handling) and placing as much weight over the drive axle (maximize traction). This why front engine/front drive cars tend to "plow" and front engine/rear drive cars get "light" in the rear. This is all way overly simplified, but I hope it helps answer your question.

 

[b6200hst]

Nomad, automatically changing center of gravity? Isn't that just using computer technology and not really a technological advance in materials? (To use your own uh, can you call it logic???) How many 60-70 year old pieces of machinery (that likely have spent many of those years sitting outside with little maintence other than fluid changes) are still in use today? Why change them if they work, they are relatively inexpensive, and we LOVE them.
Just about everybody on this forum are great folks, I get the feeling your ideas/ramblings are just a ruse to get everyone's feathers ruffled.
It worked.

 

[RobS]

<font color="blue"> Who cares about the farmers? except Nomad </font>

Nearly everything in the US is based on good old fashioned supply and demand. Lot's of people care about the farmers and the current state of technology in agricultural equipment is a testiment to that but it is based on the demand for said technology.

The comparison to luxury cars keeps coming up. Allow me to take that comparison to an extreme...

Most would agree that sitting down to watch an NFL game is a luxury. It's not a basic need, each of us could survive just fine having never seen that game. Yet there is sufficient demand for the product that countless millions (billions?) are spent producing what the consumer wants. That demand also spurs technology to make the experience better for the consumer. Is there more technology in the NFL (or NBA, NHL, MLB) than in a piece of farm machinery? Does it really matter? The technological improvements will follow the demand for them.

Now having said that, are we skewed as a nation of consumers? Do we care more about watching a football game than we do about the price of a gallon of milk and the farmers producing it? Are those football players more important than our teachers, law enforcement officers, fire fighters etc? Sadly, that would seem to be the case. In our free market economy the demand for entertainment (including luxury cars) has outpaced the demand for basic services and that is unfortunate. Not sure what to do about it and that's a whole new topic for a forum other than TBN /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[art]

The numbers put the farm machinery on a low list for improvements. It is a very competitive field and it does rate behind the auto industry. I believe the center of gravity of a tractor is important but weight distribution is more so. Many jobs don't require the weight that maybe a tillage job might require. The balance of weight from front to rear is important. With the hills here in central NY I've seen more then one demo fail from poor ballasting.

 

[MossRoad]

<font color="blue"> To carry that extra weight around at all times, no matter how you arranged it would have been very inefficient </font>

If you had some type of device to slide the weights forward when you needed the front end to come down, then backwards when you needed more traction, that might work. Kind of like draft control except you move the weights instead of raising the implements. My guess is it has probably been tried before, because it is such an obvious thing to try. Messing with the CG on the fly might get into handling problems on slopes and any moving device is just one more thing to maintain and repair. Plus, you'd probably need some complicated linkage or computer control to operate it. The cost might outweigh the benefit, but that's what research and development are for, right? /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[MossRoad]

<font color="blue"> How many 60-70 year old pieces of machinery (that likely have spent many of those years sitting outside with little maintence other than fluid changes) are still in use today? Why change them if they work, they are relatively inexpensive, and we LOVE them. </font>

That could get us into the "I do it that way because my grandpapa did it that way" debate. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I kind of enjoy re-inventing the wheel once in a while. If I go through a process and end up with the original, it shows just how good the inventor was. However, if I end up with something better, like my Power Trac then.....

(if Nomad didn't ruffle any feathers, that surely will /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif )