|
Cowman: Again no arguments, if you want pay the piper, it's your choice. It's a well known fact that hydraulic motors are an expensive way to transmit power, yet one of the very best ways when that power must be infinately variable. I you really must have hydro, put a 55 hp skidsteer against that hydro of yours and and he will run circles around you. He'll have the bale to the tub grinder before you get turned around. Now if I were advising someone to buy a round baler tractor, I'd say go Deere power shift all the way. Gives you all the speeds you'll ever need for the baler, will change directions faster than the hydro, plus it will have good drawbar efficiency. The very first farm applications we ever saw of hydrostatic drive were combines, and yes it allowed the operator to keep an even flow over the walkers and seives without wasting grain. Hydrostatic tractors became very popular on potato harvesters. Unlike the old chain diggers with 8' to 10' of chain now it was 40' of chain before the potato got to the truck. In order to prevent bruising they had to keep their speeds such that the chains retained a large percentage of the soil until close to the truck. Then you get into some of the precission vegetable harvesters where speed changes of .1 Kilometer per hour are necessary. These jobs have very high value compared to loader work or baling. I operated one of these machines a few seasons in the 90s, and the hydrostatics on the harvester were all computer controlled, the ground speed was 1.5 to 2 kpm canged by the operator. It had digital reading of speed and harvester components. That my friend is what hydrostatics were designed for. Now if your one of these wealthy mid west beef barons, who really cares what you drive.
| 
