JD's lackluster RD department

<image src="http://forums.yesterdaystractors.com/photos/mvphoto22789.jpg"/>





<image src="http://forums.yesterdaystractors.com/photos/mvphoto22790.jpg"/>

<image



The first link is to a patent for a TA in 1935 that JD chose not to market. The 2nd is for the MIV transmission which stood for mechanical infinite variable transmission. Patented in 1969 but development started in 1958. It was even installed in a few 4020s and sent out to farmers for testing. It worked but the reason JD didn't market it because there was concern of the high cost and long term reliability with all of the precision parts needed. The picture is of one their rotary combines they were working on in the late 50s and early 60s. To say JD didn't spend much on R&D is idiotic. Just because they didn't put it on the market doesn't mean they weren't working on it. You can accuse them of being conservative and not being the first in innovation but they sure weren't last either. And they did have some firsts anyway. I'm betting if you take IH out of the equation JD was spending more money in R&D on AG equipment then any 3 of the others combined.
JD TA

JD MIV

I like where their version of the TA is mounted. That big flywheel on the side came in handy. The location of it would sure be a heck of a lot easier to work on than the IH. I would be curious to see who's would be the most durable.

The rotary idea was actually started in the 40's by IH when they were designing the MX-4 (Maybe that is the right model???) corn sheller attachment for the mounted corn pickers. They were trying to design a sheller with a greater capacity. Supposedly one of the engineers left IH and went to New Holland. That is how New Holland got the idea. Or so I read a while back.

I think their idea of holding back on the MIV transmission was a smart one. I am not sure how the materials and machining tolerances would have lasted for very long. But then again who knows.

I think it is amazing how a lot of the "new" ideas and inventions were actually thought of a long time ago and for one reason or another they were shelved.

Your point is well taken, Deere poured plenty of money into R&amp;D, however the "MIV" trans. link you posted was for a variable speed belt driven transmission, don't think too many farmers woulda been interested in a belt drive 30/4020. :roll:

What is being referred to as a TA if quite different from what IH and the other manufacturers developed for changing speeds under load. Even the patent describes it as a speed reduction transmission. The clutch in this application is either engaged as it normally would be or it engages the speed reduction unit. It lists using a control rod along with the clutch to select what speed you will be using.

JD tends to buy their 'inovations' from small fry, and tinker on it for a while to get it in production.

Seems to work for them.

I maybe would not call them innovative, more opportunistic.

Paul

Very interesting! Im wondering if A-C didn't see that sheet metal design and copied it for the N series Gleaners?

Im not surprised at seeing John Deere testing a rotary design years ago. Im betting there were a lot more prototype rotaries painted green until they release their "STS" combines.

Rotary combines go back as far as the 20s. Curtis Baldwin was working with rotary designs through the years including one that I recall being named a "Savage" combine. Cant remember for sure on the name. There were other rotary machines built by small companies as well.

John Deere wasn't the only one working with CVT transmissions. White had one designed, their biggest problem was dealing with keeping the transmission from slowing down too fast if the operator pulled too quickly on the lever. IH were well known for having a CVT that they dubbed the "Mechanical Hydro" that they were working on in the 60s until they closed. Before Case took over IH had it slated to come out in 1988 but Case scrapped it.

One interesting thing AC had was in the 40s they had designed a 5 speed power shift transmission that was mechanically engaging instead of hydraulic like the power shifts turned out.

I had the opportunity to speak with the engineer who took the round baler designed and built by Ummo Luebben and built the AC Roto Baler. He told me that John Deere and IH had prototype round balers in the 50s. I have seen the patent drawings of the IH one, would love to see pictures of those two machines.

Who knows what other ideas were attempted.

Jim

My dad worked for that department as a mechanic in the late 50s, saw some interesting things.

Interesting that the experimental combine features a rotary screen. It didn't return untill the later xx00 machinesin the early '70's.

I thought the 40 combine had a rotating screen. I don't know what took JD so long to put that on all their combines. The 00 series should have had that from the get go. Can't figure out why the engineers didn't see the overheating problems associated with the flat screen during testing.

If you do some research you will find a lot of these "innovations" pioneered by their parent companies was the result of them buying out a company or patent rights from somebody else. Look up the IH cylco planter and the AC all crop combine.

The story I read was similar to yours but took place much later. IH had two prototype rotaries they were working on in the 60s. The single axial rotor and the twin rotor. They decided to go with the single rotor and so some of the team jumped ship to NH taking the twin rotor design with them. Then of course NH introduced the TR 70 2 years before the IH AF hit the market. Correct me if I am wrong but aren't cylinder type corn shellers a form of rotary separating or threshing. I thought Case had the option of a corn sheller on their tractor mounted corn pickers in the late 30s.

Except that belt was a smooth steel chain not a rubber belt. They also looked in to hydros but tossed that idea.

Deere likes to finish 2nd in technology races. Finishing first is too expensive and finishing last indicates you are just that.

Keep posting junk like this the yt anti deere department will drive you off this board .

Nope the folks on here are all to happy to bash JD without one tiny little bit of hard enough to take it to the bank evidence. The only outright case on JD taking an idea I know of was the Cat vs JD legal fight over the tracked tractor drive. CASEIH just paid Cat to use their design and AGCO hasn't plunged into that market as far as I know.

For what it's worth JD dropped the 2 cyl engine because of 2 things. One being that they really couldn't pump to much more HP in that design and a big one from that day.....other companies ads. Everything in that day was geared toward "modern" this and that. They other manufactures were hinting strongly that theirs were a better more modern design than JD's poppers.

Many things developed through the years failed for various reason. The brand specific hitch systems being one. One group claims they were the greatest invention sense toilet paper yet they failed. Why? Because the companies failed to understand farmers in general who were independent mined people who didn't like being told what they had to buy. My sister's FIL owned 3 IH fast hitch tractors and not one fast hitch implement as an example. Said he wasn't going to let IH tell him what to buy. He had aftermarket adapters to allow him to use 3 point implements.

Every tractor company out there today and most that failed or were bought out somewhere along the line acquired other companies and patents and whatever was under development at the time.

Just cause you like MM (sold out) Oliver (sold out) Ford (sold out) MH/MF (sold out) AC (failed) IH (failed) Case (sold out) isn't cause to jump JD every chance you get. I only own 2 JD implements and am no big JD fan but you ain't going to change people's minds.

Rick