Double bale handler

blonde10

Evening all.
Whats yer thoughts on double bale handler has anybody got them and what size of trctor would ye have it on...i see a neighbour with one on a 5455 and a bale on a front loader aswell...is it a lot of weight on a tractor,3 bales?? Any thoughts..

Bullocks

We have one on a 5140 case, it's no problem to it but the front would be light all the same. Especially with wet bales

lstmd

Currently in the market for a tractor and have a similar query. Looking at a nhtl100 or a T5050. Woundering if it would handle a double bale carrier. A bale could weigh up to 1T. Anyone using a double bale carrier on the back if either?

hopeso

lstmd wrote: »

Currently in the market for a tractor and have a similar query. Looking at a nhtl100 or a T5050. Woundering if it would handle a double bale carrier. A bale could weigh up to 1T. Anyone using a double bale carrier on the back if either?

Far too light, in my opinion. Especially if bales are wet.....

K.G.

lstmd wrote: »

Currently in the market for a tractor and have a similar query. Looking at a nhtl100 or a T5050. Woundering if it would handle a double bale carrier. A bale could weigh up to 1T. Anyone using a double bale carrier on the back if either?

have double on back and single on loader on tl 80 followed by tl100 and no problems lovely balance, just dont be bating up and down the road

Mooooo

Nh 7840 here. 2 fusion bales would have the front rising. Have put a share of weights on the front to counter it.

lstmd

Some bales are only suitable for one at a time. Might borrow a double carrier and test it before I purchase. Thanks

jntsnk

TS115
Flemming bale handler 3 on the back , one on the front , no issue

Buford T. Justice XIX

Mooooo wrote: »

Nh 7840 here. 2 fusion bales would have the front rising. Have put a share of weights on the front to counter it.

A bale would be handy:pac:

lstmd

Making big money €30 to €40 on done deal. Won’t like to be paying €40

josephsoap

jntsnk wrote: »

TS115
Flemming bale handler 3 on the back , one on the front , no issue

Any pics from the summer of this ?

jntsnk

josephsoap wrote: »

Any pics from the summer of this ?

No
Just put 2 bales together , place one on top of them and back in with your bale handler.

Bullocks

jntsnk wrote: »

No
Just put 2 bales together , place one on top of them and back in with your bale handler.

Would the handler be able for the weight of the third one?

jntsnk

Bullocks wrote: »

Would the handler be able for the weight of the third one?

Have been doing it for three years no issue. Flemming are a strong handler as well

josephsoap

Bullocks wrote: »

Would the handler be able for the weight of the third one?

Just after coming across this, a specifically designed 3 bale handler.

https://www.donedeal.ie/balers-for-sale/bale-handler/20070961

Albert Johnson

josephsoap wrote: »

Just after coming across this, a specifically designed 3 bale handler.

https://www.donedeal.ie/balers-for-sale/bale-handler/20070961

That would be a fair weapon of a yoke to clear ground. I have used a double handler a few times and even the difference in just bringing two as opposed to one bale was massive. Between myself and another lad we had 200 bales gathered and stacked in half a day. A hydraulic toplink is a must and leaves gathering off uneven ground so much easier.
From my own limited experience with a 100 hp landini I found that 2 heavy bales were able to leave the steering light. A few weights might have overcame this but I would be afraid that another on the loader would have been a step to far.
The above combination of three on the back and one on the loader would be a serious weapon on good ground with wilted bales. However here in the west with hilly ground, bad gaps and heavy bales I couldn't see it lasting long term.
It would however be a good conversation starter at the ploughing or Tullamore, a man can dream!!

patsy_mccabe

josephsoap wrote: »

Just after coming across this, a specifically designed 3 bale handler.

https://www.donedeal.ie/balers-for-sale/bale-handler/20070961

A John Deere 6430 for example has a lift capacity of 2,000kg. That yoke would be pushing the limit easily.

Muckit

Id say the lift capacity could be twice that

9935452

Muckit wrote: »

Id say the lift capacity could be twice that

Tractordata.com shows it at 2.3 ton at 20 inches.
From john deere brochure its 5ton

9935452

lstmd wrote: »

Currently in the market for a tractor and have a similar query. Looking at a nhtl100 or a T5050. Woundering if it would handle a double bale carrier. A bale could weigh up to 1T. Anyone using a double bale carrier on the back if either?

You should be ok with either .
I have a Ursus 912 80hp 2wd which draws with a double and has 300kgs of weights on the front for doing so.
Dry bales it needs no weights, Wet fusion bales she needs the weights.
Its a paddle/ducks feet bale handler.

The one thing which allows her to do it is the bale handler is as close to the tractor as possible . The lower link pins are 4 inches to the back of the bale. The lift arms are nearly rubbing off the back of the bale .
Some that I measured were 12/13 inches back from the pins.
It makes a difference to a small tractor

Bass Reeves

josephsoap wrote: »

Just after coming across this, a specifically designed 3 bale handler.

https://www.donedeal.ie/balers-for-sale/bale-handler/20070961

Not sure if on short runs it would be much of an advantage. First you will need to put two bales together. The advantage of hydrulic double handlers is that you do not need to reverse in second bale next to first before you load. With this you need to put two together and then load third on top. Then you need to put another bale on front loader before you reverse in to load the three. It would also be a pain in the yard stacking them.

Finally along with the weight of three bales there is fair weight on the handler compared to a simple non hydrulic double handler. You would want a lift capacity of 4.5-5 ton even at that you be in danger of straining something. Unless you are handling thousand's of bales you would have to question the economics of it

Grueller

Just wondering do lads be over thinking these things? I have often carried 2 on the back and one on a loader on a TL90. Modern tractors ie mid 90s on are well able for that kind of work. That same TL pulls a 1600 tanker, runs a 9' mounted mower and has hauled 22 silage bales on an 8 mile draw. Lads are going to say the bales are irresponsible but all 4 wheels on the bale trailer are braked and maintained meticulously. She is also only 30k and wouldn't be flying.

hopeso

9935452 wrote: »

Tractordata.com shows it at 2.3 ton at 20 inches.
From john deere brochure its 5ton

The manufacturers brochures always quote lift capacity measured at the link ends.. It's stated there in the small print somewhere..
Even 2.3 ton at 20 inches is much use when you consider how much further back the two bales will be. Basically, in my opinion, a four cylinder tractor isn't capable of handling two wet bales, weighing the guts of a ton each......

Justjens

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Not sure if on short runs it would be much of an advantage. First you will need to put two bales together. The advantage of hydrulic double handlers is that you do not need to reverse in second bale next to first before you load. With this you need to put two together and then load third on top. Then you need to put another bale on front loader before you reverse in to load the three. It would also be a pain in the yard stacking them.

Haul three on the back and one on the front with most of my bales, JD 6120.

Once you've one load up making a stack of three with the loader takes very little time compared to the extra runs needed to clear the field with only two, IMO.

I always leave singles back down the field to grab on the way in

K.G.

Grueller wrote: »

Just wondering do lads be over thinking these things? I have often carried 2 on the back and one on a loader on a TL90. Modern tractors ie mid 90s on are well able for that kind of work. That same TL pulls a 1600 tanker, runs a 9' mounted mower and has hauled 22 silage bales on an 8 mile draw. Lads are going to say the bales are irresponsible but all 4 wheels on the bale trailer are braked and maintained meticulously. She is also only 30k and wouldn't be flying.

ah but thats a tl,cant compare them to normal tractors the fiat

Grueller

K.G. wrote: »

ah but thats a tl,cant compare them to normal tractors the fiat

Not sure whether I detect sarcasm or not. They are a gutsy little yoke though.

9935452

hopeso wrote: »

The manufacturers brochures always quote lift capacity measured at the link ends.. It's stated there in the small print somewhere..
Even 2.3 ton at 20 inches is much use when you consider how much further back the two bales will be. Basically, in my opinion, a four cylinder tractor isn't capable of handling two wet bales, weighing the guts of a ton each......

Even a modern 140/160hp 4 cylinder ?
I know my own 80hp tractor has the same back end lift and gearbox as a 160hp tractor has.



-+

Reggie.

9935452 wrote: »

Even a modern 140/160hp 4 cylinder ?
I know my own 80hp tractor has the same back end lift and gearbox as a 160hp tractor has.



-+

I doubt that

K.G.

Grueller wrote: »

Not sure whether I detect sarcasm or not. They are a gutsy little yoke though.

absolutly no sarcasm.i have tl 100 and i tell people its the best tractor in ireland .it gives very little trouble and nice to drive especially in a yard.a bit bouncey on the road as its so short.

jntsnk

Reggie. wrote: »

I doubt that

What tractors are you comparing?

Grueller

K.G. wrote: »

absolutly no sarcasm.i have tl 100 and i tell people its the best tractor in ireland .it gives very little trouble and nice to drive especially in a yard.a bit bouncey on the road as its so short.

Agree 100% re the road. Great job about the yard though.

memorystick

Would a John Deere 4wd with loader handle 2 bales on the back?

emaherx

memorystick wrote: »

Would a John Deere 4wd with loader handle 2 bales on the back?

Some will.
Some definitely won't.

Think we'd need a bit more information

Reggie.

jntsnk wrote: »

What tractors are you comparing?

Any of them really. Modern 5h 115 Landinis are smaller than the 6H 140s and the massey 5713 has a bigger back end than the 5710. The T5 new holland is smaller than the T6 back end also

memorystick

emaherx wrote: »

Some will.
Some definitely won't.

Think we'd need a bit more information

John Deere 2650 with a JD loader. 4wd

9935452

Reggie. wrote: »

I doubt that

The older zetors and ursus's did which is what mine is.

emaherx

memorystick wrote: »

John Deere 2650 with a JD loader. 4wd

Possibly.... But it may be considered abuse for both tractor and driver.