It's about accurate seed placement - Kuhn North America

top
D
The linkage-mounted Multidrill models
earned very mixed marks. Good
marks were awarded to the hopper for
low filling height, convenient access and
D
Rabe/Pöttinger
Even though
owners have a
few issues with
their linkagemounted
Multidrill,
79% would
buy it again.
Sharing plenty of components with its
linkage-mounted cousins, the cultiva-
tor-mounted Multidrill versions earned
similar marks in the survey. However,
these models require twice as many repairs
than the average rate. The repairs
affected all parts of the machine.
The hopper scored well for easy access,
emptying and cleaning. Owners also
praise the lid although they
find the hopper itself could
do with more capacity. The
seed level gauge is not accurate
enough.
Swapping to rapeseed and
other small seeds requires fitting
inserts, which are difficult
useful lid. The same applied to emptying
and cleaning. Downside is the small hopper
volume and the inaccurate seed level
gauge.
to install. Drilling to calibrated seed rates is
more accurate than on the linkage-mounted
models, which seems to be attributed to
the spike wheel, which obviously performs
more accurately than wheels.
The disc coulters have more problems
with seed placement than Suffolk
coulters, because they sometimes
drill too deep or leave
Multidrill
(cultivator-mounted mechanical drill)
Year of manufacture: from 1997
(MEL version)
Work width: 3.0 m and 4.0 m
Hopper capacity: 510 l or 700 l on
3 m version; 720 l or 1,000 l on 4 m
version
80% of the
owners
surveyed
would buy
their
cultivatormounted
Multidrill
again.
Multidrill (linkage-mounted mechanical drill)
Year of manufacture: from 1997
(MEL version)
Work width: 3.0 m and 4.0 m
Hopper capacity: 510 l or 700 l on
3 m version; 720 l or 1,000 l on 4 m
version
Conversion to small seeds by fitting
plastic inserts is a fiddle for some. Drilling
to the calibrated seed rates is not
very accurate. Another issue is coulter
performance. Criticism mostly centred on
inadequate depth control, coulter
blockages and a less than optimum distribution
across and along rows.
As to tines, the standard tools perform
particularly poorly. The tine material
could do with being stronger, too. The outer
tines slide inwards for road transport.
Quality of build was assessed as less than
average. Repairs became necessary on
the mountings, the seed delivery tubes
and on the tines. The tubes were modified
in 2000. Still, despite some problems the
overall assessment was surprisingly
good.
seeds on the surface. The marks for the
harrow tines for this design are as poor as
for the mounted machines. Criticism focused
on the adjustment system. However,
despite these drawbacks, 80% of the
owners say they would buy the machine
again.
User assessments - Rabe/Pöttinger
Linkage-m.
Multidrill*
Cultivator-m.
Multidrill*
Average
result
Visibility 2.3 2.2 2.1
Lift
requirement
2.7 2.4 2.5
Hopper 2.0 2.1 2.2
Seed rate
setting system
2.4 2.2 2.1
Seed
placement
2.1 2.0 1.9
Tine bar 2.2 2.2 2.0
Quality of
build
No. of
2.1 1.9 1.7
repairs/500
ha
3.9 6.4 3.0
Buy again?
Yes
79 % 80 % 75 %
The Schulnoten: grading 1 system = sehr follows gut bis a 5 scale = sehr from schlecht 1 to 5, with
1 * representing Rabe Multidrill excellent u. Pöttinger and 5 Vitasem being extremely fast baugleich poor.
This special print is published by special approval of Landwirtschaftsverlag GmbH, Hülsebrockstr. 2, D-48165 Münster.
* Rabe Multidrill and Pöttinger Vitasem feature nearly identical designs