Hay sled demand?

[5030]

Why my tractor tires are never loaded and when I get done bailing a field, I move all the bales to the area where the ditch is, I never leave them out in a field. Compaction is always an issue even with row cropping and why a lot of row crop famers are going to tracked machines. Less ground pressure equals less compaction and less destroyed plants.

 

[civilian]

I think the friction of the sled runners could be significant during turns. Maybe 2 sleds each with 2 round bales versus 1 sled for 4 bales. Jon

 

[walnutman]

I built a prototype hay sled to move round bales that are too heavy for my MF1250. I'm having a 3rd year engineering class engineer something that should hold up much better. There is a local student run high school fabrication business that I plan on talking to about listing them as a product. If interested, you would be buying from them, I'm just facilitating the project.

The sled worked well for me. It didn't tear up the field and reduced my number of trips. I expect the final sled to carry 4 bales. How many folks are in my position with one tractor that is just a bit too small for hay?

Any thoughts on requirements that I should give the student engineers? How many bales? I'm targeting a 30 hp tractor. The hitch point should be high enough to use the 3 point hook without dismounting. Light enough to put on a trailer with a couple of guys. Short enough to trailer on a car hauler (maybe it's two sled chained together?). Maybe a rear set of wheels so it would work as a poor man's low boy.

View attachment 815928

I like your thinking. Yes a sled is much safer than a wagon. If you have a brain you know where it's safe to drag. Farmers have died using the recommended equipment due to stupidity.
Here's another idea... poke a hole through the center with a bar and make a u shaped contraption to attach to the ends of the bar with a 3ph attachment or just a straight tow bar. Then the bale will roll.

 

[rlmnky]

I’m an old guy who grew up with a team of horses to do everything on the farm. My ancestors used both wagons and sleds but once we got the first tractor the horses were soon gone. I had forgotten all the wisdom my ancestors had tried to instill in me until a few years ago when I needed to move a bunch of large rocks (1000 + lbs ea) on a Saturday and found my trailer had two flat tires. I could either spend my (and my worker’) time fixing the flats or moving the rocks. I decided to fix the tires on a rainy day. I knew I had an old sled in very back of my grandfather’s old log barn so I decided to give it a try. We loaded those boulders 4-5 at a time and moved them with a 25 hp tractor. It brought back a lot of memories and knowledge I had completely forgotten. The sled runners did absolutely no damage to the grass or fields and the sled always stopped when I stopped pulling. Our ancestors knew that a sled was the safest and best way to move a heavy load with minimal impact, especially on hilly ground - we’ve just forgotten what was once common knowledge.

 

[Eagle1]

I like your thinking. Yes a sled is much safer than a wagon. If you have a brain you know where it's safe to drag. Farmers have died using the recommended equipment due to stupidity.
Here's another idea... poke a hole through the center with a bar and make a u shaped contraption to attach to the ends of the bar with a 3ph attachment or just a straight tow bar. Then the bale will roll.

If net wrapped the net will catch everything and self destruct before you get very far. Don't ask how I learned that one.... too little tractor to far to roll.

 

[alpha&omega]

I know this won’t help your students, but it may give some others ideas of thinking outside the box.
This is what I use around our property to move large square bales, round bales, logs, brush…etc. I’ve had mine for a few years now, one of the originals and it has held up quite well. The thing is extremely stout…at least the model we bought is.

Yard Glider – PRO12 - The Cart Without Wheels - Made in USA

PRO Yard Glider is ideal for commercial, farm or heavy home use. Holds more than lawn carts, stronger than tarps. Load without lifting. Great for bulky loads.

yardglider.com

 

[chim]

Neat idea, but it doesn't look like it would handle uneven terrain (hills and gullies) without either digging in at the front or bending when going over short rises.

 

[zzvyb6]

So here's my Engineer's Cap input: Fundamentally, your sled is too narrow to remain stable if & when turning will be needed for maneuvering. Assuming a 3' c.g height for the bales, the sled should be about 6' WIDE to safely transport a product to be purchased by retail customers and avoid product litigation (if that's where you are going with this). You could add 'outriggers to do this job, but it's extra weight and cost. Just recently a man was nearly killed when a similar device in use dropped a round bale on top of him.

Then the 'bridge structure is not tall enough to support point loads at each end that are the expected weight you will be carrying. It looks to be a similar to a hay elevator bridge. That would have an additional center support pier. If it's to be a 'sled', then you need wide 'runners' to support the expected weight assuming a nominal sliding coefficient of friction and soil compaction.

Then there is the 'Answer to a question not being asked'. If getting hay out from a field with insufficient lifting capacity, I'll point out my own situation. I do hay all by my self, my solution for minimal cost and tractor power is square baling and a NH Stack wagon. My 22 hp Yanmar handled all of these tasks just fine (although i'm up to a 35 hp JD 1070) : NH 479 haybine, JD square baler, and a NH 1012 stacker. The stacker has dump as well as single bale unload. All of this works with any strain on me, my fields, tractor, my accountant, and my customers. I should point out that this solution has triggered additional 'at barn' inventions: squares into rounds and rounds into squares. Each of these technologies is applicable to safe handling of heavy, awkward, and legally tempting material handling needs & requirements.

But finding a use for a discarded space frame is the wrong way to go. First the need to move hay followed by a means to accomplish it is what your students should be challenged by, some of whom may already be dealing with your hay transport situation. Obviously a tractor or skid steer upgrade is the safest method I would pursue.

 

[alpha&omega]

Neat idea, but it doesn't look like it would handle uneven terrain (hills and gullies) without either digging in at the front or bending when going over short rises.

My property is anything but even, and I haven’t had any digging. Granted the front end of my sled is raised off the ground a bit from the cable rope attachment I made (similar to the ones they used on the website).
The only issue I ran into was the weight of the sled and the ability to store it. Once removed from the wrapping and adding the pull cables it doesn’t want to “roll” back up very easy.

*edit: the sled does have some flex to it, so when taking sharp turns especially when going over uneven terrain, the sled has enough give to not cause the load to tip over.

 

[Torvy]

You know when you tell your kids to look both ways when they cross the street and they don't do it because they didn't get hit the last time they didn't look? It only takes once to be sorry forever.

 

[Joe Batt]

So here's my Engineer's Cap input: Fundamentally, your sled is too narrow to remain stable if & when turning will be needed for maneuvering. Assuming a 3' c.g height for the bales, the sled should be about 6' WIDE to safely transport a product to be purchased by retail customers and avoid product litigation (if that's where you are going with this). ...

Assuming the bale didn't slide off of the sled first and that the sled will not slide sideways, wouldn't 6' wide track allow you to pull 1G in the turn before rolling over? My tractor doesn't go that fast.

Why is a sled with a 4' track that puts the CG at 3' less stable than a hay wagon with a 7' track that puts the cg at 6'? The low CG should greatly increase the stability of the implement.

I'm missing something with the analysis, because it seems intuitively obvious to me that leaving the bales on the ground (or within inches) is more stable than lifting them onto a hay wagon that has wheels and no brakes.

 

[Joe Batt]

... you need wide 'runners' to support the expected weight ...

It looks like 5 PSI is a good goal for ground pressure. So, very roughly 4,000 lbs / 5PSI = is 800 square inches. So a minimum of a 67" track 6" wide on each side.. though I'd want the skids in the corners, so 4 36" skids each 6" wide (or shorter and wider). Is that what you are imagining?

 

[5030]

Why not just buy a commercially made bale carrier?

 

[Torvy]

Assuming the bale didn't slide off of the sled first and that the sled will not slide sideways, wouldn't 6' wide track allow you to pull 1G in the turn before rolling over? My tractor doesn't go that fast.

Why is a sled with a 4' track that puts the CG at 3' less stable than a hay wagon with a 7' track that puts the cg at 6'? The low CG should greatly increase the stability of the implement.

I'm missing something with the analysis, because it seems intuitively obvious to me that leaving the bales on the ground (or within inches) is more stable than lifting them onto a hay wagon that has wheels and no brakes.

Because you are not using drag in your intuitive calculations. While it would be true that a taller sled would be less stable, it is not necessarily so with a hay wagon. Modern trailers give you the ability to keep the load low and have significantly less drag.

If this was truly a better option, the professional hay farmers would already be using them. Even if the risk was equal, the drag means you are using more diesel to do the same work. I know my full time farming family members look for every edge to keep costs down.

 

[zzvyb6]

Assuming the bale didn't slide off of the sled first and that the sled will not slide sideways, wouldn't 6' wide track allow you to pull 1G in the turn before rolling over? My tractor doesn't go that fast.

Why is a sled with a 4' track that puts the CG at 3' less stable than a hay wagon with a 7' track that puts the cg at 6'? The low CG should greatly increase the stability of the implement.

I'm missing something with the analysis, because it seems intuitively obvious to me that leaving the bales on the ground (or within inches) is more stable than lifting them onto a hay wagon that has wheels and no brakes.

The sled doesn't have to be 6' wide, just wider outriggers to contain any sudden dynamic turn.
Tractors have tires which don't support a great amount of sideforce (by design intent). Your sled has rails that will 'trip' your load. Same reason a car will roll over on a wet, grassy field.

You have to understand the theory of "Forseeable Misuse". Designing it for the brightest, most careful user (probably yourself) is actually the idealization of your concept. YOU understand it's shortcomings and limitations. I would bet that someone else will try to drive it down a public road, sparks flying and hot metal starting a shoulder grass fire. Don't think this is funny. Its a sad situation I often faced working the auto industry. Wait until a drunk takes his kids for a ride and 1 falls off and run over.

 

[zzvyb6]

It looks like 5 PSI is a good goal for ground pressure. So, very roughly 4,000 lbs / 5PSI = is 800 square inches. So a minimum of a 67" track 6" wide on each side.. though I'd want the skids in the corners, so 4 36" skids each 6" wide (or shorter and wider). Is that what you are imagining?

This is where you drop the math and cut up some snow skiis and run a few tests. Under the umbrella of a recent harvest, what skid area best suits the process ? And don't forget the side traction lumps to keep it from hitting you going down hill. Plus the skids will help save your crop when running over it.

 

[zzvyb6]

It looks like 5 PSI is a good goal for ground pressure. So, very roughly 4,000 lbs / 5PSI = is 800 square inches. So a minimum of a 67" track 6" wide on each side.. though I'd want the skids in the corners, so 4 36" skids each 6" wide (or shorter and wider). Is that what you are imagining?

Would consider hinged sections, maybe 2 per bale or even 1. This floats the load, less damage to ground. add extra flats as needed, maybe a bit more tractive power, much easier to store: just fold it up .

 

[ultrarunner]

I found out - in a most serious way - a small tractor is not equipped to do a large job. A farm wagon - heavily loaded with pine trees - does well being pulled on flat ground. It's a real nightmare - almost becoming lethal - when you have to pull it down slope. It happened to me - once. It was almost a fatal experience - to learn a valuable lesson.

My small family farmer
friends in Alpine regions have brakes on their wagons… including parking because nothing is flat and just parking an unhitched wagon often requires parking brakes…

 

[JimRB]

What is your tractor? I move 4x6 round bales of Bermuda or rye or fescue with a JD 870 2wd. I have a hay spear for the back. A hay spear for the front loader. An 870 is not a huge tractor. It prefers moving hay that has been curing a few months versus fresh cut. The rear spear of course does not care, the front spear is a bit more fussy. I stack 2 tall in the barn that has a smooth concrete floor. Of course the rounds are kept as low to the ground. When I am pulling out of the bed of my 2500 or off the trailer, I get the bales close to the ground ASAP.

Towing anything with the chain 2 feet above the rear axle is a rollover waiting to happen. My owners manual says tow using the drawbar which is below the rear axle where it has almost zero chance of flipping the tractor.

 

[Joe Batt]

I do see that sled destroying a lot of alfalfa plants however.

After using it for a year, I find that it does less damage than the fertilizer truck does. The ground pressure is very low for a sled.