## 7 Performances of Competing Systems  
The literature and the collected patents provide a good overview of the main pros and cons of each category of harvesting machines. Nevertheless, the performances of these machines are seldom available with sufficient detail for the correct construction of value curves able to benchmark each system across competing factors. Therefore, a further analysis was needed to achieve comprehensive data, which was mainly found in the catalogues of previously identified main players, as inferable from Figure 2. In Table 2, a summary is made of 15 manufacturers investigated here (first column), the references to their official website (second column), the categories of machines they produce, and the number of the variants they commercialize (third column). The fourth column reports if the corresponding company has filed patent applications related to these machines. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Company Name** & **Ref.** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Categories of Harvesting Machines in** \\ **Production (Number of Variants)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Related Patents or** \\ **Patent Applications** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Asquini & [69] & M/SP(1); V/SP(1) & ITV20100001 (A1) \\ \hline Bonaddio & [70] & M/P(1) & ITAN20150004 (U1) \\ \hline Bosco & [71] & M/SP(5) & - \\ \hline Chianchia & [72] & M/P(1); M/M(1); V/T(2); V/M(2) & IT1311260 (B1) \\ \hline Cifarelli & [73] & V/P(1) & EP0862847 (B1) \\  & & EP3226676 (B1) \\ \hline Facma & [74] & M/M(1); M/SP(1); V/T(4); V/SP(5) & ITGE20130111 (A1) \\  & & IT1249080 (B) \\ \hline Flory & [75] & M/T(2); M/M(2); M/SP(9) & US3728850 (A) \\ \hline GF ostruzione machine & [76] & M/M(4); M/SP(3) & - \\ agricole (GF Jolly) & [77] & M/M(6); M/SP(1); V/T(2); V/M(1) & ITRM20130059 (U1) \\ \hline Hasatsan & [78] & M/M(3); V/T(6) & - \\ \hline IND Garriga & [79] & M/M(2); V/T(2); V/M(1) & ES2051164 (A2) \\ \hline Monchiero & [80] & M/SP(5); V/T(1) & AU2014202410 (A1) \\  & & & ITTO20120154 (U1) \\  & & & ITTO20110326 (A1) \\  & & & ITTO20100696 (A1) \\ \hline Rivmec & [81] & M/M(1) & - \\ \hline Valier & [82] & M/P(1) & ITUB201586616 (U1) \\  & & & EP2945474 (B1) \\  & & & WOO2013046660 (A1) \\  & & & ITRO20140004 (U1) \\  & & & WO2013064660 (A1) \\ \hline Weiss McNair & [83] & M/T(4); M/SP(2) & US5373688 (A) \\  & & & US5001893 (A) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Main companies/manufacturers cited in the literature and/or applicants of patents. Information about 84 different machines was collected in order to create the value curves presented in the following section. Table 3 reports the specific harvesting machines that were analyzed, along with the eight categories they belong to. The information most widely shown by catalogues is the mass of each machine (in kg) and its productivity (in kg-h\({}^{-1}\)). Unsurprisingly, _self-propelled_ solutions have proved to be the most productive and heavy and, therefore, the least maneuverable. For the same productivity level, _V/SP_ machines are on average lighter than _M/SP_ machines (average mass 3500 kg vs. 2300 kg). It should be underlined that the maximum productivity achievable by a vacuum harvester (about 1700 kg-h\({}^{-1}\), Facma Cimina 380S) is lower than the harvesting capacity of some mechanical harvesters (e.g., 2500 kg-h\({}^{-1}\), Facma Semek 1000). In addition, while on the market there are _M/SP_ machines of small sizes (e.g., Bosco F120; mass 600 kg; productivity 180 kg-h\({}^{-1}\)), the minimum size for a _V/SP_ machine points to Facma Cimina 160S (mass 1500 kg; productivity 500 kg-h\({}^{-1}\)). With regard to the trailed architecture, there is a substantial difference between mechanical and vacuum solutions in terms of mass and productivity. Indeed, the _M/T_ solutions are produced by US companies, such as Flory and Weiss McNair, which predominantly meet the needs of very large crops.