"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote
> Talk about knowing how to use your tools.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WxyzS0vCME&feature=related
>
Damn! As an old farmboy who used to drive a tractor very similar to those
used in this video, I am impressed. If my dad ever caught me doing anything
like this, he would have whipped me good. I would have loved to have found
a farmgirl with those tractor skills.
What I am wondering, where did they find 8 identical tractors?
"Lew Hodgett" wrote
> "Lee Michaels" wrote:
>
>> Damn! As an old farmboy who used to drive a tractor very similar to
>> those used in this video, I am impressed.
>
> I'm guessing, early 50s Farmalls?
>
I am not sure of the year, but definitely a Farmall. It had the two small
tires in the front next to each other. We used to log with this tractor.
And every time those two front tires got stuck in a little hole, the tractor
just bogged down and did not want to move.
Had a neighbor who had a small Ford tractor with the two front tires mounted
as wide as the back tires. That thing was a mountain goat. It would go
anywhere. But it wasn't as big or as powerful as the Farmall.
"Nova" <[email protected]> wrote
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>
>>>Talk about knowing how to use your tools.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WxyzS0vCME&feature=related
>>>
>>
>> I would have loved to have found a farmgirl with those tractor skills.
>>
>
> Did you happen to notice that at least one of those "farm girls" sported a
> full beard? ;-)
>
Yuck!!
My eyes aren't what the used to be. And the video was too small.
But.... yuck!!
"Lee Michaels" wrote:
> We used to log with this tractor. And every time those two front
> tires got stuck in a little hole, the tractor just bogged down and
> did not want to move.
>
> Had a neighbor who had a small Ford tractor with the two front tires
> mounted as wide as the back tires. That thing was a mountain goat.
> It would go anywhere. But it wasn't as big or as powerful as the
> Farmall.
Where I grew up in North Central Ohio the John Deeres had the two
front tires together and the Farmalls had them apart.
Farmall was by far the most popular tractor followed by Deere and then
a scattering of Case, Allis-Chalmers, Ford, Massey-Fergeson, etc.
Lew
On Aug 25, 8:22=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nahmie wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Follow up to my other "novel". On the Farmalls with narrow(tricycle)
> > front end, they could be miserable working in muddy condirtions. ...
>
> Don't believe that was unique to Farmall; I can't see how it wouldn't
> be/have been a problem w/ any tricycle gear.
>
> I'm just a flatland wheat/row crop (dryland milo) farmer but for the
> life of me I still can't fathom why anybody would want them or what
> useful purpose it served to have them as opposed to a row crop
> adjustable wide front end.
>
> I certainly understand the need for spacing for row crops as opposed to
> a wheatlands fixed width tractors but I can't see any advantages to the
> tricycle. =A0Surely there must be some specialty operations in truck
> farming or other stuff that I've never been involved in...
>
> During the time spent in VA and TN where it was pretty hilly I saw more
> than one tipped over that a wide stance would've handled as one other
> major disadvantage.
>
> --
Oh, yeah! I've seen more than one turn turtle, even with wide front
end. The operator still has to be smarter than the machine!
The A could be very vicious in that respect, with the engine on the
left. Had to "think" before doing sidehill work.
As I said in my first post, the narrow front end was easier to
maneuver in tight quarters, but was a PITA for some work. Uncle firmly
believed in narrow FE after getting first C, and couldn't shake him,
even after he got a 2nd C that came with both. Tried to talk him into
installing the WFE, but he wouldn't hear of it until after cousin took
over the farm and got (I believe) a Farmall 460 with WFE, and after
Uncle worked with it helping out, couldn't get him away from the WFE.
Norm
On Aug 24, 6:52=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Talk about knowing how to use your tools.
>
> =A0 =A0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D6WxyzS0vCME&feature=3Drelated
>
> Lew
OK, time to stick my "oar" in, after seeing some of the other replies.
I cut my teeth on Farmall "A", "C" and "H" models, along with time
spent on Ford, "Johnny-popper" Deere's and misc. Massey Ferguson, etc.
The "girls" were driving Super C's, you can tell by a couple things;
(1) The steering wheel/shaft is on a steeper angle, the shaft going
downward to the side of the clutch housing, then forward, and (2) The
belt pulley is on the back of the tractor.
The "boys" were driving H/Super H's. The H/M were very similar, with
the steering wheel almost vertical and shaft going straight forward to
the top of the steering box, they also had the belt pulley on the
right side of the clutch/transmission group.
The original Farmall Cub was an offset model, with the engine/drive
train on the left, seat & controls on the right. Super A was the same
configuration. They were both intended as single row "row crop" units,
as you could look straight down and see what you were doing when
cultivating.
The "B" was an "A" with the left wheel reversed to give it a wider
rear stance, and a "tricycle" front end instead of wide front end.
The Super C was a "row crop" design with 2 row setup and either
tricycle or wide front end.
All these models had the belt pulley set in the rear adjacent to the
power takeoff.
The tricycle front end was VERY maneuverable in tight places, but was
a pain the A** mowing hay, plowing, etc. Withg wide front end, put the
right front in the furrow and cock wheel left just a smidge, very easy
plowing. Mowing, put the right front next to the "un-mown" hay(in the
little gap created by the "swath board") and just keep it there. Wide
front end was also more comfortable in rough going, as one wheel would
hit the bump and the axle would pivot, cutting up?down motion
transferred to tractor in half. Narrow front end, didn't matter which
wheel hit the bump, they were tied solid by the axle assy, full motion
transferred.(John Deere tried to alleviate this with their
"Rollomatic" front end, where the wheels trailed the steering stem
slightly and were connected by gears, so if one whewel wewnt up, the
other went down, vice/versa)
Cub wheels, don't remember, but think they were solid steel. "A"
series had solid steel with bolted on cast iron weights. "C" had
spoked cast iron wheels plus bolted on cast weights, and "H/M" had the
same.
Interesting addition to one Super "H" we had, an M & H "hand clutch".
This was built into the left hand drive wheel brake assy, and
effectively gave you a "live" power takeoff. When released, the drive
train just idled through the differential, as there was no connection
to the left side drive, but leaving the main trannsission and power
takeoff running, but the tractor & chopper/mower/whatever still
running.
OK, I'm done.
Norm
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>
>>Talk about knowing how to use your tools.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WxyzS0vCME&feature=related
>>
>
> I would have loved to have found
> a farmgirl with those tractor skills.
>
Did you happen to notice that at least one of those "farm girls" sported
a full beard? ;-)
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
On 2009-08-24, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
> Talk about knowing how to use your tools.
I thought farmers didn't have enough time in the day.
nb
"dpb" wrote:
> Now, International/Farmall is part of Case-IH altho they have within
> the last few years reintroduced the Farmall brand as a line of
> utility small-acreage and tract owner tractors.
Was in IH hdqrs right after the Case acquition ('83).
You could have rolled a bowling ball down thru the place and not hit
anything.
All IH had left was the diesel engines they sold to Ford for the over
the road market.
Didn't take too long before that went away.
Lew
dpb <[email protected]> writes:
>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "Lee Michaels" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Damn! As an old farmboy who used to drive a tractor very similar to
>>> those used in this video, I am impressed.
>>
>> I'm guessing, early 50s Farmalls?
>
>Late 40s/early 50s Farmall H and (I think I saw one or maybe two Super
>H). H were in production from '39-'52, Super H 52-'54. Roughly 30 PTO hp.
H? They looked too small for H - Super C maybe, or even an A? (I used
to drive a B (offset seat), Super C, and Super M, a MinneMoline hand clutch
job, MF 55?, MF 65 and MF 180). We ran the thresher off the Super M belt drive.
(Massey Ferguson 65 - configured as Hearse:
http://www.lurndal.org/images/robert/dsc02939_small.jpg
scott
"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
> ...
>
>> H? They looked too small for H - Super C maybe, or even an A? (I used
>> to drive a B (offset seat), Super C, and Super M, a MinneMoline hand
>> clutch
>> job, MF 55?, MF 65 and MF 180). We ran the thresher off the Super M belt
>> drive.
>
> The A had a large open area under the gas tank and was quite a lot
> smaller; don't think that's possible.
>
> The C/Super C had afaik the solid cast wheels rather than spoked which I
> believe all of these had.
>
> I don't have specifications on rear wheel diameter at hand but I _think_
> the C was as large as the H and w/ the revised operator platform actually
> looked much larger than the B it replaced.
>
> Unfortunately, I couldn't read a decal in any of the shots to tell
> unequivocally but my guess is still on the H...
>
> Would be kinda' nice to know for surrtin, sure...
>
> Anybody got any idea where this was? AFAICT it didn't say and w/ my slow
> dialup it took so long to display not going to try again...
>
> --
A little net searching resulted in this:
http://www.nemahaweb.com/farmallpromenade/
From the photos, it looks like come Cs, some Hs.
Kerry
On Aug 24, 6:52=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Talk about knowing how to use your tools.
>
> =A0 =A0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D6WxyzS0vCME&feature=3Drelated
>
> Lew
Follow up to my other "novel". On the Farmalls with narrow(tricycle)
front end, they could be miserable working in muddy condirtions. The
narrow front wheels were tilted in @ the bottom(think extreme camber
for anyone familiar with auto alignment) and would collect the mud and
pack it into the back side of the steering stem. This could be changed
some, as the rims were bolted onto a 3 spoke casat wheel. You could
unbolt them, turn them around and bolt them back on, gaining about 3
or 4 in. more clearance between them.
Norm
"Lee Michaels" wrote:
> Damn! As an old farmboy who used to drive a tractor very similar to
> those used in this video, I am impressed.
I'm guessing, early 50s Farmalls?
>If my dad ever caught me doing anything like this, he would have
>whipped me good.
Yep.
> I would have loved to have found a farmgirl with those tractor
> skills.
Yep.
> What I am wondering, where did they find 8 identical tractors?
I thought about that, but there are Old tractor clubs all over the
Midwest.
Maybe it is one of those.
Lew
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Lee Michaels" wrote:
>
>
>> Damn! As an old farmboy who used to drive a tractor very similar to
>> those used in this video, I am impressed.
>
> I'm guessing, early 50s Farmalls?
Late 40s/early 50s Farmall H and (I think I saw one or maybe two Super
H). H were in production from '39-'52, Super H 52-'54. Roughly 30 PTO hp.
...
We had M's early on which looked virtually identical, just a slightly
bigger brother -- about 45 hp iirc. They were produced over same time
frame as the H/Super H.
Then a step up w/ the new 300/400 series in '54; we had a 400 then a 560
which was the new design introduced in '58. It was about 52 hp; a
really modern tractor w/ factory power steering, etc.
After that JD came out w/ the 4010 series that got away from the old
"Johnny Popper" and green eventually won out almost exclusively all over
wheat country altho there was a period where the wheatland Case 900
series was dominant for non-rowcrop work, they too were eventually
supplanted.
Now, International/Farmall is part of Case-IH altho they have within the
last few years reintroduced the Farmall brand as a line of utility
small-acreage and tract owner tractors.
--
Lee Michaels wrote:
...
> I am not sure of the year, but definitely a Farmall. It had the two small
> tires in the front next to each other. ...
The tricycle front gear was an option; not necessarily indicative of
being Farmall (altho these certainly are, see other response for some
more detail).
The same models were also made in wide front row crop as well as in
high-crop, orchard and some other even more specialized versions.
In the large wheat/row crop country the tricycle mount was rarely, if
ever seen; I don't recall ever seeing one as a kid other than when
visiting family in far SE KS or MO.
Why, specifically, they were so popular farther east I really don't
know; I could never understand why one would choose it.
--
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "dpb" wrote:
>
>> Now, International/Farmall is part of Case-IH altho they have within
>> the last few years reintroduced the Farmall brand as a line of
>> utility small-acreage and tract owner tractors.
>
> Was in IH hdqrs right after the Case acquition ('83).
>
...
That's a couple years early according to CIH corporate timeline but then
again, a year or two from 25 or so ain't bad... :)
As noted, we went green after about '62-'63; the Farmall 560 series had
serious problems at introduction that really hurt them and, imo, led to
the eventual downfall in that they never recovered market share against
the all-of-a-sudden much more competitive JD. Saw it first hand w/
failure of the rear end twice in fairly short time--the second was the
straw that got the first green ever on the place (over 50 years by that
time).
Here's pertinent section around the acquisition time from the CIH
site--kinda' interesting remembering altho by then for us IH was long
forgotten anyway.
> 1985 In a dramatic move to increase its market position, Case, through its
> parent company, Tenneco Inc., acquires selected assets of the
> International Harvester agricultural equipment operations. This makes
> Case the second-largest farm equipment manufacturer in the industry.
> 1985 Announced in November 1984, the acquisition is approved by the U.S.
> Justice Department in early 1985.
> 1985 By consolidating selected International Harvester operations with Case
> agricultural operations, the company again becomes a full-line farm
> equipment producer. The combination provides increased market
> share, a broadened product line and a greatly expanded North
> American dealer organization second to none.
> 1985 Case retains its corporate name, and combines the Case and IH logos
> for corporate and agricultural equipment identities. The consolidation
> significantly lowers industry tractor production capacity, helping reduce
> the continued build-up of excess inventories, which accumulated
> during several back-to-back recession years in farm markets.
> 1985 The new Case IH agricultural products are designed to retain the best
> of both traditions, along with equipment colors: the characteristic
> International Harvester red along with the traditional Case black stripe,
> with new silver accents.
> 1985 The consolidation adds two former International Harvester plants to the
> Case family in North America and five manufacturing plants in Europe.
> Case also purchases International Harvester subsidiaries in France,
> Germany and Denmark. In North America, six new Service Parts
> Supply depots are added, including four former International Harvester
> depots.
> 1985 Tenneco acquired the major assets of International Harvester's
> Farm Equipment Division. These included plants in E. Moline, IL
> (combines, cotton pickers, planters), Hamilton, ON (tillage and
> seeding), Croix, France (cabs), Neuss, Germany (tractors) and
> Doncaster, UK (tractors) plus parts distribution facilities worldwide.
> Also included were most modern machine tools and production
> assets from the Farmall Works which were transferred to the J.I.
> Case Racine Transmission and Assembly Plants. Other assets
> that were sold over time by IH were Cub Cadet to MTD,
> Construction Equipment Division to Dresser Industries and Solar
> (Gas Turbine) Division to Caterpillar. The remaining part of
> International Harvester is the former Truck Division, which is now,
> renamed Navistar and which markets commercial trucks under the
> International brand.
> 1986 Case IH continues to consolidate the International Harvester
> agricultural operations with the purchase of selected assets from
> International Harvester Australia Ltd. (IHAL), including International
> Harvester Credit Corp. The Australian distribution organization,
> consolidated into a single Case IH system, creates Australia's largest
> agricultural/construction equipment network.
> 1986 Tenneco acquires Steiger Tractor Inc., of Fargo, North Dakota,
> manufacturer of four-wheel-drive tractors, and assigns it to be operated
> as part of Case IH. The move makes Case IH one of only two major
> North American producers of four-wheel-drive tractors of more than
> 200 horsepower.
--
"Nova" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>
>>>Talk about knowing how to use your tools.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WxyzS0vCME&feature=related
>>>
>>
>> I would have loved to have found a farmgirl with those tractor skills.
>>
>
> Did you happen to notice that at least one of those "farm girls" sported a
> full beard? ;-)
>
> --
> Jack Novak
> Buffalo, NY - USA
is that unusual?
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "dpb" wrote:
>
>> That's a couple years early according to CIH corporate timeline but
>> then again, a year or two from 25 or so ain't bad... :)
>
> I was there to qualify them as a customer.
>
> They had no money, and from what I could tell, they were not going to
> have any soon, so I had no more time.
I actually didn't go to check up on your memory or time line; your
comment was something I wasn't aware of that Case had closed all IH
assembly so went to try to find what CIH actual manufacturing sites
were/are currently. Didn't find anything quickly but did see the
corporate history and not knowing much about either Case or IH after the
early/mid '60s thought it of at least passing interest...
They also bought 50% share of Hesston the hay specialists near here in
Hesston, KS, altho subsequently sold that out to Agco. They have kept
the facility there. The other acquisitions include Steiger tractor (the
MN brothers that pioneered the large 4WD revolution out of their farm
machine-shed) and the biggie New Holland.
Only Agco perhaps has wider tentacles worldwide. They're an upstart
that begin in the early '90s w/ the buyout of Deutz-Allis, the German
outfit that bought Allis-Chalmers and painted them green :( .
Subsequently, they bought out stuff left and right, the major
acquisitions being White tractors, Massy-Ferguson, the aforementioned
Hesston and then White-New Idea implements and the German Fendt then the
Caterpillar Challenger ag products group. The Valtra brand is Finnish
and they've also acquired Brazilian, Italian and other foreign
manufactures I don't even know who they are...
--
--
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> dpb <[email protected]> writes:
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> "Lee Michaels" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Damn! As an old farmboy who used to drive a tractor very similar to
>>>> those used in this video, I am impressed.
>>> I'm guessing, early 50s Farmalls?
>> Late 40s/early 50s Farmall H and (I think I saw one or maybe two Super
>> H). H were in production from '39-'52, Super H 52-'54. Roughly 30 PTO hp.
>
> H? They looked too small for H - Super C maybe, or even an A? (I used
> to drive a B (offset seat), Super C, and Super M, a MinneMoline hand clutch
> job, MF 55?, MF 65 and MF 180). We ran the thresher off the Super M belt drive.
>
> (Massey Ferguson 65 - configured as Hearse:
>
> http://www.lurndal.org/images/robert/dsc02939_small.jpg
>
> scott
Scott Lurndal wrote:
...
> H? They looked too small for H - Super C maybe, or even an A? (I used
> to drive a B (offset seat), Super C, and Super M, a MinneMoline hand clutch
> job, MF 55?, MF 65 and MF 180). We ran the thresher off the Super M belt drive.
The A had a large open area under the gas tank and was quite a lot
smaller; don't think that's possible.
The C/Super C had afaik the solid cast wheels rather than spoked which I
believe all of these had.
I don't have specifications on rear wheel diameter at hand but I _think_
the C was as large as the H and w/ the revised operator platform
actually looked much larger than the B it replaced.
Unfortunately, I couldn't read a decal in any of the shots to tell
unequivocally but my guess is still on the H...
Would be kinda' nice to know for surrtin, sure...
Anybody got any idea where this was? AFAICT it didn't say and w/ my
slow dialup it took so long to display not going to try again...
--
Nahmie wrote:
...
> Follow up to my other "novel". On the Farmalls with narrow(tricycle)
> front end, they could be miserable working in muddy condirtions. ...
Don't believe that was unique to Farmall; I can't see how it wouldn't
be/have been a problem w/ any tricycle gear.
I'm just a flatland wheat/row crop (dryland milo) farmer but for the
life of me I still can't fathom why anybody would want them or what
useful purpose it served to have them as opposed to a row crop
adjustable wide front end.
I certainly understand the need for spacing for row crops as opposed to
a wheatlands fixed width tractors but I can't see any advantages to the
tricycle. Surely there must be some specialty operations in truck
farming or other stuff that I've never been involved in...
During the time spent in VA and TN where it was pretty hilly I saw more
than one tipped over that a wide stance would've handled as one other
major disadvantage.
--
Nahmie wrote:
...
> As I said in my first post, the narrow front end was easier to
> maneuver in tight quarters, but was a PITA for some work. Uncle firmly
> believed in narrow FE after getting first C, and couldn't shake him,
> even after he got a 2nd C that came with both. Tried to talk him into
> installing the WFE, but he wouldn't hear of it until after cousin took
> over the farm and got (I believe) a Farmall 460 with WFE, and after
> Uncle worked with it helping out, couldn't get him away from the WFE.
...
I actually did think of one reason for them -- probably were somewhat
less expensive which may have been a bigger difference back then...
What are them "tight quarters" of which thee speak??? :)
If there isn't at least a full 80, we feel constrained out here... :)
Our progression went from original Twin City 10-20 (steel wheel monster)
to a period w/ several Cat 22's. Used them for row crop in particular
w/ 3-row pull-type JD lister and cultivator. Terrible in the sandy soil
and cross wind to have to sit there and take the dirt the tracks carried
but great for following the rows. First Farmall's were the M's, then
400 and a 560. About the time of the 400 granddad bought a little Allis
WD-45 since he wanted to keep doing field work but was where the larger
were getting hard for him to handle. Full line of the "Snap-Coupler"
tool bar equipment with it. Had so much invested in the equipment
eventually bought a D17 that I put in thousands of hours on doing row
crop work w/ 4-row lister/knife sled/cultivator to lay by with.
About same time got the Case 930 flatland -- our first large (90(?) hp)
tractor--brother did most of the flat land work 'cuz he didn't like
having to keep straight rows so much while I was bored w/o the
concentration require but only go 'round 'n 'round the square... :)
The 560 didn't hold up well and was the last IH--it got replaced by the
first JD--a 4010 row crop and our first diesel. Out here virtually
everybody used LP thru the 50s/60s and into the 70s. Then the
progression to larger equipment really began -- the 4010 morphed into
4230, 4440, 4640 ending up w/ the 8000 series now.
Meanwhile, equipment went from 14-ft single one-way to 3 ganged
15-ft'ers to 30-ft chisels and sweeps. Planters went from 4 to 6 to
8-row listers to 12 and 16-row planters w/ air seeders and GPS guidance.
Now may only cultivate once before planting if at all; almost
everything is low- or minimum-till practice instead to aid in moisture
conservation and to minimize wind erosion.
Can't leave out the harvesting changes, either--from old
header/binder/stationary thresher to 10- or 12-ft pull-type Gleaner to
the "huge" 14-ft Case (also puller) which required three/four operators
plus the tractor man then the first self-propelled--a Massey-Harris
altho don't recall model--the 90 was second if remember correctly. Now
they're also up to a "modest" 32-ft header since some of our ground does
have a little swell in it, it's hard to use the really large machines
they do some places since the dryland wheat may not get very tall every
(most?) year. Like the planters, they now include all sorts of
gizmos--yield monitoring and moisture measurement tied into GPS for
automagically feeding back into seeding rate and fertilization
blending/amounts for subsequent years reflecting local soil conditions
within a particular field. GPS w/ autosteer on spray rigs (90-ft booms)
maintain about 2" accuracy and regulate output based on ground speed and
location on a several-nozzle individually regulated control system
granularity.
Much more different... :)
--