THE BRITISH TRACTOR INDUSTRY. •
Page 23
Page 24
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Its Progress and the Merits of Its Products as Compared with Foreign Tractors.
THE REPORT of the Lincoln tractor, trials, . recently published, is a very comprehensive document capable of being considered from many different standpoints. The brief report of the • judge-s on each entrant should be useiul to the farmer desirous of -• selecting -a suitable machme for his purpose, but it SeemS rather questionable whether the bulk of the tables and technical matter would be very enlightening to him in this respect. We may very probably assume quite fairly that these tabulated results, technical data and diagrams of drawbar pull are intended rather to assist designers in comparing their On with other machines and so in bringing about desirable improvements. The point of view from which we propose to approach the subject is suggested by the very interesting question of how the young British tractor industry compares up to date with its principal foreign competitor: The handicap has been all against it from-the start. The beginnings of-our own industry were entirely destroyed during the early stages of the 'war. Then the Government, suddenly realizing that farm tractors were a necessity, in view of the food :situation and the submarine menace, were compelled to resort to import. Thus the foreigner has, on the whole, had a better opportunity of studying and catering for the needs of the British farming community than has the British manufacturer himself. Moreover, war-time experience in itself acted as a Sort of eliminating trial among foreign machines. Quite a number of these ,,'ere found worthless under our conditions, and we may fairly take it that those who participated at Lincoln represented the pick of the hunch. The British entrants, on the other haed, were in many cases comparatively untried machines, only just got ready in time to take part and, therefore, liable to those little troubles which can only be eliminated as a result of practical experience, The point is, however, that, if the British manufacturer is to appeal successfully to the farmer, he must depend not upon exeuses, explaining why he is not on a level with his competitors, but on sound evidence that he is at least on a level and, probably, is already ahead of the foreigner. The question to which the writer wishes to devote himself is whether the report of the Lincoln trials provides: on the whole; any preponderance of Etch evidence in favour , Cif the -British product. We may begin by turning to the judges' report and, without, mentioning names, examining the critiasms_ of a number of typical British and foreign ma-chines. Let us take first some of the Britishers and summarize the chief comments of the judges.' (The numerals are not those used to designate the machines in the trials.) 1.A : 3-ton tractor. Weight excessive on heavyland in' wet weather. Not unsuitable on
light 'land. Well. suited for -road haulage.
2. A light tractor., Good onheavy and on light land. A useful machine, simple in construc
tion, easy to handle and safe in operation. • 3. A small chain-track machine. Ingenious, but rather complicated for an average farm hand. Ran well throughout and showed low fuel consumption. Veryeasy to start. Took rather a wide headland, but showed 'particularly even furrow ends.
4. A large chain-track machine. Despite its weight, entails very little coMpression on account of size of tracks. Useful on land under adverse
weather conditions. Safe to operate but not easy to handle. Can plough a large area per hour on heavy land with low consumption.
5. A self-contained machine. Good on heavy and light land. Simple and easy to handle. Has particular advantages on small fields. . Can he backed With ease. Automatic lift of plough a great advantage in foul land. Ability to tilt•plough sideways useful on uneven ground. The
plough can be seen by driver, so that any fault can be at once detected. Particularly adaptable for pleughing out headland. • . 6. A three-wheeler. Did well on. heavy and light land, and with a cultivator. Easy to handle • and.good at turning.-4'pecially suitable for work on heavy land and hillkdes.
7. A self-contained chain-track machine. Did good and neat work throughout. Construction
• fairly simple, .but probably considerable wear on
creepers. Power. lift of plough to be . cammended. Turns. on narrow headlands.
8. General purpose •,, Substantial. Simple in construction," easy -Co handle and turn. Did good work on heavy and light land.. , Well adapted for threshing and 'capable of hauling on the road. Spring drawbar and well-placed winding drum are good points. 9. Small eneral-purpose tractor. Good on heavy and light land. Simple in construction. • Accessible. Easy to handle and turn. Lowfuel consumption.
Now let us take some American machines, indicating so far as possible to which of the British machines already mentioned those about to be considered are comparable.
10. A 3.1--ton tractor. Weight excessive, particularly on heavy land in wet weather. Cumbersome in construction. Presents difficulties in handling and-turning. Did not undergo threshing or road haulage tests.
This machine appears to be fairly comparable to No. 1, but to , have received a less favourable criticism.
11. A light tractor. The finality of work is fair. •Easy to manipulate sand turn. Not perfectly safe te handle because the front inclines to rear up. Unsuitable for road haulage.
This machine is fairly comparable to No. 2. Both are too light for much road haulage work; but the British machine is safe to handle, whereas the American is not, and the British machine did good work as against the fair work of the other.
12. A small chain-track machine. Handy to
• operate, but not powerful enough for heavy land. • Small and easy to turn. Useful for small fields, market gardens, etc. Did first-class work with disc harrow and drove threshing machine satisfactorily.
Comparing this with N. 3, the criticism on the whole seems to indicate a fair degree of equality between the two. The British machine has the advantage on heavy land ; the foreign one is superior in turning and perhaps in drawing and driving various implements.
There does not appear to have been any foreign competitor that could be at all directly compared with No. 4. This is, of course, a much more powerful and heavy machine than No. 12. One's impression is that No. 4 was not primarily designed as an agricultural tractor, but rather for military purpeses, though it evidently can stow considerable utility on a farm.
13. A self-contained motor -plough. Did better on light than on heavy-land. Easy to handle and turn, but the working parts not well protected. Skilled attention necessary for proper maintenance. Fuel consumption high.
Compared with No. 5, which is of about the same weight, this foreign machine evidently does not come up to -the same level of excellence as the British one, 039 -which performed well both on light and on heavy land and possesses a number of special and advantageous features which are absent in what appears to be its most direct competitor.
14. A three-wheeler. Did fair work with twofurrow plough. Drove a threshing machine satisfactorily, but was not easily set. Unsuitable for road haulage.
In this case the foreign machine is of a heavier type than the British, but the judges' comments in the two cases do not indicate that it is of greater or even equal utility on the land. In the British example (No. 6) all three wheels are driven. In the ease of the foreigner only one. The two are not, therefore, directly oomnarable ; but one would certainly gather that the British firm has been the more successful in the production of a satisfactory three-wheeled design.
There was no foreign competitor that can be directly compared with No. 7. On the whole, British conditions tend more than do those of many other countries to lead to the production of small self-contained machines, probably specially suited for use where farms are cut up into small fields, or in market. gardens or orchards. The absence of foreign representation in this section seems to show that the British industry here has matters its own way.
15. General purpose tractor. Did fair work throughout. Easy to handle and fairly easy to turn. Well adapted for threshing, but not suitable for road haulage.
This machine is a little lighter than No. 8, with which it is fairly comparable in general idea. The criticisms lead to the conclusion that the Britisher is better and more simply constructed, and capable of a higher class of Work. Also that it is equally good for threshing and better from the point of view of road haulage. 16. General purpose tractor. Did, good work on heavy and light land and with a cultivator. Again comparing with No. 8. This machine appears to show substantial equality in the work done under trial, but the absence of Comment perhaps justifies the inference that it is not the equal of the British machine in design and construction and does not incorporate any special points calling for favourable notice.
17. Small general purpose tractor. Did good work with two-furrow plough on heavy land and three-furrow plough on light land. Easy to handle, working parts accessible. Suitable for • threshing, and, when fitted with rubber tyres, for road haulage. Has two independent brakes and is sprung front and rear.
In respect of weight this may be compared with No. 9. The two are, apparently, about equally good on the land. The foreigner has the advantage on the road. The importance of this depends upon the degree to which it may be expected that a tractor weighing no more than 36 cwt. will, in practice, 'be used for road haulage work. In respect of equipment for this purpose, apparently the only other machine in the trial on equality was No. 1, which is also sprung on both axles and has two independent
• brakes. For road work it would be generally preferable on account of its greater weight.
18. A three-wheeled tractor. Easy to handle. Working parts accessible. Did good work. Low fuel 'consumption. Efficient naraffin carbureittr. Satisfactory for threshing. Not suitable for road haulage work.
This machine can be most easily compared with No. 6, which is slightly, but not much. heavier. The criticism leads one to expect approximate equality, which is not unsatisfactory from the standpoint of the British industry, seeing that the last-mentioned foreigner was by very many experts regarded EIA much the best of the machines imported for work during the war.
All the above comparisons have been made as fairly as possible. One can hardly imagine that, in 040
the aggregate, they can lead to the conclusion that the foreign industry has shown itself capableof producing anything better than the British industry in any Pf the numerous classes represented. In some classes, approximate equality is shown. In others, the British representatives were well ahead. In others, again, no comparable foreign product was to be found. It is to be noted that, where special comments are made as to the merits of particular features not incorporated in any but one machine these comments for very much the most part, refer to British competitors. Similarly, when reference is made to simple or substantial construction it was a British machine which attracted this comment.
Therefore, as a general conclusion, we do not think that we can be regarded as being actuated by prejudice if we state that the Britisja machines,
• despite the difficulties experienced by their inanufacturers during recent years, show an all-round superiority of design, construction and performance.
In the table giving the results of ploughing on heavy land, one notices that seven competitors were able to show a fuel cost of less than 4s. per acre. Of these three were British, three American, and one Italian. The first, second and third places in this test of fuel economy all went to British machines, two being of the chain-track and one of the wheeled type. It seems fairly elear, therefore, that we are by no means behind our competitors in this respect.
Not very much importance need be attached to the rate of ploughing, as it is clear that, in several cases, quality was somewhat sacrificed to speed. Here, again, however, a British machine .showed a higher result than any of the Americans. In respect of fuel cost per hundred pounds of drawbar pull, first place went to a British machine, second to an American, third, 'fourth and fifth all to British. Sixth was an American and seventh another British machine.
When ploughing on comparatively light land, the only steam tractor taking part—a Britisher--was first as regards rate of ploughing. A more important point is, of course, the fuel cost having regard to the stiffness of the work done. In the table showing fuel cost per hundred pounds ot drawbar pull, the first place again goes to the "British steamer, the second is taken by a British machine, the third by the Italian, the fourth by an American, the fifth .and sixth by Britishers, the seventh by an American, the eighth by a Britisher„ the ninth by an American and tenth by a Britisher. There is certainly nothing in this result to show that our industry is, in any respect, inferior.
We cannot find in the report any other statements or results which appear to influence at all materially the answer to the question which we asked in the first instance, namely, "How does the young British tractor industry compare up to date with its principal foreign competitor 1 " The answer, therefore, appears to be that it already compares very favourably. This certainly seems to mean that its progress has been the more rapid, and one can only regret that this progress has, during the few monthtc that have elapsed since the Lincoln trials, been to some degree retarded by the short-sighted action of the British Government.
The official view, unfortunately, is that the tractor industry is not to be classified among the key industries of the country and, therefore, is not to be given, even during the very early stages of its development, any tangible and dependable protection against unlimited foreign importations. Had it been shown that, by some reasonable restriction in the quantity of imports, the BritiSh farmer would have been compelled to put up with inferior machinery or to pay extortionate prices, something might have been said for the Government's policy, but the general conclusions reached above merely serve to reinforce the view that many of us have held all along to the effect that this policy is unwise, unconsidered, and detrimental to the development of a valuable British industry.