THE MOST SUITABLE AGRIMOTOR.
Page 30
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Careful Consideration of the Question of the Most Suitable Type for British Soil Suggests the Choice of the Lightweight Machine.
THERE still exists' a good deal of .doubt in the minds of many people as to what is the most suitable agrimotor for English farming conditions. A writer in a contemporary recently stated that future improvements in the agrimotor will enable it to do all the work that horses are required to do on the land, and to work under all weather
conditions, The principal consideration in future improvements, according to that writer, will be that of the tractor passing over and compressing the land, with the waste of its own energy in having to propel itself, and with the wear that is so caused.
Several suggestions are put forward as a remedy. First comes the cable system, and. it is stated that, in spite of the high initial cost of engines, plough and cultivator, this outfit has steadily grown in favour for the last 50 years, and is still doing so—a fact that internal-combustion double engine sets have been made is regarded as marking a certain amount of progress. Then the writer goes on to advocate an agrimotor which can be used (1) for road haulage at a speed of four or five miles an hour; (2) for hay and corn harvesting at a speed of about three miles an hour ; (3) for general threshing and barn and estate work, and which, besides being a general all-round tractor designed and constructed specially for direct haulage, should have (4) the advantage of serving for cable haulage, the mechanism for which could, no doubt, be designed and fitted into the tractor so as not greatly to increase its weight. This is all very well and to the point, but when it is stated that the total weight of such a combined direct and cable haulage unit should not exceed 3 tons, I am rather wondering whether the author of the article in question is quite on the right track. It is certainly true that a total weight of 3 tons can be made to resist the pull of a four-furrow plough or
seven-tine cultivator, but I entirely fail to see how anything in the way of a cross between .a direct traction agrimotor and a cable -outfit can be devised to meet with success.
The following are given as points to be observed in
the construction of the appliance :-• (1) The whole of the cable outfit should be so mounted as not to interfere with the use of the unit as a tractor.; there should be no part to be added or taken away, it should be ready to work at any time, either for direct or cable haulage.
(2) Each tractor should be able to plough to the right or to the left hand without a complicated reverse or uncoiling or recoiling of the cable.
-(3) The strain of the cable when hauling should be distributed in such a way that it does not come on the frame of the tractor. It would be better to bring the pull direct into the central line of the front and back axles, tending to pull them together. This would take strain off the frame, and eliminate the possibility of throwing the engine and gears out of direct alignment.
(4) The drum for winding the cable should be fitted with some form of automatic brake, so that when the tension on the cable increases, the brake is taken off the drum, which is left free to pay out the cable; and as the tension lessens, the brake should be automatically applied in a graduated manner, so that the cable is kept taut and in proper order on the barrel of the drum, and does not unwind, get loose and out of place. (5) There should be an automatic coiling arrangement, so that the cable is wound closely with the coils in correct position on the drum. (6)-When one tractor is paying out cable its engine should be stopped to avoid waste of fuel, and should -have an arrangement for restarting it either from the tail rope paying out or by some automatic starter, so as to allow the engine to get running before the implement reaches the far headland.
I give these six points not because I intend to discuss them, but the author follows up his suggestions by saying that. if these points are kept clearly in mind, it should be possible to place on the market a tractor unit which would do all-round work on the land. It is admitted that such a tractor would not be cheap, and that two tractor units would be required for cable work. Then it is said, on the other hand, that one unit could be used for such work" as harvesting, i.e.., hauling binders, wagons, and so on.
This is a point on which most experienced agriculturists will disagree. Either you must have a cable outfit Or you must have a direct traction outfit. A cable engine cannot be made in such a way that it will do the general work of a farm ; it is impossible' to move', a three ton Outfit over the land with impunity. One does not want a three ten tractor hauling a binder or even two binders, and it is a fact that most English. farms do not require an outfit larger than that capable of hauling two binders at once, and when it comes to the lighter work Of harrowing and sowing, one is hampered again.
It is quite true that there is a certain amount of land in England which is better dealt with by the cable system than by direct traction, but such land must belong to large farms where the owner can afford the big outlay of a cable outfit, or it must be in a region where cable-ploughing contractors abound., The average English. farmer cannot afford such an expensive outfit as this would be, nor would if be Bo generally useful to him when he had got it as a lightweight agrimotor, such as are found to be among the best agrimotors on the market, which include models like the International, the Austin, the 10-18 Case, Cletrae, and others. I am not a stickler for the lightweight machine. I do not desire to be accused of trying to boost any particular iype, but I do. know that, speaking generally, the lightweight machine has been found the most successful on English farms, because it is reasonably cheap, not over expensive in running costs, is simple, • and very handy indeed. With such an outfit as that outlined above, handiness would be sacrificed for a type of appliance only suitable for heavy land that, up to the present, cannot be very successfully dealt with by the ordinary agrirnotor. The machine outlined would be a competitor not with the agrimotor, •but with the steam and internal-combustion engine cable sets. Another statement made by the same contributor is to the effect that, with tractors of the present type in use, there are nearly as many horses required as formerly, whereas what is wanted is a machine which is easily handled, can be used for any farm and estate work, will do both direct and cable haulage, and will, as nearly as possible, eliminate the horse. With this I am in complete disagreement. The horse has not been eliminated, and will not (as the writer in question admits) be eliminated entirely, because, as we have pointed out so many times before, horse-breeding is, and will be for a little time, a profitable undertaking. Further, the agriculturist has not yet become sufficiently acquainted with mechanics and the methods of organizing farm work for machinery, though much progress in that direction has been made.
I see nothing whatever in the suggestion for the new type of agrimotor that would enable the farmer to do without the horse any more than do the agrimotors that are on the market at present. And, as for ease of handling, where could one find anything more easy of operation than the modern agrimotor It is much easier to drive and to manipulate than a team of horses and certainly much easier than the proposed miniature cable set. I fail entirely to see how such a machine could be expected to be so handy on a farm or estate as the agrimotor that we have with us to-day. As for the need for a winding drum and a cable outfit for the ordinary agrimotorwell, that is all right in its place, but every farmer does not want it ; the majority of farmers do not require it ; therefore, there is no need for it as part of the general equipment of an agrimotor. It is useful enough in its place, and farmers who require it will purchase that make of agrimotor to which it is fitted.
it is frequently being argued that the principle of direct traction for land cultivation by mechanical means is wrong ; this may be true in theory, but the idea does not work out in practice. It may be better to be able to cultivate one's land by means which would obviate the necessity for taking the agrimotor over the land and thus causing compression, but even that objection only holds true of heavy land in wet weather: and though I agree with the theory of cultivating the land by means other than that of direct traction, both because of soil compression and energy wasted in propulsion, I cannot see in the least how this is going to be carried opt in practice. As farm work is at present arranged--and I see no likelihood of any radical change being made--the work cannot be done without taking the engine across the field, not if the demands of the farmer for a general utility machine and a machine light in weight and price are to be met.
For these, reasons I think the better policy would be to stick to the agrimotor as we have it at present by improving it as experience accumulates. Of course, one has no intention of throwing cold water upon the efforts of those who are in a position to promulgate ideas. There is no doubt that the time will come when arable operations will be carried out without direct traction methods, but that is a very long way off. Indeed, the only way I see of meeting the objection of soil compression by direct traction is by electrical methods of cultivation. AaanuoT.