AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

THE CHOICE OF PLOUGHS.

28th September 1920
Page 17
Page 17, 28th September 1920 — THE CHOICE OF PLOUGHS.
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

The Exclusion of Foreign Ploughs and Its Effect Upon the Tractor Trials.

IN THE EDITORIAL pages of The Commercial Motor for September 14th there appears a criticism on the attitude of certain American entrants of tractors for the Lincoln Trials, brought about by the action of the -R,A.S.E. in excluding foreign ploughs. The criticism appears to give a decided bias against the complaint on the part of the American entrants. I know it is only. intended to express a point of view, but it does, nevertheless, appear as an opinion that is rather one sided.

There is no doubt that the decision has given rise to an idea among overseas entrants that the R.A.S.E. has adopted a notion that its duty is to give English ploughs a first chance. Well, that may or may not be true—neither does it much matter—but, as I have pointed out before in "Agrimoter Notes," if there is anything good among ploughs in America, we. want to see it, and it is, to my mind, a pity that, in deciding to seleel the ploughs, the R.A.S.E. did not (l)_ choosethe ploughs regarded as the best for certain .. classes of tractor, instead of referring the matter to chance, or (2) leave the matter open. .. . , I do not, however, wish to labour the point, and I . only .hope, if the R..A.S.E. does not see its way to making any alterations in the rules, that all the entrants will abide by the decision, as these trials, under the same arrangements, will probably not take place again for several years.

The editorial criticism does not appear to me to be very sound. I am not in the, least surprised to End that some of the American entrants strongly protest. against. the exclusion of ploughs which they have found most adaptable to their own:tractors. Nobody disputes the fact that the test is for the trial of tractors.. It ha-s never been regarded as a ploughing match or even a trial of ploughs. If,by any chance, that view has gained currency, it is only right that the matter should be cleared up ; but, when it is said that the ploughs are not going to be considered in the matter, that they are not to be judged, that they are, in fact, hardly necessary to the performance at all, except in so far as they allow of a fairly accurate estimate -of thefuel consumption and acreage per -Mile of each competitor, One is 'forced to the conclusion that.too lenient' a view has been taken of the matter editorially. • .

if the ploughs are not to be taken into considera tion, why need the trials be held, or, at the most, why not merely a drawbar test?

In Regulation'2 it is stated that the machines shall. be tested for efficiency in carrying out various classes of work. Now, I ask plainly, how can any agrimoter be expected to carry out ploughing efficiently with a plough unsuited -to it? How can (see Regulation 3) an agrimothr be truly judged in the matter' of fuel consumption under the same conditions? 'Who would say, for instance., that the Oliver No. 7 is not the best plough for the Fordson and that other particular makes of plough are not the best for certain other tractors ?

It is, perhaps, not so much a matter of concern that certain tractors will be placed at a disadvantage by having unsuitable ploughs attached to them, as the fact that other tractors will be placed at a decided advantage because they have the plough which suits them best.

I have no knowledge of the reason for the arbitrary limitation of rhoice to implements of British make. " A decision which is perfectly logical -as coming from the Royal Agricultural Sodiety of England."I am not so sure di the logic of this decision, unless' it be applied • to norroW-mindedness ; . but it is Perfectly staggering to find that the final selection , of. the ploughs was made by ballot—by selecting papeis from a hat. One begins to wonder whether the agricultural members of the R.A.S.E. Committee really know anything about ploughing. It is the last method any experienced ma-n would employ for selecting a plough for any,purposes whatsoever, least of all a tractor trial. Itwould have been far better if the society, instead of balloting, had deliberately selected those implements which were considered best for, the purpose, even though it. meant the inclusion of some of the American ploughs.

But, having pointed out what appears to me to be an error, I would urge the aggrieved entrants not to carry their threat too far, but. to take a little risk in the matter, if the -rules are not altered, it seems to me that the better plan, the more dignified policy, would be to accept them withoutresort to the threat of a strike. It will, at least, be a consolation for those who fail to get a prize, and something to lay the blame to. Some weeks ago I pointed out the unfairness of the -position, and it-must be the business of thase concerned to see that the mistake: does not occur again. AGRIMOT.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus