9" Furrows

[MrNoo]

As an aside from the "Dodgy Committees" thread, what would be the benefit of running at 9" furrows on a Fergie plough as opposed to the "standard" 10" furrows, obviously the furrows would be narrower and at a guess possibly neater looking. I am aware the old trailer ploughs used to run at 8"-9" but with much longer boards than we have.
I only ask as we witnessed a chap who was consistently taking 18" off (we measured with a tape each time he went down his plot!!) on each bout and it certainly wasn't coming off as an 8" front and 10" rear furrow, this plough is supposed to be as "it left the factory" but was clearly not but it interested the engineer side in me. I am also aware that the owner of said plough has been told that it wouldn't be eligible to compete at the Nationals, so it all seemed a bit pointless to me but to be fair he/it did a very good job and the silverware was taken away at the end of the day.
So I guess, narrower furrows turn easier, more neatly, are firmer?? easier to bury trash due to less being present but down side would be a pain to work in 18" multiples (I have a hard enough job working in 20's) and eligibility further down the line.
I do have another plough I plan to build up for next year and did wonder if it was worth making it to 9" to see if I notice any difference.

 

[Roy Stokes]

All I can offer on this Chris is it will in most conditions give a neater furrow but there are downsides, once you get down to that sort of width, depth becomes even more critical, if you get in slightly too deep it will look shoved, achieving 6 inch depth on heavy going with a 9 inch furrow could cause them to fall back, heavy land will stand on end and could have letter boxes where the furrow hasn't closed. with out adjustable stays you will be pushing the furrow just as far as before whereas I will pull the boards back a touch if I narrow the plough width.

Seems a lot of work for something you cannot use at national level which is where you and Trevor and hopefully the female one will be heading in the near future !....................

The norm in classic ploughing used to be 11 inch width x 7inch depth furrows, I plough either a 10.5 or 10.75 inch furrow which can be frowned on by other competitors who believe it should be an 11 inch class
however it allows me to make neat furrows that can compete with the RWM users who generally plough at 10 or 10.5 inches my biggest problem is getting enough depth at the narrower width but as long as a fine balancing act between the 2 is adhered to I get away with it. there are some who are reported to use TCN bodies at 10 inches but I would say they would struggle to maintain the 17.5 centimetres/6.75 inch minimum depth required

 

[MrNoo]

Thanks Roy, yes a lot of work for not a lot of gain legalities aside. Just was interested but seems like you do a similar thing ploughing narrower to compete with RWM boys, we dont tend to plough as deep as you do, 5 1/2"-6" max. I may just "rig" something up and give it a try just to cure my curiosity.
Yes I gather you have Trevor paying you a visit, confiscate his tape measures!!! (you'll understand after he's been with you for a day!!) but I did go through his plough and sort it out for him, he did well and had a 2nd at the Chippy match after so it goes ok.

 

[Petetheploughman]

If I tried ploughing with one furrow narrower than the other they would be paired. I'm surprised his wasn't.

 

[MrNoo]

If I tried ploughing with one furrow narrower than the other they would be paired. I'm surprised his wasn't.

They weren't!! that's why we deduced that he was running at 9" furrows.

 

[Roy Stokes]

Thanks Roy, yes a lot of work for not a lot of gain legalities aside. Just was interested but seems like you do a similar thing ploughing narrower to compete with RWM boys, we dont tend to plough as deep as you do, 5 1/2"-6" max. I may just "rig" something up and give it a try just to cure my curiosity.
Yes I gather you have Trevor paying you a visit, confiscate his tape measures!!! (you'll understand after he's been with you for a day!!) but I did go through his plough and sort it out for him, he did well and had a 2nd at the Chippy match after so it goes ok.

Trevor is coming up on Friday, he messaged me about his 2nd place to Mr Ingram, Trevor was delighted ! he does have a good understanding of what needs to be achieved much like yourself, I t was good to see you both spectating up at Sherwood, a lot can be learned by watching from the headland once you have the basics firmly fixed in the mind

 

[Petetheploughman]

All I can offer on this Chris is it will in most conditions give a neater furrow but there are downsides, once you get down to that sort of width, depth becomes even more critical, if you get in slightly too deep it will look shoved, achieving 6 inch depth on heavy going with a 9 inch furrow could cause them to fall back, heavy land will stand on end and could have letter boxes where the furrow hasn't closed. with out adjustable stays you will be pushing the furrow just as far as before whereas I will pull the boards back a touch if I narrow the plough width.

Seems a lot of work for something you cannot use at national level which is where you and Trevor and hopefully the female one will be heading in the near future !....................

The norm in classic ploughing used to be 11 inch width x 7inch depth furrows, I plough either a 10.5 or 10.75 inch furrow which can be frowned on by other competitors who believe it should be an 11 inch class
however it allows me to make neat furrows that can compete with the RWM users who generally plough at 10 or 10.5 inches my biggest problem is getting enough depth at the narrower width but as long as a fine balancing act between the 2 is adhered to I get away with it. there are some who are reported to use TCN bodies at 10 inches but I would say they would struggle to maintain the 17.5 centimetres/6.75 inch minimum depth required

Can you plough 10" at the Nationals if you have RWM's or must you plough 11" whether you have RWM's or TCN's?

 

[Roy Stokes]

Can you plough 10" at the Nationals if you have RWM's or must you plough 11" whether you have RWM's or TCN's?

There is no width restriction at national level in England, the Scots insist on 11 inch work in classic classes Peter, there are a few classic ploughmen who believe the work should be 11x7 but 10.5 by 6.75 is neater in sand land

 

[arcobob]

Unfortunately other threads have led some to believe that there are pitfalls at every turn. There is a small book obtainable from the SOP website called The Official Rule Book. It only costs £2.50 and is a must read for those who appear to want to reinvent the wheel without actually knowing what the wheel looks like or actually does. This would not only save them from buying the wrong gear but may prevent them from blaming their mistakes on the majority who do not find it difficult to understand these rule or apply them.

 

[arcobob]

When I started I had problems with land falling back on my 10" YL ploughing and phoned Ken Chapppel for his advice. He said that I was ploughing too narrow for the depth. When I said I was ploughing 6" deep as per the rules his reply was to crank the plough out a bit and if a steward was taking too much interest just crank it back in a fraction. He also suggested ploughing at 101/2", not easy with a TS59 with standard legs and frame.

 

[MrNoo]

Unfortunately other threads have led some to believe that there are pitfalls at every turn. There is a small book obtainable from the SOP website called The Official Rule Book. It only costs £2.50 and is a must read for those who appear to want to reinvent the wheel without actually knowing what the wheel looks like or actually does. This would not only save them from buying the wrong gear but may prevent them from blaming their mistakes on the majority who do not find it difficult to understand these rule or apply them.

Is this aimed at 9" furrows on a Fergie or the above re Roy's ploughing widths? We have 3 Fergie ploughs here and they all differ from standard "book" measurements despite not one of them being "messed" with, one is 9 1/2" one 10" and the other ploughs at 10 1/2", not a lot of difference you may say but the 9 1/2" plough does the best job. Unfortunately it belongs to my other half so I dont get to use it at matches. Judges have said as much re her middle work hence why I was exploring the option.
It was Mr Ingram who's plough we reckoned was running at 9" furrows as we measured at the Sherwood match, it also sports a very wide cross-shaft, much wider than the standard Fergie shaft, he has locking bolts on his disc stems too to prevent the discs from moving when doing his finish. It (to me) was a very interesting plough. That aside he knew how to use it as well (which always helps!!!) but I will give him some gardening gloves next time I see him!!

 

[arcobob]

Is this aimed at 9" furrows on a Fergie or the above re Roy's ploughing widths? We have 3 Fergie ploughs here and they all differ from standard "book" measurements despite not one of them being "messed" with, one is 9 1/2" one 10" and the other ploughs at 10 1/2", not a lot of difference you may say but the 9 1/2" plough does the best job. Unfortunately it belongs to my other half so I dont get to use it at matches. Judges have said as much re her middle work hence why I was exploring the option.
It was Mr Ingram who's plough we reckoned was running at 9" furrows as we measured at the Sherwood match, it also sports a very wide cross-shaft, much wider than the standard Fergie shaft, he has locking bolts on his disc stems too to prevent the discs from moving when doing his finish. It (to me) was a very interesting plough. That aside he knew how to use it as well (which always helps!!!) but I will give him some gardening gloves next time I see him!!

If it produces the best results and you can find a way of altering your Fergie plough then why not. As for Richard's plough you have made an interesting observation. On sand at Sherwood Forest you would do a very good job with YL and 9" furrows. On stiff land you would be in trouble if you ploughed at 6"or more in depth at this width. As for his cross shaft, this is a simple way of allowing sufficient adjusment in order to plough off a single furrow with the back by moving the plough to the left and driving the left tractor wheel to the furrow wall on your start side. This furrow is only about half depth and leaves a differential height between the furrow bottom on yours and your neighbours side. At the finish this shallow bottom provides the soil for the earth or crumb furrow and also supports the landside to prevent the plough from crabbing wide. Some people retain the standard shaft and cut the side of the frame away but using a TS59 shaft is a better way. Locking collars are standard on a Ransomes plough and essential if you are going to skim the final remaining full furrow with a disc mounted skim as the disk is unsupported by land to the left as in normal work.
As for the gardening, he is becoming renowned for these skills and is not welcomed at some matches. He features in a Youtube vid entitled "ploughing a finish with a Fergie plough". He starts way back behind the scratch mark in order to get the plough to run in line and to achieve full depth early, then gets off his tractor and fills the resultant extended open furrow in with his boot. I am not sure whether this is a serious instructional video but it is certainly cheating. A great pity as he has no need to do it.

 

[Petetheploughman]

Is this aimed at 9" furrows on a Fergie or the above re Roy's ploughing widths? We have 3 Fergie ploughs here and they all differ from standard "book" measurements despite not one of them being "messed" with, one is 9 1/2" one 10" and the other ploughs at 10 1/2", not a lot of difference you may say but the 9 1/2" plough does the best job. Unfortunately it belongs to my other half so I dont get to use it at matches. Judges have said as much re her middle work hence why I was exploring the option.
It was Mr Ingram who's plough we reckoned was running at 9" furrows as we measured at the Sherwood match, it also sports a very wide cross-shaft, much wider than the standard Fergie shaft, he has locking bolts on his disc stems too to prevent the discs from moving when doing his finish. It (to me) was a very interesting plough. That aside he knew how to use it as well (which always helps!!!) but I will give him some gardening gloves next time I see him!!

Here is me changing the subject again. Can you plough with Lea bodies in the Ferguson class? Or must they be GP.

 

[MrNoo]

Yes, some people use Lea bodies (can only think of 2 people) and I thought they'd do a much better job than the GP bodies but it appears that they dont when the judging has been done and also not eligible for the Nationals I believe.

 

[arcobob]

Here is me changing the subject again. Can you plough with Lea bodies in the Ferguson class? Or must they be GP.

Under SOP rules any bodies used must have been in production before the end of 1959. One of the Fergie societies agrees with this and one does not so there is one lot that does not allow Lea bodies. Google the rules of the two societies for further clarification.

 

[Petetheploughman]

Yes, some people use Lea bodies (can only think of 2 people) and I thought they'd do a much better job than the GP bodies but it appears that they dont when the judging has been done and also not eligible for the Nationals I believe.

Under SOP rules any bodies used must have been in production before the end of 1959. One of the Fergie societies agrees with this and one does not so there is one lot that does not allow Lea bodies. Google the rules of the two societies for further clarification.

In other words it's better to stick to GP's.

 

[MrNoo]

In other words it's better to stick to GP's.

Yes!! And most ploughs you tend to find for sale have either GP or digger bodies anyway, dont think I have ever seen a Fergie plough for sale with Lea bodies (Westlakes do sell them however)
The chap next to me at the Chipping Norton match recently was using Lea bodies but we were both at the wrong end of the field soil wise and his boards stuck up like mad, mine did too but not as bad, torrid ploughing, brash with a bit of clay content and large stones, some did their opening and then went home. It was a job to turn an honest furrow.

 

[arcobob]

I apologise for incorrect info obtained from my 2012 rules. These were ammended in 2013 to read bodies to have been in production before the end of December 1956. When were lea bodies introduced ?

 

[Howard150]

I apologise for incorrect info obtained from my 2012 rules. These were ammended in 2013 to read bodies to have been in production before the end of December 1956. When were lea bodies introduced ?

I think the contention is not with Lea bodies but with the much deeper L Base bodies which were introduced as late as 1969 I believe. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Both lea and l base shares have bolt holes parallel to the landside whilst GP bodies are slightly angled away from the landside.

 

[Mydexta]

I think the contention is not with Lea bodies but with the much deeper L Base bodies which were introduced as late as 1969 I believe. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Both lea and l base shares have bolt holes parallel to the landside whilst GP bodies are slightly angled away from the landside.

Were the L base bodies realeased with the 793 frame????