Lichfield and district ploughing match

[Pennine Ploughing]

Most probably John, I haven't heard that you can now use SCN/UCN/YCN type bodies though

I will find out tomorrow

 

[Roy Stokes]

Thanks, if it is correct you might find me fitting a nice set of YCN's

 

[arcobob]

Most probably John, I haven't heard that you can now use SCN/UCN/YCN type bodies though

Nor me. If so why the sudden change of heart ?

 

[Roy Stokes]

Nor me. If so why the sudden change of heart ?

It may have something to do with falling into line with the other home nations, if my information is correct some are using Bonning DSB1's and Super Hydreins both of which I think qualify age wise but are not allowed by the SOP

 

[Mydexta]

The Scpa has opened up the Classic class to allow any plough, 2 furrows and over which was in production before 31/12/1976

This supposedly allows hydrein and bonnings into the Scottish classic
Class, but are still unsure about super hydrein. However we were previously allowed ucn, scn,and ycn

 

[arcobob]

Bonnings are 1979.

 

[Roy Stokes]

Bonnings are 1979.

I may be wrong Bob but I thought the TS 97 fitted with DSB 2 bodies was a 1979 built plough but his 1st creation the DSB1 was around much earlier, but as I say not quite sure ?????????????

 

[Mydexta]

I heard that the bonning plough was 79, but he made bodies before that

 

[Roy Stokes]

I heard that the bonning plough was 79, but he made bodies before that

Just checked my Ransomes bible and indeed the TS 97 was introduced in 1979, all the 97's were fitted with DSB 2's but the DSB 1 was available much earlier, in fact the DSB 2 was in production before 79, David Bonning worked for Ransomes on the design of the 97 which was fitted with his body.

The DSB 1 was very much like a UCN but lengthened considerably, the DSB 2 seemed to have a couple of inches added to the top and bottom of the board, both mounted on a standard UCN frog and used UCN points, shares and shin parts

 

[arcobob]

Just checked my Ransomes bible and indeed the TS 97 was introduced in 1979, all the 97's were fitted with DSB 2's but the DSB 1 was available much earlier, in fact the DSB 2 was in production before 79, David Bonning worked for Ransomes on the design of the 97 which was fitted with his body.

The DSB 1 was very much like a UCN but lengthened considerably, the DSB 2 seemed to have a couple of inches added to the top and bottom of the board, both mounted on a standard UCN frog and used UCN points, shares and shin parts

You are paddling in muddy waters ! Was the TS86 or 59 offered with Bonnings ? If not these plough do not conform to the rule that states mouldboards must have been available for that plough when in production. You may say they were but then you could stick all sorts of mouldboards on ploughs of that era simply because they were in existance. I really think that this is getting away from the original concept of ploughing in the vintage/classic classes with commercial mouldboards. You can envisage a situation where somebody emerges with a special body, claims it was made by Joe Bloggs in 1975 and he only made two. Who can disprove it ?

 

[arcobob]

I can see no record of YCNs being offered on any plough in commercial production other than TSR300 variants.

 

[Sprayer]

I plough vintage most of the time, occasionally venture into classic depending on the tractor I take, anyway I hope it stays as it is because there are a lot of chaps enjoying themselves ploughing on a level playing field winning through skill not buying their way to the top with fancy rare boards. Let the chaps with these fancy ploughs and boards go in the world style, semi digger or open class whichever you prefer to call it. I think even the SCN could be a step too far as it needs more depth and width to perform at it's best and so needs a bigger tractor which starts to rule out the pick up and trailer man as he has gross weight limits to think of. For the sake of the fun ploughman leave it as it is, these other "foreign" bodies already have their own class. Having said all that having ploughed commercially with reversible for 55 years using DMD, TCN, SCN and UCN I find a well set up UCN is very adaptable and pleasing to work with.

 

[Fergie Ploughman]

I plough vintage most of the time, occasionally venture into classic depending on the tractor I take, anyway I hope it stays as it is because there are a lot of chaps enjoying themselves ploughing on a level playing field winning through skill not buying their way to the top with fancy rare boards. Let the chaps with these fancy ploughs and boards go in the world style, semi digger or open class whichever you prefer to call it. I think even the SCN could be a step too far as it needs more depth and width to perform at it's best and so needs a bigger tractor which starts to rule out the pick up and trailer man as he has gross weight limits to think of. For the sake of the fun ploughman leave it as it is, these other "foreign" bodies already have their own class. Having said all that having ploughed commercially with reversible for 55 years using DMD, TCN, SCN and UCN I find a well set up UCN is very adaptable and pleasing to work with.

Fancy boards to me are some proper genuine Kristeel's to replace my repro's, can't bring myself to part with the cash! That said, I probably would if I could find a reasonable pair as I'm intrigued to know if they make as much difference as people make out....anybody have a set for sale?

 

[Boohoo]

You are paddling in muddy waters ! Was the TS86 or 59 offered with Bonnings ? If not these plough do not conform to the rule that states mouldboards must have been available for that plough when in production. You may say they were but then you could stick all sorts of mouldboards on ploughs of that era simply because they were in existance. I really think that this is getting away from the original concept of ploughing in the vintage/classic classes with commercial mouldboards. You can envisage a situation where somebody emerges with a special body, claims it was made by Joe Bloggs in 1975 and he only made two. Who can disprove it ?

The rules no longer state that 'mouldboards must have been available for that plough when in production'. As far as I know the rules were changed after a complaint was made at a European about an International plough with Ransomes frdcp bodies. In reply the use of Ransomes YL183s in the trailer class was questioned. As far as I know any combination of frame and bodies is allowed as long as they are from the same era

 

[Boohoo]

It may have something to do with falling into line with the other home nations, if my information is correct some are using Bonning DSB1's and Super Hydreins both of which I think qualify age wise but are not allowed by the SOP

The classic class at last years European match was won with Super Hydreins so it's about time the SOP updated their rules.

 

[arcobob]

With the exception of SCN , or TCN it would appear that only a very small number of these `special`boards are available for classic. This would really foul up the works if the specials are allowed and only 5%% say of ploughmen could obtain them. If they proved to be so superior to TCNs the whole class could collapse. Why is it necessary to manipulate or probe the limitation of the rules ? It would be better to get on with what is available and acceptable and improve skills in order to sort the wheat from the chaff. As Sprayer said the specials boys can always join the class above.

 

[arcobob]

The classic class at last years European match was won with Super Hydreins so it's about time the SOP updated their rules.

I agree that some uniformity should be sought throughout Europe but some give and take will have to take place because the present rules, or those that most people understand, are not all wrong.
The Europeans and Scandinavians in particular clearly produced some good boards for match ploughing and you can`t blame them for wanting to use them but it would cause a massive change in domestic classic ploughing if there is a virtual free for all with costs escalating and a lot of people squeezed out. Sorry to be so smug but I will stick to vintage.

 

[Pennine Ploughing]

SOP have not got back to me yet, but there is nothing in the latest rule book about the likes of SCN are a no no

 

[Sprayer]

Rule book purchased from the SOP 3 weeks ago in readiness for Ashby YFC match in case we get a problem & have to refer to the bible, I usually get it nicked so buy a new one every year.

 

[arcobob]

Returning to the origins of this theme, I received a very smart booklet and entry form for a certain 53rd Ploughing Match.. On page 14 the rules state that ploughing will be judged and scored to National SOP rules and then goes on for two pages to make a number of points including as follows:-
Ploughing depth to be anounced at the draw (for plots)
All bodies must be at ploughing at full depth at the headland furrow
Vintage. Tractor and plough both manufactured before 31st December 1959 (Otherwise National rules apply)
Classic. Tractor and plough must both be manufactured between 31st December 1959 and 31st December 1980 ( Otherwise National rules apply)

This is then followed by six pages of what are described as "National Rules"

I rang the chief steward about this and he had no explanation and didn`t appear to understand the situation. He said he would get back to me.
My International B275 was made after 31/12/59 as were about forty thousand others. At a guess 50% of Dextas, 50% of 35s, and smaller numbers of others are all excluded from the vintage class. As proof of age may be called for what do you do ? Are the stewards going to carry a file full of pages of serial number information on a vast range of tractors. How many people know when their TS59 was actually made as very few carry serial numbers and I suspect that any records are long gone.
I once entered a ploughing match in Cambridgeshire a few years ago. Tractors for vintage mounted had to be manufactured before 1955, I rang a committee member, who was actually in a meeting at the time, to query this. He confirmed that the entry conditions were as decided by the committee. They had effectively excluded almost all Internationals , most Fordsons a large number of grey Fergies and a host of others. I turned up with my 1952 Fergie. The class contained 135s, DB 990s, ploughs with TCNs and a host of others. Because I had made adjustments to comply I tackled the head steward and marked on the programme all those who did not comply. I think this amounted to over half the entrants. I later heard that they were each deducted three points.

Why do people with little knowledge have to interfere with a perfectly good set of rules? I will not be travelling the180 miles round trip to the aformentioned match with my "illegal" 1960 B275 though I guess many will.