TCN or YL183
- Thread starter Cordiale
- Start date
Boohoo
Member
- Location
- Newtownabbey
What class do you want to plough in? Vintage or classic?
Mydexta
Member
- Location
- Dundee/angus
How serious do you want to get
If it’s just for a few working days, then get whatever you fancy.
If you have aspirations of trying to get to the nationals, then there is a bigger picture to be looked at
If it’s just for a few working days, then get whatever you fancy.
If you have aspirations of trying to get to the nationals, then there is a bigger picture to be looked at
Not fussed
Mydexta
Member
- Location
- Dundee/angus
International 574 I also have a 434.
Mydexta
Member
- Location
- Dundee/angus
The 434 is too modern for vintage, so if you want to get serious then you will be entering the classic class
For that, a set of tcns will be the board of choice.
Not sure if the other tractor is eligible or not for the classic class, could be too modern for that
Tonym
Member
- Location
- Shropshire
574 was built from 1970 -78 so if pre q cab would be eligible fo Classic as would the 434. Looks as if you have no choice except Classic
Unless there are other reasons you have to go TCN otherwise you will get tripped up sooner or later. Why create a mismatch when one day you might want to sell the lot as a going concern?
Mydexta
Member
- Location
- Dundee/angus
There’s as much down to the ability of the lad in the seat as there is to the type of body you use.
A good lad can compete with a rusty spade, a bad lad will always struggle with whatever he uses!!!!!!!!!!
A good lad can compete with a rusty spade, a bad lad will always struggle with whatever he uses!!!!!!!!!!
My Dexta has it spot on.
It’s rumoured that the delineation between Classic / Vintage was primarily because the general consensus was that the TCN would totally annihilate YL’s.
TCN’s are much more forgiving than a YL and without a shadow of doubt pack the furrow much better. They also sit better and rock less side for side. They do take a bit more setting up but once done are far superior.
TCN’s gained favour in the early 60’s in our part of the world due to them being more robust than YL’s for commercial work. TCN’s we’re themselves done down by Kverneland Hydrein’s which were again more robust
Same old same old. The detractors all rubbished RWM’s but believe you me there is not a body to touch them, regardless of the ground conditions - in the right hands of course, subject to patience.
Boohoo
Member
- Location
- Newtownabbey
If you want to beat YLs you need FRDCPs..
Mydexta
Member
- Location
- Dundee/angus
Surely rwms should out
Compete tcns etc with similarly able operators using them.
I believe tcns were a commercial board, which became successful in the match scene, where rwms were purpose built for match ploughing, so were properly designed for the job????
I normally plough with YLs in vintage. I have a classic plough with TCNs and would say that the latter are better 99% of the time comparing like with like and are more forgiving. I still say match the plough to the tractor datewise and classwise otherwise you are asking for trouble sooner or later.
- Location
- 200 miles N,NW of New York
I have to agree totally with this, spend your money once getting the right plough for the tractor,
will save time and money later, and enjoy your ploughing, if you get sick and don't want to plough, it can be sold
Definitely so but when discussing the merits of the board think on this. For match ploughing it’s a numbers thing. RWM’s are relatively rare. Not everybody can afford or can be bothered to find a pair. Not everybody who has a pair uses them as they take a lot of patience and time to set up properly - unless you are lucky enough to get a set which run. Regardless they are the best as currently classified classic in England. Trouble is that on some soils 7 x 11 work is too big for them - one of the reasons these parameters exist. Regardless they are a superb body.
Anothr superb body - the one RWM’s were developed from is the RND. Set right nothing will beat them in the vintage class. They come with several different share patterns for different work. Commercially they were common to some regions, not others, at a time when YL’s were King. In a lot of regions rules were scheduled to exclude them, ostensibly due to their length, more than likely by owners of other boards who they were beating. Nonetheless a superb body.
TCN’s on the other hand were produced commercially and are relatively abundant, as were YL’s at one time, IRDCP & FRDCP in IRELAND In the late 50’s ploughing matches were also a numbers thing with guys taking the plough they used during the week to matches. In our area everybody competed with YL’s hence if you wanted to compete everybody told you it’s YL’s you need. In the mid 90’s there was a resurgence of match ploughing and the Classic Class was born. Whilst a lot of people still used YL’s the body of choice soon became the TCN - a body with which even moderately skilled ploughmen could produce good middle work. Another superb body.
What do you classify as a match body? In the late 60’s, early 70’s Ransomes delivered 3 TS 86’s FOC into our area specifically for match ploughing, to 3 of the most skilled ploughmen. One was fitted with YL’s, one with TCN’s and t’other fitted with RWM’s. Match bodies? You decide.
That’s not to say that there was not widespread malcontent when people started using RWM’s in the Classic Class in this part of the world. Most of us thought it an unfair advantage. So here we are again back to ‘when in Rome’ or even ‘If you can’t beat em join em’
Last edited:
wuddy
Member
- Location
- Scottish Borders
Why do you say this? Still comes down to man on seat and conditions but on most occasions yl’s would prevail!