Ts90/91 point to point clearance

Dbrown94

Member
evening all i am looking at potentionally at buying a new plough for local ploughing matches but I was wondering what the point to point clearance is of a ts90 or 91 compared to a ts59 thank you for your help in advance
 

Dbrown94

Member
I'm from Norfolk I currently have a 35 and a ts59 on tcns so I go into the classic class but I was thinking about having a little more point to point clearance and I wondered if a ts90 or 91 would offer me a little bit more
 

Mydexta

Member
Location
Dundee/angus
They might, but I think they are all the same, however, a 59 is easier to set the width of the back furrow as a 90&91 will be fixed at 12 or 14 inches wide, where u want to be at 10.5-11 inches wide with tcns.
A 90&91 can be converted, but it's a fair bit of work.
 

Roy Stokes

Member
Location
East Shropshire
I think I may have replied to this on face book but I'm pretty sure a 90 is 30 inches, certainly more clearance than a 59, with every advantage there comes a disadvantage, the 59 will jam chopped straw between the rear skimmer and the front leg which can be most infuriating, but the in's of the ins and outs are better, on the out's I think the longer plough is just as good as it allows the rear body to stay in a bit longer
 

Dbrown94

Member
Lovely thank you all do your help. I'm hoping to keep a ts59 but I'm now going to look at getting a 2 furrow ts90 and see how I get on with it
 

Howard150

Member
Location
Yorkshire
I think the 90 is 30", same as a 64 and an 86. Somewhere lurking in the back of my conscious something tells me that a 59 was 4" less, having made one longer in a previous life.

Ins will definitely be worse with a longer plough but a rolling landside will help reduce this. Trash will be got rid of far easier on a longer frame. The position of the depth wheel on the frame also has a bearing on ins as well. The further back the worse the job.

Despite whatever anybody tells you, then a longer frame is far far more stable side to side than a shorter one.
 

Pennine Ploughing

Member
Mixed Farmer
the front landslide is really only a wear plate, yes it does some work, but could easily be done without, rsld ploughs don't have any front landslide at all, it's the back one that does all the work
also if you extended the front, the plough would be harder to steer
 

Howard150

Member
Location
Yorkshire
Can anyone explain why the front landslide is always so short? The rear furrow slice doesn't move until 8" beyond the end of the front landslide end.

Short to stop the rear furrow breaking its back over it. As Penninre so rightly says landslides are not fitted to the front body of early RSLD's
From a manufacturing point of view there is also a cost implication where it's pointless to fit anything that does not improve things overall and is nothing more than an extra cost.
 
Last edited:

rick_vandal

Member
Location
Soft South
It worries me when an argument finishes with 'it is tradition', 'it is the way we have always done it' and finally, since when do we have a 'cost' consideration on a match plough? With the front board pushing as much as the rear, there is a lot of tweak in the frame and some wasted space between the bodies. Just how much steering does a plough need in a straight line (when judges should look for straightness last)?
 

Howard150

Member
Location
Yorkshire
It worries me when an argument finishes with 'it is tradition', 'it is the way we have always done it' and finally, since when do we have a 'cost' consideration on a match plough? With the front board pushing as much as the rear, there is a lot of tweak in the frame and some wasted space between the bodies. Just how much steering does a plough need in a straight line (when judges should look for straightness last)?

Consider also the position of the front landside. Relative to the rear landside the it is only halfway down the plough and at best could only exert half the effort compared to the rear. Another more important fact to take into consideration is that like it or not both bodies run parallel. In this condition it is questionable whether or not the front landside exerts any force at all. Probably the only force which can be exerted is at the very rear of the plough.
I fail to comprehend where the wasted space is in a plough considering the time spent by Ransomes to come up with the two variants of interbody clearance in common usage and the specific need to clear trash freely.
Hard
Hardly a question of steering the plough, more a case of maintaining equilibrium of forces.
 

rick_vandal

Member
Location
Soft South
And the forces are key! The front body is pushing a furrow slice to the right via the frame to the rear landslide unless the front landslide takes side force, yet there is space, below ground level before the rear slice is turned for a longer front landslide. Just asking!
 

Roy Stokes

Member
Location
East Shropshire
And the forces are key! The front body is pushing a furrow slice to the right via the frame to the rear landslide unless the front landslide takes side force, yet there is space, below ground level before the rear slice is turned for a longer front landslide. Just asking!

Many Fiskars plough frames were extended a few inches by experienced ploughmen due to the original being slightly too short and the tightening action against the front landside as the furrow turned cause very slight pairing.
Ransomes were no fools, shorter landsides on anything other than the rear body was to alleviate the above problem
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 77 43.5%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 62 35.0%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 28 15.8%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 4 2.3%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,284
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top