[AT] Shift on the go - (was)Ramble: I broke a MF 255 into 2 pieces

[Grant Brians]

In this discussion of frewheeling, I thought about a couple of differences
out here in typical California farming of yesteryear. First, baling has been
a dedicated engine task since horsedrawn days. I have only seen three pto
balers prior to the big rectangle balers (1 ton plus bales) here and all
were intended for 150HP tractors.... None of those were from the antique
tractor era. The same is true of the pull type combines of yesteryear - all
power unit driven. This would make the braking issues a little less. Second,
where hilly areas are farmed, usually the ground is worked by crawlers
whether old or new. Three, even in non row crop farming situations, once the
tractor size is larger than the small utilities (N series, compact tractors
etc.) farmers usually use row crop tractors with the higher wheels and
separate left and right brakes.
    So, we see lots of one side weak brakes on wheel tractors, but not a lot
of worn out equally ones.....
    Just a little different view.
        Grant Brians
        Hollister California
p.s. This rain and wind sure keeps us out of the fields at the moment....
Fortunately no serious flooding yet, but this could be one of those winters
here in coastal sentral California. No irrigation for a while now.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <robinson at svs.net>
To: "Antique tractor email discussion group" <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 12:10 PM
Subject: [AT] Shift on the go - (was)Ramble: I broke a MF 255 into 2 pieces


> farmer, Esq.
>       Wealth beyond belief, just no money...
>
>
> Francis Robinson
> Central Indiana USA
> robinson at svs.net
>
> On 8 Jan 2005 at 0:08, Dudley Rupert wrote:
>
> > I am not familiar with the MF Multi-power option but it sounds like
> > its' braking capability in low range is similar to that of the Farmall
> > Torque Amplifier when the TA is engaged - that is, it has none.  I'd
> > be interested in hearing someone who is familiar with both compare and
> > contrast them  - Thanks in advance.
> >
>
>
> It is much alike except the MF multipower is all hydraulic and the
> IHC TA (at least on all older ones) is mechanical shift. I think the
> later TA's are hydraulic. My tractors except for the #$%& CUB all
> have good brakes. The MF-165D has excellent brakes and a very good
> brake lock.
> The thing I like least about both is the free wheeling in low range.
> I don't have a lot of big hills but all have enough rolling slopes
> that when using wheeled implements like a baler for example the free
> wheeling is a problem. I often have to run pretty slow when baling
> since I usually end up with heavier windrows than intended.   :-)
> If I am running in low gear and low range there are always places
> where I have to drag the brakes on hills to hold everything back.
>
> I have not used any of the "new fangled" AC's from the D series up
> :-)    but I understand that their "Power Director" system uses a
> mechanical clutch in a center position between low range and high
> range which avoids the free wheeling problem. I believe it also
> replaced the hand clutch as used on the older WD, WD-45 and CA to
> give a live PTO. Perhaps someone like Charlie or Cecil or others can
> give us a better run down on them.
> I seem to recall that MM had a TA available in the late 1950's. Did
> any others? Did Deere ever have a shift on the go before the power
> shift transmissions? Scotts 1755 Oliver has an "under, direct and
> over" hydraulic shift. How early did Oliver (or any of the others for
> that matter) have a shift on the go of some kind?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>