[AT] Ford Motives

[Thomas Martin]

Hi James
What is you fixation with Ford & Ferguson fueled by? 
It's that there seems to be no rhyme nor reason in your
approach to the subject, you jump from one to another subject
to another, obviously depending on what you come across on the 'net.

John Lawton, a veteran reporter, when addressing a broadcasting
journalism conference in 1995, said: "The irony of the Information
Age is how it has given respectability to uninformed opinion."

"The Ferguson System regulated flow of hydraulic fluid into the
pump inlet. When I was working with hydraulic pumps that was a big no-no."

You've made quite a few questionable statements recently which have
left my tongue rather scarred. That one I can't let go.
Obviously you have no idea of the type of pump fitted to a Ferguson
of the day. Gear pumps when throttled, induce cavitation. 
However the Ferguson had a double sided piston pump arranged around an
eccentric mounted on the PTO shaft. Throttling the intake just reduced
the output. The pump output, (3.3gpm(imp), was one of the weaknesses of 
Ferguson, when fitting external hydraulic equipment, especially when compared
with DB with 5+ GPM. 

Tom

 





> On 07 February 2020 at 04:59 James Peck <jamesgpeck at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> I believe that the court found that Ford had infringed the draft feedback portion of the Ferguson System. The settlement was based on paying an amount per 8N sold. As part of the settlement Ford made an immediate change to the 8N to position control. Part of the settlement was that Ford admitted the infringement and agreed to modify their design. The settlement did not void the patent protection  but showed the way around them. The design of the lift arms, lift cylinder, third link, dimensions, etc., Was not found to be protected, so yes, those could be directly copied.
> 
> https://tractorblogger.blogspot.com/2009/02/origins-of-modern-tractor-part-7-of-10.html
> 
> The Ferguson System regulated flow of hydraulic fluid into the pump inlet. When I was working with hydraulic pumps that was a big no-no.
> 
> http://www.fofh.co.uk/tech/hydro.htm
> 
> The NAA went to a hydraulic pump mounted outside the tractor versus the rear sump. This allowed live hydraulics and you could make the point that Ford was the real winner.
> 
> The lawsuit did open the way for Deere to use three point hitch using a draft feedback design of their own. It just could not copy the Ferguson feedback mechanism, which. IMO, was in need of some improvement.
> 
> Ferguson had planned to modify their system if they lost the infringement suit. They should have anyway.
> 
> Steve Offiler AT List member Mechanical Engineer (soffiler at gmail.com) probably took a course in Feedback and Control Systems as part of his Mechanical Engineering curriculum. Such a course with an electrical emphasis was part of my BS Electronic Technology curriculum.  I remember using a programmable calculator in that course.
> 
> Dean VP Snohomish WA 98290 Deerecentric AT List Member (deanvp at att.net); 
> James,
> 
> There were no three point patent issues to worry about when the NAA was announced in 1953
> 
> James: "Both parties benefitted from the joint venture. Ford ended up with the 8N which had some real come from behind market share. After they tweaked the NAA hydraulic design there was no more 3 point  patent infringement worries"
> 
> James AT List Member (jamesgpeck at hotmail.com);
> Two points: 
> 
> Prior to the Ford - Ferguson breakup Harry Ferguson spent some time working on cost reductions for the Ford part of the 9N. This involved working with component vendors to see what could be done to lower the price they charged Ford. This experience probably helped him run his own enterprise.
> 
> The US was covertly aiding in the Allied WW2 effort before entering themselves. The WW2 effort was itself hugely expensive. That all resulted in price inflation. A price increase was in order. If Ford had not been willing to rip Ferguson off, they could simply have unilaterally negotiated a price increase for the price they sold to Ferguson and the price Ferguson sold to the public.
> 
> Harry Ferguson could drive a tractor. Is there any evidence Henry Ford 2 ever even got on one? His reputation is as more of a playboy.
> 
> [James Peck February 5, 2020] Ford claimed to be losing money but that may have been a ploy. I am guessing that new Ford President Henry Ford 2 was clearing the deck of the older men who had been his grandfather's picks:
> Sorensen, Bennet, and Ferguson.
> 
> Both parties benefitted from the joint venture. Ford ended up with the 8N which had some real come from behind market share. After they tweaked the NAA hydraulic design there was no more 3 point  patent infringement worries.
> 
> Ferguson  ended up a two continent tractor manufacturer. He was obviously anticipating the breakup.
> 
> Eagle Hitch and Fast Hitch morphed into three point hitch. It was Allis Chalmers with their knock off of an earlier Ferguson hitch that was the oddball. 
> 
> Dean VP Snohomish WA 98290 Deerecentric AT List Member (deanvp at att.net); Everything I have read on the breakup of the relationship between Ferguson and Ford was primarily related to economics.  Due to the financial details of the handshake agreement Ford realized that Ferguson was making more money on each N series tractor than they were. In fact The N Series was possibly not profitable at all for Ford any more. Ford needed to get that corrected.
> But the way they tried to get it corrected cost them almost $10 Million in the Ferguson litigation settlement in 1952. But... that settlement allowed all manufacturers to use the 3 point system on their own tractors without royalties.  This was the beginning of  the end of the era of proprietary hitches which the farmers eventually rejected. 
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> AT at lists.antique-tractor.com
> http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com