Restoration of an old disc, any advice?

Farmwithjunk · Sep 27, 2011

wolc123 said:
I am still waiting to hear back from the OP. It sounds like he may agree with me. I am sorry to have gotten under your skin again FWJ. One thing you wont get out of me is a personal attack but I do welcome yours. By the way, my total plot/garden acreage is closer to 50 than 1/4 which helps a bit with the math.

Got under my skin...????????..Puuuu LEEEEZZZZZZZ. Don't flatter yourself. That would take something you'll never have in 100 lifetimes.....It seems as if YOU are the one who's obsessed with me, and obsessed with an idea that you fell face first into a long time ago when you started posting something so ludicrous as your "fuel savings" (bogus) claims. I'd guess it really does eat at you being so wrong, so often.

You might want to back up and read some of your older post's on here. You CLAIMED a couple small plots, less than an acre from previous descriptions.. Now that your "story" has been shot full of holes (again) you have to resort to further "fabrications".

The OP wants a HEAVIER disc to do primary tillage, explaining the possible choice of a heavyweight offset disc, which has NOTHING in common with old, outdated, useless drag discs that faded into oblivion more than a half century ago. . That's clear enought to everyone else. If his heavy 3-point disc won't do the job, a dilapidated piece of worn out junk that's even lighter than his 3-point disc sure isn't in his plans.....Your assumption is a stretch at best... And if you happen to get the OP to agree, you'll be all the way up to ONE PERSON who agrees with you......And so far that hasn't happened.....

And your "math" seems to have just a touch of Bill Clinton's "fuzzy math"......In other words, it just don't add up even "IF" you were working 50 acres....It still translates to more than 5 hours to disc an acre. You could disc an acre with a team of horses faster than that Sparky.....You MIGHT want to fix the GIANT hole in the bottom of your gas tank....

Try again, I'm laughing my tail off!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And by the way, judging by the emails and PM's I've received, I'm not the only one chuckling at your ridiculous claims!

MtnViewRanch · Sep 27, 2011

Since we are on TBN, I believe that the standard rule is "If there are no pictures, then it never happened". So I anyway, am still waiting for some pictures.:confused3:

Farmwithjunk · Sep 28, 2011

Well....I guess I need to apologize. It's rude of me to be making fun of the less fortunate.

Let's stick to FACTS...

First. Speaking as someone who's had the good fortune to spend a great deal of my life adding to my formal education, I've had the opportunity to be exposed to countless sources of valid test data on a variety of subjects. I first earned a structural engineering degree, then went after degrees in AG Science. In the latter, I'm completing a Masters at this time. While in the ag programs, I've read a number of reports (compiled by AG engineers..) from tire companies, equipment manufacturers, and independent test labs, most done by the manufacturing sector, some done by major college ag departments (with or without sponsorship of private sector) on tractor/implement interaction. In EVERY instance where testing was performed, it was a walkover......Drawn implements pull harder, require more hp, require more (fuel consuming) ballast to equallize traction, and use more energy (ie FUEL) than a similar mounted implement. Testing was done with a variety of implements, but results were ALWAYS the same. Mounted implements simply use LESS fuel to do the same work. The ONLY limiting factor was once implements reach a certain size (ie width....weight....length...) they become impractical and it becomes a neccesity to change to drawn implements. The only way to alter the outcome is by changing points of comparison.....ie narrower width vs wider implement.....Shallower operating depth vs full depth of operation...quality of work performed.......In essence, when comparing apples to apples, drawn implements pull harder than the same size mounted implements when used in SAME conditions...."Pull harder" translates directly to more energy required, which in turn means more fuel used....It's about that simple....

Worth mentioning, in the test data I've read, fuel savings differences (advantage mounted implements) were more to the tune of 7% to 10%.....Not some far flung UNBELIEVABLE concoction of 50%.....Who in their right mind would ever believe such a claim, one way or the other...?

There is NO reasonable explanation why a certain pull type disc would use less fuel than any other type in same conditions....And we all know that anything that sounds too good to be true generally IS too good to be true....

Mounted implements make better use of available traction due in part to "mechanical advantage" (draft control/3-point hitch design) Mounted implements are generally shorter coupled, which has an effect on performance. The list goes on and on....

When we're talking a relatively small implement such as a 6' or 7' disc, the choice of drawn or mounted is wide open (unless you're limiting yourself by using a "too small tractor"....)

Bottom line is, any claims that a drawn (pull type) disc is capable of 50% fuel savings is NOT validated by any science or real world FACTS.....It's pure and simple, a fabrication of someone's wild imagination.

Typically, old pull type disc's were built to be flexible. The conformed to irregularities in the soil surface. A typical mounted disc is a rigid frame. That forces soil surface to conform to the disc. End results...? Flexible framed disc's don't level the seedbed nearly as well. Advantage mounted disc (again...)

Anecdotal observations without REAL WORLD numbers to back them up aren't facts.....They're just opinions.....In this case, opinions that aren't shared by anyone BUT one person. And the really funny part is, every time this persons opinions get shot full of holes, the "opinion" gets revised and re-written.....In other words, the story keeps changing. Anyone who's ever dealt with a little kid who's "covering his tracks" knows what that indicates.

There are reasons why certain items fall from popularity and fade into the sunset....In most cases, it's because a "better mouse trap" made them obsolete. That's the case with pull type disc's. They had a place when there wasn't an availability of tractors with hydraulics, or when time wasn't a factor, or just a little better than horse drawn was acceptable. Fortunately, we found better alternatives. (ie mounted and/or rigid wheel type transport disc's)

As far as the alleged advantages of a pull type disc in muddy conditions.....The ability to "un-hitch" and pull away from a pull type disc when the tractor bogs down is matched against a mounted disc's ability to be lifted slightly while still moving to reduce resistance, allowing tractor to continue on through the muddy condition. Can anyone besides me see a HUGE advantage to the mounted disc in THAT instance....

Long story short, there's a litany of reasons why pull type disc's "went away" over a half century ago. Some people revel in using antique equipment just for the purpose of nostalgia. Nothing wrong with that....Nothing at all. But the fact of the matter is, most of that old equipment is slow, inefficient, nets mediocre results, and has no real redeeming value OTHER THAN one of nostalgia and being "cheap".

Claims that using outdated antiques enable one to go hang with Mickey Mouse and Goofy because of their tremendous fuel savings are......well......Goofy comes to mind again.....since there is no basis in fact to the claims. (But those claims DO provide great comic relief to many I must say!!!)

kf4uda · Sep 28, 2011

Hey HCJtractor, when you get that disc drug out of the weeds be sure and post us some pictures if you get a chance. I would like to see them. I like to see old equipment put back into service.

wolc123 · Sep 28, 2011

FWJ, just to clear up a little confusion, I said previously that I like to keep my plots 1-2 acres on average. I just put in a lot of them. They are all connected by dirt lanes and I dont need to transport over the road. Right now, I have (2) drag discs (8 ft JD, 6 ft Bissel) on two different farms. By the way, using more fuel does not always mean getting more Effective work done. Effective work gets the job done using Less fuel. These days, saving fuel has gained some additional importance. I think that is the main point you are missing. It became clear in your last lengthy explaination, thanks for providing that. Sure the 3-point disc may work some spots more than a foot deep, but it dont even contact the ground in other spots. As you can see, although lots of fuel is burned, it still takes more passes from different directions, to get the job done. The "drag" disc works most spots uniformly, due to the "flexibility" you reference in your lengthy post, which is why, for me at least, the ground is ready to plant with less passes. That is where the big fuel savings comes in. I am not overly concerned with a level seedbed, as that really does not provide any more attraction to deer. For anyone interested in the most "bang for the buck" when it comes to saving fuel, discing for deer, the drag disc is worth checking out. If that dont float your boat on smaller plots, look at a tiller. I have said many times, I think the 3-point disc, particularly the light-weight ones like they sell at TSC, are the single most over-rated foodplot implement.

blueriver · Sep 28, 2011

wolc123 ... time to step back and give it a rest.

Farmwithjunk · Sep 28, 2011

wolc123 said:
FWJ, just to clear up a little confusion, I said previously that I like to keep my plots 1-2 acres on average. I just put in a lot of them. They are all connected by dirt lanes and I dont need to transport over the road. Right now, I have (2) drag discs (8 ft JD, 6 ft Bissel) on two different farms. By the way, using more fuel does not always mean getting more Effective work done. Effective work gets the job done using Less fuel. These days, saving fuel has gained some additional importance. I think that is the main point you are missing. It became clear in your last lengthy explaination, thanks for providing that. Sure the 3-point disc may work some spots more than a foot deep, but it dont even contact the ground in other spots. As you can see, although lots of fuel is burned, it still takes more passes from different directions, to get the job done. The "drag" disc works most spots uniformly, due to the "flexibility" you reference in your lengthy post, which is why, for me at least, the ground is ready to plant with less passes. That is where the big fuel savings comes in. I am not overly concerned with a level seedbed, as that really does not provide any more attraction to deer. For anyone interested in the most "bang for the buck" when it comes to saving fuel, discing for deer, the drag disc is worth checking out. If that dont float your boat on smaller plots, look at a tiller. I have said many times, I think the 3-point disc, particularly the light-weight ones like they sell at TSC, are the single most over-rated foodplot implement.

Never was any "confusion" on my part....Although, it's apparent you're VERY confused.....Hard to keep stories straight when they change every time you tell 'em....

That "flexible disc" does NOT work uniformly.....It just skims the surface, doing a consistantly pathetic job. At least now you've owned up to the fact that you're satisfied with mediocrity and poor results. But that never was really in question.

We ALL know what you've said often....and we ALL know it to be utter nonsense.

HCJtractor · Sep 29, 2011

Sorry to be late in my response. I have a Leinbach 300W 24-20, 24 blade
20" disc, weighing 910 lbs. I have added another 300 lbs. of steel. We plant food plots and try to get them planted in the early fall. Problem is we have had very little rain the last few summers and the ground is rock hard when we need (or want) to plant. This disc just won't penetrate at all. I have a 3 bottom Ford plow that works great, and of course we plow first and then disc, but it still takes quite a few passes to get the ground looking good. I just don't like this disc, as I think it's performance is poor. If we did not plow first, it would not work at all. I was hoping a heavier disc like the one I showed would work better. I will hopefully take some better pix this weekend. THanks for all the responses.

kf4uda · Sep 29, 2011

I would say the disc in your pictures will weigh in around 2500lbs or more. It will defiantly do better than your 3 point but none of them will do a fantastic job in dry ground.