Jump to content

History channel:::the machines that built america


Dasnake
 Share

Recommended Posts

I always figured more may have made it to WWII, and those scrap drives finished it off................I was told alot of good old stuff was scrapped then, for the war effort.

I thought I heard somewhere there was pieces of another one, but it was no where near close to complete?  Of-course this was in the days before the internet so not sure what was truth or fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SDman said:

I remember the guy saying that Deere supposedly offered him a half million $$$ for the tractor after he got all done with it…and he turned them down. Think he was a little butthurt over the whole ordeal with Deere and how he was treated. 
 


I think the “is it a Deere or isn’t it a Deere?” was the whole concern between the two for years. If it isn’t a Deere tractor, would you think that the ad I posted above to be considered false advertising? Looks like that Deere dealer wanted you to think it’s connected with Deere somehow. 
 

Im trying to remember when all the other Dains were supposedly scrapped around Huron…seems like just a few short years after WWI ended…1920/21 it seems like. 

Also, didn’t this guy claim to have found this machine abandoned in a pasture around Huron? Been a long time since all this happened so I’m not sure anymore. 

  The connection with Deere is evident.  The tractors were built in Deere facilities but with the design and direction of Dain.  If I remember correctly most of the Dain's were unsold and could only be sold at a loss to meet the competition.  Maybe Deere was unwilling to take the loss on the retail end?  The bottom line Deere needed a tractor that was competitive with the industry leaders and the Waterloo Boy could not do that.  Even the D was a bit above average price wise but Deere could offset in part by fuel economy and a broad dealer network for parts and service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 766 Man said:

  I would not look to the History Channel for much.  Any show concerning farming was going to be a gloss over.  The Titan/Mogul should have gotten a mention as to wide spread sales to make tractors a presence across the US.  The original Farmall (Regular) being the template for the next few decades in terms of tractor design.  I suppose that in the minds of the producers that if IH did not do those things that somebody else would have.  That the Fordson would have been more encompassing if there was no IH.  That somebody else would have developed the row crop tractor.  Maybe someone here could fire off an email to the producers to see what they were thinking.

You miss the 8-16 Junior the first tractor with PTO

6 hours ago, DOCTOR EVIL said:

Yep, I enjoyed it too.  My only complaint the narrator COMPLETELY ignored a little company called INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER. He made it seem like the ONLY tractor companies in the whole USA was John Deere and Ford.  He has written a book on Deere that I've already ordered that won't be printed for another month or two.  It will be my FIRST and last book on Deere.

   I did a little research couple weeks ago, from 1904 when IHC formed until the Great Depression in 1929 IH was spanking Deere bad in tractor sales, Ford was still sales leader by almost GIVING their tractors away, $295 for a tractor that cost Ford more than that to make. IH battled FORD on price but Deere couldn't afford to. Not until Deere bought the Waterloo Boy Company did Deere ever make a definite commitment to building tractors.  I actually think it's odd, the most impressive tractor Deere ever designed was the DAIN, 4wd, even had a type of planetary gear reduction to reduce speed and increase pulling power, an early TA?  I think Deere has the only one in existance stashed away somewhere.

  But, yes,  it's an informative show, tells about HALF of the story.

Many times when a TV program is showing a tractor, it's a John Deere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the show, thought the presentation was horrible (constantly changing images flickering on and off) and the acting was even worse.

And I kept waiting for IHC to appear.

Don’t think I’ll waste my time watching anything else in the series.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 766 Man said:

  It was not really company policy but an acknowledgement of the reality.  Everybody wants to be number 1 but pulling that off is entirely a different matter.  JD around 1920 was not in a position to take on IH.  All the good ideas got muted by a regressive board of directors.  Deere's head of the Waterloo Works actually appeared before the Deere board of directors while the D was in development in regards to ditching the horizontal 2 cylinder engine.  The board pitched a fit over it as they wanted as little money spent as possible to bring the D to market.  The experimental C and the GP were warmed over D features rather than a somewhat fresh approach with the model A.  

It took Leon Clausen to argue in favor in front of the board of starting production of the D.  He then went over to JI Case and almost ran that company into the ground.  Also curious other then 2 cylinders, what warmed over features did the C/GP carry over from the D.  The C/GP used a flat head engine, worm gear steering, and powerlift none of what the D had.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The end of the Dain tractor was because of another reason when Joseph Dain died.

Back in the day the original founders of Companies didn't want to compiet all the time just think when the fire destroyed McCormicks plant J. I. Case offered to build the reapers until Cyrus Hall McCormick would have a new plant up and running (Mccormick turned down the offer).

John Deere and the founder of Rock Island Plow Co. (this factory would be bought by J. I. Case Co. in the 1930s) where friends and business partners the later at first but there friendship stayed. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Big Bud guy said:

It took Leon Clausen to argue in favor in front of the board of starting production of the D.  He then went over to JI Case and almost ran that company into the ground.  Also curious other then 2 cylinders, what warmed over features did the C/GP carry over from the D.  The C/GP used a flat head engine, worm gear steering, and powerlift none of what the D had.  

Some brothers here locally collect GP's................all I can say is it is a good think they got the A and the B right, those GP's were not much to write home about.  Better than the aft end of a team of horses I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Big Bud guy said:

It took Leon Clausen to argue in favor in front of the board of starting production of the D.  He then went over to JI Case and almost ran that company into the ground.  Also curious other then 2 cylinders, what warmed over features did the C/GP carry over from the D.  The C/GP used a flat head engine, worm gear steering, and powerlift none of what the D had.  

  As I understood it the production argument was over quantity versus yes or no.  I would have to look it up but I think Clausen wanted to make 2-3,000 tractors for the first year which was far more than the board wanted.

 

  Low seat given they were suppose to be able to cultivate.  Fixed front axle that only allowed for one cultivator configuration - 3 row.  "Close" ratio in terms of bore to stroke which created a power issue.  The model A had a longer stroke relative to bore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found a couple stories online about the Dain. Looks like this one was in Minnesota most of its life. The guy that found it/restored it was Frank Hanson, who passed away in 2002-2003. Looks like Deere bought it from his family in 2004 for an undisclosed price.

Interestingly, there seems to be no information about the fight between him and Deere over the existence of the tractor itself. You suppose the family more or less observed a "gag order" from Deere as part of selling the tractor to Deere? I'm sure Deere would rather have that story die as it doesn't present Deere in the greatest of light.

 

https://www.farmcollector.com/company-history/slipping-through-the-cracks-of-history/

 

https://www.gasenginemagazine.com/tractors/the-john-deere-dain-experimental-tractor/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TP from Central PA said:

Some brothers here locally collect GP's................all I can say is it is a good think they got the A and the B right, those GP's were not much to write home about.  Better than the aft end of a team of horses I guess.

I liken the GP to the IH 2+2.  A great concept on paper but poorly executed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, 766 Man said:

  As I understood it the production argument was over quantity versus yes or no.  I would have to look it up but I think Clausen wanted to make 2-3,000 tractors for the first year which was far more than the board wanted.

 

  Low seat given they were suppose to be able to cultivate.  Fixed front axle that only allowed for one cultivator configuration - 3 row.  "Close" ratio in terms of bore to stroke which created a power issue.  The model A had a longer stroke relative to bore.

I never thought of the GP as having a low seat.  Its definitely higher then a D.  A GPO has a really low seat but that's it.  Being only able to cultivate 3 rows was the intended purpose.  Keep in mind when Theo was dreaming up this tractor in 1925 , the Farmall Regular at the time was only 2 row tractor because there was only 2 row planters.  So making a 3 row tractor gave you 50% more productivity.  Being only able to cultivate 3 rows was not a knock on it.  Plus JD did offer different front axles if you wanted to cultivate other crops in different row spacings including even number rows.  And throw in the GPWT in there if you wanted 2 or 4 row capability.  

I don't see any correlation on the bore/stroke dimensions between the two tractors.  If you want to get technical, the A has a longer stroke vs bore ratio then a D.  JD used a flat head 5 3/4" by 6" engine because of the limited space.  JD also elected to use water injection to combat pre ignition like the D.  Problem was the L head didn't lend itself to the water valve/injection.  To eliminate the water valve yet keep the same power levels, JD increased the bore to 6" and lowered the compression.  

 

71FB978B-CB49-4797-BCAB-00792AE5476F.jpeg

E66FA628-3CB6-41AB-8956-EBD8756FE656.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, jordi 1455 said:

You miss the 8-16 Junior the first tractor with PTO

 

 

416A7233-91CA-4146-B2AB-4BA2D03997AE.jpeg

 

IH had a little inspiration for the PTO.  Image courtesy of Guy Fay and his book Experimental and Prototype tractors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Big Bud guy said:

 

416A7233-91CA-4146-B2AB-4BA2D03997AE.jpeg

 

IH had a little inspiration for the PTO.  Image courtesy of Guy Fay and his book Experimental and Prototype tractors. 

that french made tractor looks very similar to the Tractor made by the Swiss Simar or La Precision as it was first known in the late 1910s 

1218486546_Simartraktor1.thumb.jpg.5dc7805d3bf1a1d3ff2b4ce07b8886b6.jpg561117060_simartraktor2.thumb.jpg.0a150541e1a18e6099944db9f32b6094.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, SDman said:

I remember the guy saying that Deere supposedly offered him a half million $$$ for the tractor after he got all done with it…and he turned them down. Think he was a little butthurt over the whole ordeal with Deere and how he was treated. 
 


I think the “is it a Deere or isn’t it a Deere?” was the whole concern between the two for years. If it isn’t a Deere tractor, would you think that the ad I posted above to be considered false advertising? Looks like that Deere dealer wanted you to think it’s connected with Deere somehow. 
 

Im trying to remember when all the other Dains were supposedly scrapped around Huron…seems like just a few short years after WWI ended…1920/21 it seems like. 

Also, didn’t this guy claim to have found this machine abandoned in a pasture around Huron? Been a long time since all this happened so I’m not sure anymore. 

Years ago I know there was an article about it in farm magazine. He found it in a tree row. I thought it was Minnesota or the man was from Minnesota.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Big Bud guy said:

I never thought of the GP as having a low seat.  Its definitely higher then a D.  A GPO has a really low seat but that's it.  Being only able to cultivate 3 rows was the intended purpose.  Keep in mind when Theo was dreaming up this tractor in 1925 , the Farmall Regular at the time was only 2 row tractor because there was only 2 row planters.  So making a 3 row tractor gave you 50% more productivity.  Being only able to cultivate 3 rows was not a knock on it.  Plus JD did offer different front axles if you wanted to cultivate other crops in different row spacings including even number rows.  And throw in the GPWT in there if you wanted 2 or 4 row capability.  

I don't see any correlation on the bore/stroke dimensions between the two tractors.  If you want to get technical, the A has a longer stroke vs bore ratio then a D.  So whats the point??  JD used a flat head 5 3/4" by 6" engine because of the limited space.  JD also elected to use water injection to combat pre ignition like the D.  Problem was the L head didn't lend itself to the water valve/injection.  To eliminate the water valve yet keep the same power levels, JD increased the bore to 6" and lowered the compression.  

 

71FB978B-CB49-4797-BCAB-00792AE5476F.jpeg

E66FA628-3CB6-41AB-8956-EBD8756FE656.jpeg

   If in Broehl's book there was a reference to the 3 row design not going over resoundingly well.  That in some parts of the US the acceptance was not good.  Having seen GP's at shows the site lines did not strike me as impressive for cultivating.  The D was going to get produced.  Just a matter of the first year production goal.  Otherwise, the money would have never been spent for R & D.  The D "ratio's" did not work in the C or GP especially well.  The complaint on the much more widely sold GP was it lacked power.  The A resolved that problem.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, 766 Man said:

   If in Broehl's book there was a reference to the 3 row design not going over resoundingly well.  That in some parts of the US the acceptance was not good.  Having seen GP's at shows the site lines did not strike me as impressive for cultivating.  The D was going to get produced.  Just a matter of the first year production goal.  Otherwise, the money would have never been spent for R & D.  The D "ratio's" did not work in the C or GP especially well.  The complaint on the much more widely sold GP was it lacked power.  The A resolved that problem.  

I don’t know who Broehl is but my info comes from JR Hobbs.  Nobody had more access to the archives and old engineers then he did.  The power problem was solved in 1931.  I still don’t know what ratios have to do with anything. You don’t think it had anything to do with a flat head engine vs overhead? It was the cotton growers that didn’t like the 3 row concept.  And JD knew that because the GPWT was developed in parallel with the GP.  The GPWT came out almost as soon as the GP and I think they made a few C tricycles but prototypes of course.  JD was trying to kill two birds with one stone with the GP.  The GP was suppose to be a rowcrop tractor to take on the Farmall but also a regular or standard tractor to compete against the IH 10-20.  
 

The GP technically was replaced by the AR because JD kept the GP in production through 1935 a year past the introduction of the A because the GP was still selling decently in non rowcrop areas.  It was the GPWT that got axed first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Big Bud guy said:

I don’t know who Broehl is but my info comes from JR Hobbs.  Nobody had more access to the archives and old engineers then he did.  The power problem was solved in 1931.  I still don’t know what ratios have to do with anything. You don’t think it had anything to do with a flat head engine vs overhead? It was the cotton growers that didn’t like the 3 row concept.  And JD knew that because the GPWT was developed in parallel with the GP.  The GPWT came out almost as soon as the GP and I think they made a few C tricycles but prototypes of course.  JD was trying to kill two birds with one stone with the GP.  The GP was suppose to be a rowcrop tractor to take on the Farmall but also a regular or standard tractor to compete against the IH 10-20.  
 

The GP technically was replaced by the AR because JD kept the GP in production through 1935 a year past the introduction of the A because the GP was still selling decently in non rowcrop areas.  It was the GPWT that got axed first.

  Broehl wrote the book John Deere's Company back around 1984.  I always thought that the flat head was not terrible from what I have seen in some cars and the 9N and 8N tractors but might have been a factor in the GP's performance.  I don't have the book handy but I believe that there was mention that the GPWT outfitted with a 4 row cultivator was a dog in certain conditions (slope).  That management by the early 1930's was eager to move on from it even with the late upgrades.  The more obstinate directors such as George Crampton were no longer around to make decisions based solely on penny pinching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, 766 Man said:

  Broehl wrote the book John Deere's Company back around 1984.  I always thought that the flat head was not terrible from what I have seen in some cars and the 9N and 8N tractors but might have been a factor in the GP's performance.  I don't have the book handy but I believe that there was mention that the GPWT outfitted with a 4 row cultivator was a dog in certain conditions (slope).  That management by the early 1930's was eager to move on from it even with the late upgrades.  The more obstinate directors such as George Crampton were no longer around to make decisions based solely on penny pinching.

The GPWT was a dog.  That’s why they actually got the engine upgrades first before the GP.  Took more power power to push a 4 row cultivator vs 3. All I know is JD never built another all fuel flat head engine again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 9/2/2021 at 1:36 AM, Big Bud guy said:

I never thought of the GP as having a low seat.  Its definitely higher then a D.  A GPO has a really low seat but that's it.  Being only able to cultivate 3 rows was the intended purpose.  Keep in mind when Theo was dreaming up this tractor in 1925 , the Farmall Regular at the time was only 2 row tractor because there was only 2 row planters.  So making a 3 row tractor gave you 50% more productivity.  Being only able to cultivate 3 rows was not a knock on it.  Plus JD did offer different front axles if you wanted to cultivate other crops in different row spacings including even number rows.  And throw in the GPWT in there if you wanted 2 or 4 row capability.  

I don't see any correlation on the bore/stroke dimensions between the two tractors.  If you want to get technical, the A has a longer stroke vs bore ratio then a D.  So whats the point??  JD used a flat head 5 3/4" by 6" engine because of the limited space.  JD also elected to use water injection to combat pre ignition like the D.  Problem was the L head didn't lend itself to the water valve/injection.  To eliminate the water valve yet keep the same power levels, JD increased the bore to 6" and lowered the compression.  

 

71FB978B-CB49-4797-BCAB-00792AE5476F.jpeg

E66FA628-3CB6-41AB-8956-EBD8756FE656.jpeg

     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Farmall Doctor said:

Some time back in the mid 90s someone brought one of those Dain things to a show here in Ontario Canada. I think it was the Paris show. Maybe @hillman would recall. Although green and yellow is not his brand either.

I think you are right about Paris but I stay out of the JD green displays :D anything pre Second Gen JD is of no interest to me. I love oddballs and all others but those relics

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...