The Cub, a tractor ahead of its Time?

[John(videodoc)]

Is it just me, or is everyone seeing all these smaller horsepower, ag tractors at Rural King, TSC and the like, that you can get small plows, disks, etc for. Seems like IH had it right 50 yrs ago. Bet you, our cubs will out last these TSC/Rural King tractors by 50 yrs or more.

VERY slow day at work today. Been pondering all day. Actually been itching to get to me barn. At least i figured a bypass to be able to get to the best website out there while at work.
john

[W6NZ]

The cubs with cultivators are used for squash,tomatoes etc. they do a great job and look good.

[400lbsonacubseatspring]

I apologize for the length of my posts, friends. I don't know how to say things with brevity, unfortunately, so I tend to write essays instead of one-liners. If this bothers anyone, please let me know.

One needs to look at why the cub was introduced, and to whom it was targeted to really appreciate its innovation.

The cub was the "final blow" dealt to the small farmer who worked with one horse. (The Amish, notwithstanding) The economy of the matter was undeniable, for the first time, probably. For the cost of a good draught horse, and a year's worth of feed, you could have a brand new tractor, and get your work done in 1/3 the time, not to mention not being nearly as tired when all was said and done.

Best of all, if you had any hitched implements that you were fond of, you didn't need to buy new ones, as they could be hitched right to the drawbar of the cub. The possible exception to this was the sickle bar mower, which would have required 2 people to operate with a tractor. For some families who had extra help, this was no problem. A lot of us can remember sitting on the old sickle-mowers, while our fathers or grandfathers towed us with the tractor.

New implements were inexpensive, too, as we've seen from some of the original bills of sale that have been posted here. It would have been a tough question to many, whether to repair an old implement, or buy a new one that fit the cub properly.

And the time-saved factor is amazing. For those of you who have spent any time walking behind a wheel hoe know, it is not the fastest method of cultivating out there.

The cub was a 1-row cultivator, too, which meant that you could set up your wheel treads to accomodate the way YOU liked to plant. 22" row spacing, 24", 28" whatever. You weren't locked into any specific row spacing system like you were with larger tractors (that can be said for the A-series as well). The people who bought them weren't corn or cotton growers, but were the tomato, cucumber, and other produce growers of the day, who never before had a tractor of such versatility made "just for them" at such little cost, and hence, had been hanging on to their work horses.

Once there were tens of thousands of them out there (by the second year of production), the after-market people started producing tons of additional attachments for them, which have become the things we now seek most highly, many of us, adding even more versatility to the tractor.

Now you could cut firewood, dig post holes, cut brush, clean out barn stalls, and a whole lot more with that inexpensive little tractor.

I read somewhere that in the original design specifications, they expected the cub to last somewhere around 8 years under "usual" conditions. I think that their heritage from the farmall line made them easily repairable, and the people who owned them liked them so much, that they were better taken care of than many other tractors of their day. This, combined with better-than-expected craftsmanship and design on the part of the Louisville people made for a product that far outlasted its original specified lifetime.

I do not believe that the cubs we now own were spared a great deal of hard work to arrive in the 21st century alive and running. In the case of my own, the signs that it was well-used, but highly-revered are there.

I think in many cases, the cubs that were bought to replace the horse on one-horse farms eventually ended up doing much more work than expected. As the new owner found himself getting his chores done more quickly, he probably took on additional acreage, when possible.

The lo-boy, aimed at a totally different market, the groundskeeper/landscaper/highway maintenance market, had its own following, and, being the first machine scaled specifically to their needs, it is understandable how popular they were as well. You can see the sales of the lo-boy increasing over time with the urban sprawl into rural areas throughout the 1960's and 70's. They were machines that made their owners alot of money, no doubt.

So, all in all, I don't think the cubs were "ahead of their time", but rather were "right on time," in that they filled a market niche that was eagerly awaiting a product that met their specifications. The production run of the cubs suggests that it took a long time for other products to finally supplant the cubs as the tools of choice for these 2 markets. I think in the case of the one horse farmer, the market itself died off. In the case of the landscaping people, the other choices out there became so great, and so specialized, that the lo-boy, which hadn't changed substantially in years, became obsolete for its price. I guess that explains the switch to the number series lo-boys, which were successfully marketed against other brands at the same time, until the time of the "compact utility tractor", which you either entered the market, or became extinct.

I don't think anyone would argue that if IH had created a larger utility tractor, complete with 3 pt hitch, perhaps based upon the Super A/130 Engine and transmission, but in the style, say, of the 184 lo-boy, that it would have been a tremendous success. By this time, however, IH was in the midst of financial crisis, being the 1980's, and had no such luxury as launching a new product line. We saw products like this from case, shortly after their merger.

[John(videodoc)]

hey brian, yeah ive looked at em, and wouldnt pay that price. (didnt, when i was in the market) just sad