Didn't you believe me when I told you about DMI's vari-width plow?  I responded under your post about working new ground, the one about using wires to fold over tall vegatation.

Sheesh!  Some people just don't pay attention! :>)http://farmwi.fastline-digital.com/farmwi/200612/?pg=70

My Dad had one, he bought it new in about 78 along with a Deutz 130-06 MFD. 5 bottom, variable width, 12-22. Used White moldboards. I clipped off a telephone pole when the tail end of the plow swung out farther than I envisioned and the STEERING ARM hit the phone pole and snapped it off.

Lots of iron in it, good clearance, didn't cover as nice as the neighbors IH's. I would think you might need to look a the pivots on a prospective purchase. I remember doing some welding on the hitch area, but I can't remember what, my Dad died in 89 and the plow got sold at his estate auction.

DMI plow

That's a big flex frame one.  They made smaller conventional frame ones also. We have a 7 bottom hydrawide. 

We also have an 8-16 IHC just like this one.

It doesn't respond real well to being hooked behind an 8850.   

Max99, I mean no disrespect to your post, and I am sure the information you gave is correct, as I don't recall any big demand for those plows as used.  However, they came out just as plowing was losing favor in our area, and no plow had much resale demand for some time after chisel plows began to be accepted.

But, I have heard the word "overbuilt" referred to many times about many different kinds of equipment.  When Bush Hog used that word in an article in the 70's about changes in their production, I realized we never would see the quality in mowers we had grown to expect from that company again.

What does "overbuilt" mean?  I understand "too expensive", is that part of the definition of "overbuilt"?  I have built some attachments from heavy steel, and then realized my hydraulics were limited to handle them, perhaps one could say that was overbuilt?  I never tore up anything I built, but perhaps had more money in the project than I would have had to have had to do the job.

It is just hard for me to imagine a farm tool being overbuilt, if it is not radically more expensive than another tool, or too heavy for the application.

Overbuilt is a term I like to hear when buying anything, if I can afford it.  I like overbuilt.  It usually means it will last a long time and not require lots of welding to keep it running.

An example is the Kinzie 800 auger wagon I once owned, it was perhaps overbuilt.  I owned it for many years, and when I finally sold it, I could hardly tell it had any more wear than it had when I bought it used.  I like that kind of overbuilt, those kind of tools hold their value, and provide years of trouble free service.

So, what is wrong with the term overbuilt?  Am I missing something?

DMI pretty much is THE plow around here.   With plowing being out of favor everywhere else, there are getting to be quite a few around here. 

The only downside I can think of related to their being overbuilt is that they don't have enough tires to hold themselves up when you encounter a wet spot and there is an awful lot of weight trying to break things when you hit a furrow or wash, all things which happen when plowing up terraces, which is the main thing plows are used for here these days. 

John,

I love your post. Thank you.

As an engineer for several major manufacturers through my career I remember many meetings where "overbuilt" was tossed around as an invective when someone wanted to nail you.

Overbuilt can really only be defined if you really know the loads a machine will see in use and the load frequency. Fortunately we don't see many airplanes with airframe structural failures as there were even into the 1950's (the Dehaviland Comet comes to mind).

There is a massive amount of load data available and fatigue design techniques so that a good aircraft engineer these days pretty well knows what loads and how often a commercial aircraft will see these days through its expected design lifetime. They also usually know about when an aircraft needs to come in for structural inspections and in some cases replacements.

In farm equipment, on the other hand, one can generate data to prove about any theory of loading and life cycle fatigue that you care to prove.

How big a rock is an operator hitting with a plow how fast and how often??? Is the plow designed for North Dakota where there are often 30 ft high rock piles on each 40 corner or is it designed for central Illinois where they can't even find enough rock to put a base under highways...

"Overbuilt" in farm equipment can be argued in many ways. The sales department usually argues that it costs more than the competition therefore it is "Overbuilt". Dealers in rocky areas might define "overbuilt" differently.

Personally I like to design equipment the way I like to buy equipment - "overbuilt". This is a constant issue - the goal of keeping manufacturing cost down means there is constant pressure to lighten up the construction of all equipment. Sometimes things can be lightened up and actually life is improved. 

In much of business these days there is also constant pressure to manufacture products which are just "good enough" so most customers don't mind when it breaks.

Yet you can't make things so bullet proof that no one can afford to buy them.

I think that most of today's successful farmers realize that with larger equipment and more acres covered per row unit etc, that down time on a 16, 24, 32 or 36 row planter during planting season when the weather and the calendar say "GO" is so expensive that it pays to look for equipment that is maybe "overbuilt" a bit. jmho.

Thank you again.

Jim at Dawn

Each machine will develop it's own reputation in the used market.  A good example of this is the John Deere 4020 tractor, the J.D. 7000 planter, and the IHC 710 plow.

The 710 plow had the best resale of any plow that I know of in this area.  It actually sold better than the 720, which was supposed to be a beefed  up version of the 710.  The 720 was known to have more breakage at the pivot points of the trips than the 710, but yet it was supposed to be a heavier plow.

My experience selling plows is that the main frame on most of these plows was heavy enough.  The problems on these plows generally were tail wheels, the pivot at the 3-point hitch  and pivots in the trip assemblies.

As you looked at the IH 710 plow, the frame was not that heavy.  Yet, it had the best resale in the used market.  The DMI plow was extremely heavy in the frames (overbuilt) but it had the poorest resale of any plow that I am aware of, except maybe the Ford plow. 

In this area (MN and Dakotas) the general statement between used machinery buyers as to why the DMI plow had a poor resale value was that it was "overbuilt".

So, what is "overbuilt"?  In the eyes of the used machinery buyer, building heavier frames to make it look more durable did not correct the problems of the pivot points, tail wheels, 3-point hitch and trip assembly.  Most plows did not need heavier frames, but rather  improved pivot points.  So why is the heavier frame bad?  First of all, it is higher priced.  Second, it creates problems on the tail wheels and pivots, because of the weight.  Repairs are more difficult because of the heavy parts.  So, the comments between machinery traders were "why drag all that heavy iron through the field when you don't need it"?

The 720 plow had two or more inches of clearance up and down which would allow more trash flow through the plow.  When they increased the clearance on the 720, they also had more breakage on the trip assemblies, because of the increased load on the trip assembly, when the bottom would hit a rock.  It is the same factor as a longer lever or handle would do.

The plow that I would probably favor would be JD 2800.  It has its share of breakage in the pivot assembly of the trip. The advantage of the 2800 in heavy corn trash is, if you are starting to plug, you can open it up and the plug will go on through, on the go, without stopping. 

Our 710 was a 5-16's (main tractor pulling it was a 560 gas) and our 720 was 6-16's (main tractor pulling was a 1066 Gas)

We didn't see much difference in trash clearance between the two, both of them plugged with about the same regularity.  For some reason, and I don't remember for sure what it was, I recall liking the 710 better.  As I recall, the 720 just seemed more awkward, but that may have been due to the extra bottom.  I remember turning with the 720 just seemed more awkward, I always thought it was the steering, but looking back, it may have been the extra length of the 6-16 over the 710 5-16.  I always preferred to drive the 5-16 when laying off lands and finishing up a land when the turns were shorter.

Both were good plows for their time, we thought they were superior to others brands in the community.  They did have better trash clearance than previous IH plows, and we probably had every improved design from the 2-16's little genus plow (Was it a #5 or something?) that I learned to plow with when I was eight years old up to the 3-16's mounted plow on the 400 IHC, (don't remember that model#.) With the 700 series there was a great improvement in the times we had to climb down and unplug the plow in trash, but we still had to do it frequently, even on the 700's, as our stalks kept getting heavier with increasing yields and increase in population that occured rapidly during the 1960's and up.

The 700 plows sat in the shed during the 80's, 90's, and were canabilized for cutters and wheels.  They were sold in 2003 at auction, brought somewhere around 30 or 40 dollars.  I have since wished I had the steel in them for projects, but I could never have cut them apart, too many memories in that steel for that.

Now come on here.   Go and actually look at the wheels on a DMI and on any of the competitive brands and then come back and tell me that the pivots are not stronger on the DMI. 

We have owned F145H's, 2450's, 1450s, IH 700, and the DMI as well as using some of the Oliver/White models.   Every one of them was weak in the wheels, but the DMI was mostly a matter of insufficient welds.  The others are all built from material more suited to and Erector Set then a large plow.   

Plowboy, that cow you are showing, looks like Holstein-Friesian. It would fit into Stearns County quite well, since this county is one of the top milk producing counties in the USA. You would have to get it off of its tail to get it milked, though.

One of the problems with the DMI plow was the tail wheel. DMI probablely has enough "beef" in the wheel, but they used the tail wheel as the gauge wheel for the back of the plow. That is absolutely a "NO NO" in this country. You need an additional gauge wheel that runs up on the land to gauge the "depth" at the back of the plow. What would happen, if the back bottom would start "walking back" it would be plowing more shallow, causing the tail wheel to come up, bringing the back end of the plow with it. If you went through a "pothole", the back bottom would sink in soft wet dirt and the tail wheel would be following it and then the back of the plow was plowing too deep. Partly because the plow was too heavy. It was impossible to get a uniform plowing depth on the back of the plow, because of the way the plow was made.

In this country, on the flat heavy soils, there is a lot of plowing yet. If the trash is left on top, it will take these soils too long to dry out and warm-up, in the Spring, for early corn planting. With the increase in the price of corn, the rotation will go from corn-soybean to corn-corn-soybean which will increase the demand for used plows.