Farmall Cub

Jim Becker wrote:Choose a tractor with a hydrostatic transmission. The functions of clutch, brakes and shifter are already combined in one lever.

Just my thought. Purchasing a tractor with existing hydrostatic transmission would be less expensive than conversion of a Cub. Depending on tractor purchased you would gain a lot of really nice features such as 3-point, standard pto, and readily available attachments.

And there is the liability question, concern.

outdoors4evr wrote:Anyone up for a friendly cubfest competition?

Goal: Create hand controls for your cub.
Requirement: Must be able to be moved to another cub.
Requirement: Must not interfere with the use of common cultivating or mowing implements.

Winning design to be shipped to a family in need.

If I had a spare cub I would take you up on that challange. Sounds like fun.

For Tubby Creek Farm:

Good advice from all but if you are determined to convert a cub then some more info would help.

Timeline?
Resources, i.e. welding, machining, metal working?
How do you plan to get on and off and where?I assume from the right side and into a cub seat with a backrest.
Budget? How much do you have to spend?


A hydrostatic cub would be a straight forward conversion. I was looking into a centrifugal clutch for a cub several years ago, that would work well but requires some fab skills.

Levers for a combined clutch brake that would mimic an over the center clutch would also be easy to make, left or right side?

If you want to stay simple but the least safe would be a combined clutch brake lever. Pseudo over the center action. Leave the foot controls in place and functional for your wife. The brakes would set initially with a spring to hold the tractor lightly to allow the clutch to enguage. The brakes would also have a stronger direct action when moving the lever more to provide a solid stopping action. No splitting the tractor and should be no interference with the action of the original cub layout.

A hydrostat or centrifugal cub would be more interesting and I believe safer but you know yourself and the level of risk you are willing to take. I like simple over complex so I would opt to go with a simple mechanical solution if you had to convert. Now I may have to look for a parts cub to see if I could conver one!

Rick Prentice wrote:Hydrostat -------------------------"It's a Cub thing. You wouldn't understand" You guys give up too easy

I know that the original Cadets used a Cub tranny. I also know that later Cadets had hydro trannys. Any chance that a Cadet hydro tranny could be adapted to a Cub?

Tubby Creek Farm wrote:

Rick Prentice wrote:
Hydrostat -------------------------"It's a Cub thing. You wouldn't understand" You guys give up too easy

Yeah, it is a cub thing. Plus we can't fork out the dough for a tractor, implements etc. Thats part of the reason we got the cub.

I think the owner has pretty much discounted the idea of acquiring another tractor. I did come up with half a solution to running an air compressor and mower simultaneously by utilizing a double pulley. The other half of the solution would be how to disengage the mower without stopping the PTO driving the air compressor... Or maybe you could with enough air reserve, possibly having to stop on the way back to the barn to build air.

There are those of us who can see the answer to the problem in our heads. Design then becomes the issue. I am not sure why there is this no-can-do-it malaise. One thing I have learned as part of this community is that when there is a problem is that there is a solution that will involve our Cubs be it a snow blower, a splitter or hand controls. These should be rather simple to construct once the vision is clear.

Rick Prentice wrote:I've been giving this some more thought all day yesterday. I think the least expensive way, and most practical way would be to use some good quality Morse type control cables(used on boat steering,wrecker controls, pto controls, etc.). They would flex any way need to connect to both the levers I mentioned and also curve around and connect to the brake and clutch pedals(with mounting brackets at both ends to mount the housing ends. With a couple of mounting brackets at certain points to support the heavier cables, flexing would be minimal. The cables could attach to the pedals in a way to still allow them to work normally if needed, and could be attached to the levers at a point to increase leverage for ease of use with the left arm. I have this all pictured in my brain and even had a dream about it last night Thanks for that Randy

Hydrostat -------------------------"It's a Cub thing. You wouldn't understand" You guys give up too easy

Dale McKay over in Debert has come up with some neat mods for Cubs - some based on other tractors such as the Industrials - foot accelerator for a Cub. He has also come up with a couple handicapped mods.

After we come back from Cecil's, Gord and I have to go down to Dale's for a mini-fest with Dale and Bruce Sanford. I may broach the need with him at that time. I have a feeling Dale will have the same clarity of vision that Rick has. This is an interesting project and has been on my mind since it was first posted.

Rudi wrote:I am not sure why there is this no-can-do-it malaise.

Since you want ideas. Both the brakes and clutch can be controlled with one hydraulic valve and two separate, different capability hydraulic cylinders. Basically pull the hydraulic valve lever and the system releases the clutch and applies the brakes. Probably could use single action cylinders since the brakes and clutch have return springs.

Where to put the hydraulic cylinders?. There is quite a bit of excess space inside the torque tube.

I don't think there is any malaise but there is not much guidance from Tubby Creek Farm. Until he gives some more details all this talk is just speculation on what he may need.

It may be better for now just to wait on further guidance from the owner of the tractor.

lazyuniondriver wrote:

Rick Prentice wrote:Hydrostat -------------------------"It's a Cub thing. You wouldn't understand" You guys give up too easy

Got that right... You read my mind.

I dont consider it "giving up". Just a simple answer to a complex question. You can certainly come up with all sorts of ways to accomplish what you are after. I could also ride a unicycle to work everyday, I just choose to drive my truck.

Would you rather pull or push the clutch and brake levers?

My choice would be pull.

Is the right rear implement mounting pad on the torque tube required for any of the jobs you do with your Cub?

I started typing a few thoughts this morning before work and didn't get quite done. I see Matt and I are thinking along the same lines for a convenient place to mount some brackets.
My thoughts;

I'm with Rick on the cable idea. Simplest and easily adaptable. I was thinking about using the rear implement pads, I don't think any on the implements listed use them (could be wrong though) to mount a bracket and pulleys to change direction, pull back on lever pedal goes forward. Pulling the pedals forward with cables would not affect normal foot operation. Pushing the pedal with your foot would just just slack the cable.

Then I thought about how the brake rod goes through the torque tube and thought why not stick a rod through the pad holes with a tab sticking down on the right and up on the left, with cables to the pedals and levers mounted on the left side rear fender area. Would be a lot cleaner installation and less left to right changing of direction for the cables.

With the brakes always locked together as mentioned I'm thinking you could attach a cable to where the left brake clevis is, and when pulled, will work the left pedal, which is locked to the right pedal, which should apply the right brake. As for a mounting point for the levers, I think using three longer bolts to clamp a mounting bracket on top of the rear rockshaft mounting point. Would only need one through the torque tube then.

I also like the levers with notches like the plow depth control and manual lift. While I wouldn't want to hold the clutch long the brakes would be ideal as a parking brake.

Distance of pull on the levers would be a concern. If you have to pull it through a motion of four feet it may not be practical but changing the pivot points and making it 18 inches would be a lot easier to operate. That's why I don't think simply adding extension levers to the foot pedals would be an option. With a travel of six inches at the pedal, the travel up at steering wheel height would be maybe three feet, gonna need some long arms to work that. But this is mainly a brainstorming session as I see it and sometimes an idea that won't work will spark one that will.

One final thought about access to the operators platform. Relocate battery, have quick removable seat post. Build a ramp or loading dock and back cub up to it. Drive your chair onto platform, strap down, drive away.

OK another final thought, safety. As mentioned move kill switch to easier spot for you to reach. Have a fire extinguisher in reach while operating so you can put out a fire or at least slow it down and keep it away from you until help can get to you.

I like the cable idea posted, but I would suggest mounting to the right side fender similar in location to where the Fast Hitch depth lever is... That way you could still operate the throttle and T/C with your left hand..and not interfere with PTO operation...

I like brainstorming!

I'm on the fence about how many hands are needed to control the Cub safely with a hand operated clutch and brakes along with shifting, steering, PTO, touch control and throttle while operating the attached implement. Pick any two controls and see if all the others can be left unattended when plowing, mowing, cultivating, etc. Can both controls be reached at the same time by the operator?

I would consider converting the distributor to electronic ignition to minimize malfunctions. A single lever to operate clutch and brakes, using cables to minimize complexity and zero power drain on the engine. A kill switch needs to be handy as does an 'emergency' brake to lock the brakes independent of the clutch/brake lever. Motorcycle handle bars would make the clutch/brake lever able to operate with one hand while maintaining steering control (three operations controlled simultaneously with one hand) but that would make the steering mechanism considerably more complex and require power assistance to operation.

I thought about a simple hand lever that would quick attach to the existing foot pedal for the clutch, then have a grab hook that would hook to the steering post and release when you just bump the lever, as for the rest of the controls I don't have a clue. Lurker Carl is right about the hands getting pretty busy but can be learned as I have one of those green things with a hand clutch, just my thoughts.

You need to be able to latch the clutch and brake controls up so that you don't need 3-4 hands to operate the tractor.

There are tractors with hand controls all over, with operators that do a lot more than operate a simple Cub on flat level ground using only their two arms. In fact there was a wheelchair accessible Farmall 450 at a local plow day last spring. I have some video footage of it in operation. Maybe I'll cut it out and put it up on youtube for you guys.

Right now, I am envisioning a pivot bar mounted above and ahead of the pedals. Three levers to the right of the steering wheel, clutch, brake, brake. Levers extend below pivot to reverse the direction of pull, and connect to pedals via bars. You can operate clutch with left hand and brakes with right, or all three with right hand. Pull a lever to activate a function. All three levers latch back.

To shift, pull clutch lever back with left, brakes with right. Latch clutch back, reach over and shift. Release clutch latch, ease the lever out while releasing brakes, and off you go.

All I can say is that if Rick Prentice actually had a dream about this, it's do-able.