The number of times a stretch

The number of times a stretch (a complete cycle of outward and

inward movements) could be made in one minute was, theoretically,

5 times for 40s and 5.5 times for 20s yarn production. In the 1890s,

however, the actual number of stretches is thought to have been

around 4 for 40s yarn production.13 One stretch of 63 inches took 15

seconds: 9 seconds for the outward run, 2 seconds for backing-off

and 4 seconds for the inward run. The control of such operations

clearly required physical strength and skill. The mule at that time

was much shorter than the modern mule, with 500 to 900 spindles per

machine for spinning weft and 500 to 750 for warp. Generally the

machine was attended by one spinner (a man) and two piecers

(women).14 In the case of the ring frame, only one unskilled attendant who performed piecing and cleaning duties was sufficient for

operation, so long as the spindle was working well and the traveller

and ring were set correctly by the engineers for the type of raw

cotton used and for the count of the yarn. Naturally, the wage rate 

was set to reflect the type of job. Hence, at least in the case of

England and America, the wages of a mule spinner were 50-100 per

cent higher than the wages of a ring frame attendant. The wages of

a mule piecer were either the same as, or somewhat greater than, the

wages of the ring frame attendant. I5 These facts indicate that the ring

frame attendants (who were mostly women) hardly needed any skills.

Now let us look at the machines themselves. It is known that the

price per spindle of a mule was 10-40 per cent lower than the ring

frame. I6 This lower price is probably surprising given the complicated

and elaborate nature of the mule. The technology used in the mule

was already complete and it was being produced by mass-production

techniques, whilst the demand for the ring frame was comparatively

high and the price of the machine had probably not fallen as much

as was possible. It is virtually self-evident, however, that the additional initial investment cost of the ring frame was easily recuperated

in a relatively short time, because of its greater efficiency and because of the higher price of its products. Much less power per spindle

was required to drive the mule than to drive the ring frame: one

horsepower (1 h.p.) could drive 65 to 125 mule spindles, whereas it

could only drive 40 to 75 ring frame spindlesY Because the yarn output

of the ring frame was greater than that of the mule, however, there

was virtually no difference between the two machines in horsepower

required per unit of output; it is possible that the ring frame even

required less horsepower. In the cases where it was necessary to

change the yarn count relatively frequently in response to changes in

market demand, the mule allowed for simple adjustment of yarn

count compared with the ring frame, since the speed of the rollers

could be changed easily by a gear change (leading to a change of

twist). On the whole, however, the structure of the ring frame was

much more straightforward, making for few breakdowns and greater

ease of repair; thus large stocks of parts and supplies were not

required.

The mule formed a cop by winding the yarn on to a small, light

paper tube, whilst the ring frame wound the yarn on to a bobbin, so

the cost of transporting yarn over long distances was comparatively

low for mule yarn. On the other hand, waste yarn was produced at

the bottom of the mule cop. Furthermore, since the ring frame was

a compact machine, it only required about 50 per cent of the floor

space per spindle required by the mule. Losses arising from stoppages

of the spindles because of yarn breakages and for oiling were much

less frequent in the case of ring frames. When all the above points