|
There's been a general move towards making tractors look as good as they hook, especially in the last 10 years. The quality of the fit and finish on the tractors you're seeing out now is outstanding versus what we used to see. Look back at what the typical hot/pro farm looked like a decade ago and look at photos of those tractors from Gordyville this year...whole different animal. Bryan Lively - 
    |
There is no such thing as a "wheatland" 50-60 series tractor. They are Standard, Row- Crop, and Industrial. I think that is a trend that tractor pullers engage in and thus causes "urban legends". It's not the end of the world, but everyone today seems to have their own version of what IS...IS 
Those that think they have something special by calling it a wheatland are mistaken. Might as well call a row-crop 5020 a hi-crop, or a comfort king if it has a cab on it. If by some chance someone has a JD document verifying a 5010-6030 "wheatland" I'd like to see it. Tractor pullers have created their own version of things, or Dialect. |
|
"Why should I ease up, the pullers are wrong. Y'all can talk how you want, but telling someone to ease up because "your" wrong sounds like you don't care what the tractor is. 2 cyl tractors actually had Wheatland packages on them as an option. but there no 6030-5010 wheatland fenders. Period, and JD never referred to them a wheatland..Seems the ones that should ease up are the ones that keep the rumor rolling. Just look up 2 cyl wheatland or rice packages and then look at a 5010-6030, and they would have no use for these parts as the tractor is made totally different.. Basically the wheatland gear was brake covers and pully guards to keep wheat from getting wrapped up in the rotating parts, Unless I am proven wrong and I have the sales books from that era. It is tractor pullers that should be easing up and straightening this out."
LIGHTEN UP. Last time I checked we weren't running numbers-matching tractors with authenticated build codes and period-correct tires and paint splatter on the transmission case that mirrors how someone lathered the case up too much on a bad day on the assembly line. If Lance Little (JUST an example Lance) wants to build X tractor and call it a "My Little Pony" version of that tractor...SO BE IT. Standard...Wheatland...Row Crop...Low Profile...Whatever... LET IT SLIDE.. The only two people whose opinion matters about how the tractor is referred to is 1) the builder and 2) the dude scratching the checks to get it built, and it may be the same guy. I feel better, excuse me while I go work on my low-profile G705 Moline  Bryan Lively -
|
This is undeniably the biggest "TREND" in tractor pulling. When someone points out something to you the SOP is to attack the messenger. Even other pullers have spoke of it. Mr Livelys comments especially displayed this "ATTITUDE TREND" There is more to it than the #1 and #2 in your comment, Bryan |
|
I'm simply pointing out that there's no need to be a traditionalist about the tractors. Had these tractors...any of them...been a barn fresh tractor, that's one story. We need to be realistic about how much of these tractors are "tractors" in the traditional sense. Even then, no matter what a JD book/manual states arguing the semantics to shame a puller or pullers is not a productive activity. 4 in 10 of us in the stands make any effort to understand the product, the other six could give a flying flip about the factory-correct way to refer to a tractor. We will have to agree to disagree about who defines what something is. The builder and the person funding the build have the most say, not you or I.
Again, these are pulling tractors. If we were in the business of restoring tractors to period-correct machines, I fully agree its appropriate to define them as what they were from the factory. Its applying rules about an apple to an orange. Bryan Lively -
|
|
Truth is those six in ten, though they may be ignorant of whatever feature on a tractor or truck, they are there for the smoke, the noise, the atmosphere, and thats' fine. I hope they join the other four in ten that enjoys the sport like we do, and thats a big part and function of my work, to promote and draw them into the sport and show that its' the best bang for the buck out there in motorsports. If they do not, I hope that the smoke/noise/atmosphere they get at any event is enough to bring them back again and again, and at multiple events. I think it's the exact opposite in reference to the snowboarder comment--the professionalism that many teams have adopted, their efforts to promote their equipment and the overall product, is becoming more abundant. I can't keep up with Hero Card orders as it is, Ive got four new sets at Louisville this week and no doubt most of them will be gone by the end of the week. That is specific evidence to me that teams are wanting to engage the fans in a meaningful manner, not thumbing their noses whatsoever. Bryan Lively -
|
|
So calling any Camaro a Z-28, ZL1, or a Mustang a Shelby or a retro build it your self car, an AC cobra. I know you don't care when someone such as me comments on your tractor and you proudly claim it's a wheatland, or to other spectators that may be collectors, or even well versed on the model. They immediately get the impression you don't have a clue what you have. The Announcers the editors all of you, could care less if it's correct or not. Sooner or later someone like that auction house will advertise one and Describe it in a way that it has to be a rare version as no one has ever seen one and the misinformed get's clipped double for what it is. worth. Hey I got a GM LS Denali, 6.0 w/Allison. It's so rare the auction houses are willing to pay me double.....Better get it while its available.These trucks are really hard to find.
I'm sure if you were to advertise a ford mustang as a Shelby and get a huge price you would be explaining why you pawned off a regular mustang with decals that made it a counterfeit car. You pullers think everything revolves around you, but it can effect many other things that are beyond your ability to understand. I've always been puzzled as to how an announcer, or a magazine publisher thinks that their lack of proper nomenclature is ignored and overlooked. News casters, track-side interviews that are by those that are clueless and spokesman who are even less versed, are highly scrutinized. Let's face it if y'all can't even understand just what is on your tractor, the public will notice, and your wow factor drops. We all have heard the commentator say something stupid by mistake, or describe a part wrong and we say,,,, what a jackass, you'd think they could at least get somebody that knows tractors To do the announcing. Attitude Trend 
|
|
Here's my final comment, and it has a couple layers.
First off, in my youth I thought all rotary cutters were bush hogs. I also believed that all skid steers were bobcats. All mower-conditioners were Haybines...it was a part of the culture I lived in to refer to these implements in that matter. Kinda like calling a copier made by company ______ a Xerox machine...or a circular saw being a Skil Saw, a reciprocating saw as a Sawzall...I hope where I'm going is being seen here. Additionally, I take offense in the thought I'm duping folks when I refer to a tractor in a certain matter; I'm simply offering the common vernacular, the nomenclature that the public understands. Here's a crystal clear example: Sports Illustrated, ESPN the Magazine, in a Sportscenter telecast, et.al. might have the following sentence in their work: "Kevin Durant poured in 38 points on 9-15 shooting from three point land and a solid 11-11 shooting from the charity stripe with 11 dimes in a 105-95 win over the Bobcats." In a technical sense, that sentence should read: "Kevin Durant scored 38 points based on shooting outside of the three point shot boundary located 23.75 feet from the center of the basket. He also completed 11 shots at the free throw line shooting perpendicular to the backboard. In the game he also completed 11 assists to his teammates, winning the contest 105-95 over the Bobcats." It could be much more technical and verbose than that. ESPN, SI, et.al. won't be selling many magazines using the second example over the first in their work, though technically correct. Popular vernacular, which the casual observer understands, is appropriate in MOST instances in my opinion. Technically and historically correct vernacular has a place, and that's in the brand-related magazines like Red Power, Oliver Heritage, and Green Magazine--all GREAT magazines by the way. Unless the folks who read the publications I am a part of ask me to do different, I will continue to offer description of pulling vehicles in common, popular vernacular. In a real sense they own the products I produce, not me, and I didn't get to this spot in the sport by being a hack; I'll do what they ask of me. Bryan Lively -
|
HaHaHa, yep, even the early 6030's were not available with 30.5-32's there were no ag tires in that size available.Then there was the story as to why 24.5-32"s were created. But who cares. Jus sayin
|
|
Registered: 04/06/2008 Posts: 387 |
