AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 02, 2009 03:14AM
I once read that a camel is a horse designed by a committee! While, the NTPA has designed a camel! Granted the NTPA has many fine classes and great pullers, yet they seem to invariably take a good idea and turn it into confusing mess. The NTPA has done this with the Limited Pro Stock class.

The NTPA needs to take a good hard look at some of the rules that they have put in place with the LPS class.

The first rule that needs addressing is the turbo rule, from the feedback I’ve had with some of the potential pullers in the class the turbo rule is not what the pullers wanted when they started the class.

The next rule that they need to address is the move to lower the cubic inches in the class to 600 in the future. While everyone that has ever read pulloff.com know that Jake and I are low cubic inch proponents, the move to lower the cubic inches to 600 makes NO sense. What’s the point? It will not add any color to the class, nor will it benefit the vast number of pullers that hook in 2009. The only people that will benefit from a move to lower the cubic inches by the grand total of 40 is the builders/supplies. While I certainly have nothing against any builders/supplies, I believe that the pullers have already spent enough money on their current setups.

The NTPA needs the LPS to not only survive, but flourish. With the dismal numbers in their GN precommitted list they need this class. They shoot themselves in the foot when they “floated” out their 600 cubic inch rule, now they are low on numbers in the class.
PPL has taken most if not all of the disgruntled GN pullers.

Why would an association write rules for one year for a class and then say we’ll change them next year. If you’re going to write rules for next year, write them for THIS year!


Dick Morgan

www.PULLOFF.com
Independent Pulling News
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 02, 2009 10:01AM
It was too easy. Take the Euro PS rule and copy it. I think it's the most exciting tractor class out there. But it would have mean to "import" rules. Almost as bad as driving a foreign car...
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 02, 2009 01:51PM
540 cu in
oem head
any turbo
13or 14 mil p-pump
open manifolds
no i-cooler
mid 8k weight
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 02, 2009 03:45PM
you are so right. make the rules and stay with them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! p.s does ppl have this class????????
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 02, 2009 11:40PM
Take a look at the Mod Turbo class on the east coast with the Interstate Pullers.

It's an exciting class to watch with some really good running tractors. Red, Blue, Green...
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 03, 2009 02:39AM
The reason is simple. WPI/NTPA will never put rules in place that make sense or that anyone (pullers included) has come up with. It has to be "their idea"(WPI). This is why the NTPA board and the way rules "used" to be written has been all but abolished. This is exactly why the Divisional committees have been put in place and the procedure is a year getting anything done.(what business does Ken Miller have writing rules for Ken Veney, Vories, Slagh, Jostock, etc.?) This way the WPI board can implement anything they want and say "It needed done and the NTPA was not doing anything about it". That makes it business and gives them the right to implement it!

Schrier always pats himself on the back that "he" implimented the roll cage rule because the pullers wern't smart enough to see the need. Also, and this may be very true, it's been said that the only reason that NTPA doesn't have the two hich rule is because ATPA came up with it first!
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 03, 2009 03:40AM
the double hitch rule is bogus! what a great idea to leave a loose chain hang in front of the pan!
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 03, 2009 02:52AM
you are correct, go withe the mod turbo class rules with one exception, use a p-pump with a limit rather than an expensive non durable a-pump. all the other rules are pretty good in that class. It would be nice to see some mod t pullers put on a p-pump and run on a national level
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 04, 2009 01:36AM
i heard that the ntpa is going to go with a 540 class in 2010 for the limeted prostock class. i don't know if it will be like the guys in the east or not
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 04, 2009 09:29AM
Hearing that too... 540 with a P-pump... and the turbo size is still being debated (from a 3.6 to possibly no restriction at all).
Reply Quote

Re: :remember the ones who spent big $$$$$ April 05, 2009 01:43AM
to support the classes they pull in like super farm. it seems new pullers or brush pullers set the rules more than ones who have built to a certain class and spent big $$$$ then you tell them you have to spend more and change to meet this new class that will affect the one they pull in now that might be gone in the future. now they are going to let the ones supporting it run 640 the first year then tell them to drop 100 cubes and how much power and go backwards the next year. will they step back or go ahead and go prostock. sounds like a way for them to get the pro numbers back up by selling this class then going backwards with it. lets support what we have instead of making more choices and splitting up good classes and good pullers that have supported these classes.
Reply Quote

Re: :remember the ones who spent big $$$$$ April 05, 2009 02:02AM
Creating a class then changing it is not the right thing to do. The NTPA should have stayed with 505 limited pro they had for a year. That would not make a big $$ spender HAVE to change if they did not want to. but rather give someone with less a budget a chance to move up to state regional mabey national level? I could seriosly build 2 505 tractors for the price of one good super farm. I mean build ny self not farming out all work. 80% of the engine machine work we can do in our shop. No sleeving no stroking no custom pistons no fancy billit cam Less costs. The NTPA is missing the big picture to get a class with all brands of tractors in it and more people moving up. But what do I know Sad
Reply Quote

Re: :remember the ones who spent big $$$$$ April 05, 2009 02:29AM
puller14, no one says they (the sf pullers) must change to the lps class. I don't see the sf class going totaly away. it may, at some point, go to a rn/state class, but not away all together. As far as running for a year and then dropping 100 cubes the next year, the way the proposed rules are currently written, you will have to drop cubes anyway. so why not drop to a limit that makes some sense like 540 and hopefully add some color, and less expense for future pullers. at 540 cubes you do not need to stroke cranks, you won't need to have a billet crank to have durability, like in the big cube class. in alot of cases no need to bore blocks. the sf engines are not going to last forever, at some point, they will need a rebuild also.
Having a turbo limit in a class simpily adds alot of expense. Fewer restrictions = less over all expense, less to tech, and more of the pullers injunuity, rather than a supplier with a different improvement each year, that everyone will spend more $ to gain the same as the next guy does(whats the point). the only ones that like it are the turbo builders, look at the money spent in the sf class to gain 10-20 hp (new turbo, pump, injectors,etc.) every year.
Reply Quote

Re: :remember the ones who spent big $$$$$ April 05, 2009 02:38AM
exactly, only NTPA never figures it out egos and common sense never did mix well, the pullers always have more money to spend, its been this way for a long time probably will never change
Reply Quote

Re: :remember the ones who spent big $$$$$ April 05, 2009 03:16AM
I agree. Putting a turbo limit on is only going to add expense. If everyone is running a different size turbo, the buillders wont be able to put that big price tag on any certain turbo. Lets just say they put a 4.1 limit on it. You know then one day in the near future those 4.1's are gonna blow right by those 3x3's pricetag. Becides, with the p pump restriction on there, your only gonna be able to turn a turbo that is so big anyhow.
Reply Quote

Re: :remember the ones who spent big $$$$$ April 05, 2009 04:09AM
lmedpro will get to the point that it will cost as much or more than s f when anyone can win is when the cost will start climbing thats the point where everyone is looking for 10,20,etc horsepower that will keep u ahead.dropping the s f class back to a reg or state only will be wrong to the ones that got it to where it is that want to keep pulling s f .
Reply Quote

Re: :remember the ones who spent big $$$$$ April 06, 2009 03:23PM
Turbo limits don't make turbo's expensive, poorly written turbo limits allow for expensive turbos. 3 by 3, 3 x 4. and 4.1 inlet are examples of poorly written turbo limits. Outlaws has made many mistakes, but you have to admit the GT42 turbo has kept the cost of Outlaw SF turbos down. If you don't want to legislate a factory turbo, make the rules a tight box around a factory turbo; take an HX82 or HX85, measure the inducer diameter, exducer diameter, and tip height of both wheels on a factory turbo & make those your turbo rule, now you have a limit that has a chance of keeping turbo costs in line.

Someone suggested that without a turbo limit you wouldn't have to buy a new turbo every year. I say bull - PS doesn't have a turbo limit - how often do they upgrade turbos? The A pump limit in the East Coast Lim Pro series was supposed to keep those turbo's in line. Are they running the same turbo as they did 5 years ago, or has the new big plunger super A allow them to spin bigger ones? Shoot, the new P's have a bigger cam than the prevoius version - if you have an old P you have to replace it with the new to get enough fuel with the 13mm Lim Pro limit rather than upgrading your current pump to 14mm. With any turbo & 13mm limit the pump cams are going to get really crazy which will undoubtly cause many stuck plungers. I'm betting that with an any turbo & P pump limit you will not only be upgrading to the latest & greatest turbo every year, but also the latest & greatest pumps & injectors!
Reply Quote

Re: :remember the ones who spent big $$$$$ April 06, 2009 04:20PM
Nice post- pretty easy to tell you are a puller and spend time researching your parts. I guess I was wondering why guys thought no turbo limit would keep the cost of turbos down. And if someone can explain it, I'd like to see it. From what I've found on turboes, once you get over a 3.6" intake wheel the choices start to get limited. And most of those turbos are designed and engineered primarily for large industrial type motors and don't work particularly well for what we do. If there was no turbo limit, the builders would be in constant development to mate exhaust wheels and housings to intake wheels and housings and they would make progress- being the innovative guys that they are. But to be sure each edition would cost about $500 more than the one before. I just don't see saying "any turbo" keeping the cost down either. I would like to see the major sanctioning bodies go one step further that Outlaws did by pitting different turbo manufacturers against each other at the same intake wheel size. Like, for example, if SF went back to 505-540 ci use 80mm turboes. Guys could choose between the HX-60, GT-47, and S-4 (at least I believe each of these has an 80mm intake wheel option) all being basically stock "out of the box" turbos. You could probably buy one of each for what some folks spend on one SF turbo now, and have several different housing choices. After all, Pullers by nature are tinkerers' and we have to constantly be changing something. But, Deere Puller, you are also right in saying the GT-42 has really taken the cost out of SF turbos in Outlaw country without really effecting the level of competion.
Reply Quote

Re: :remember the ones who spent big $$$$$ April 07, 2009 02:58AM
I agree 100% about picking very similar chargers from different manufactures and allowing competitiors to choose, although I would allow any of the mfg to become the "exclusive charger of the class" if they throw enough money into the class points fund. The 'exclusive charger' could be open to bid every couple of years.

BTW, the small foot rule is another one that had the good intention of keeping out large frame chargers, but once performance shops started casting their own housings should have gone out the window, or at least the no welding part. I'd say the import car guys moving up to 3" chargers is the only reason Garrett brought out the small foot housing for the GT42, giving pullers an OEM option.
Reply Quote

Re: :remember the ones who spent big $$$$$ April 08, 2009 04:47PM
I don't ever want to be the one that was too proud of a rule that it couldn't be changed for the purpose of putting some $$$$$ in the kitty. I don't believe I know of any org getting any bucks from Garrett for being the spec charger. If I'm wrong, please let me know. I just thought limiting the turbo to similar ones between manufacturers would give us something else to play with without breaking the bank- as long as they stayed stock. But then, this restrictor tube idea looks like it might accomplish that goal too. In the beginning, the GT-42 turbo was intended to be Garrett's offering to the truck OEM replacement turbo market. But, I think you're right that their main claim to fame has been the car guys being able to bump 1000 rwhp. Well, that and Outlaw SF pulling. Smiling
Reply Quote

Re: :remember the ones who spent big $$$$$ April 07, 2009 03:32AM
That is exactly right, why build a motor that you have to tear appart every three hooks (if they last that long) lets face it the economy is not very good and by the looks of things it won't be for a while. lets build a class that all for the most part you only have to pull the dipstick every five runs. why not listen to the pullers, we just started a 3000rpm class this winter that was started by the pullers for the pullers and now we have a lot of commeted drivers and more to be built, the rules are final and everyone is happy, and the best part is that we have five different colors pulling. as far as pulling drivers into the mess that is call prostock, it's not going to happen. now don't get me wrong i'm a huge fan of the prostock class, but let face it last year was a bad showing no matter where you went no matter the color. the third sesson of tomah was the worst bubbling, spiting, bad starting show i've ever seen. the class had more misses in the motors then a blind man shooting trap. not that its the drivers falt, it just no one put a cap on what was a good class and now it's a dying mess is going to be tough to fix. a now it's happening again with this class. just more proof that ntpa is ntpa's own worst enemy, and lot like bank CEOs, but this time there is no bail-out, i think that ntpa needs new leadership or it will keep dying into the darkness. this is why tractorpulling is not as big as Nascar and this why it will stay that way. I'm sixteen and have been pulling for six years and co-creater and operater of my pulling class that i pull in and have work my but off to get it, i didn't get gifts like the guy running ntpa because i talk good. I can figure it out, why can they? it's a real shame.
Reply Quote

Re: :remember the ones who spent big $$$$$ April 07, 2009 01:44PM
WOW someone must have woke up with a "wet dream" or maybe the wet dream was next to him
Reply Quote

Re: :remember the ones who spent big $$$$$ April 07, 2009 03:13PM
Because it is beyond the scope of immaturity.
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 04, 2009 08:34AM
then stay on the east coast
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 04, 2009 11:59AM
540 makes more sense than 600. If they're going to make the 640 guys change their cranks, then they might as well back the cubes down so the other brands can play too. Thumbs Up I hope they make that change!
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 04, 2009 12:17PM
I would really like to see it stay 640 with a 4.1 charger. I would also like to see it become a GN class and move super farm back to a RN class. The 10,000 Limited Pro class in Gordyville was one of the best classes of the event. Just my opinion though.

P.S. I personally like the Super Farms but the Limited Pros are a more exciting class.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2009 12:18PM by Fuelish Fan.
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 04, 2009 01:27PM
at 540 with any turbo and a lighter weight they will put on an even better show than the 4.1 10k class did this winter, more driver and crew than the heavy weight, other wise it is like a glorified SF (the key will be any turbo, leave the pump plunger size the limit for the turbo like the mod turbo guys out east do!!!!!)
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 04, 2009 03:11PM
You're exactly right... 540, any turbo, 8-8500 would be even better than 640, 4.1, 9500 (more color, rpms, wheel-speed, etc.). If they're not going to back it down to 540 or less, they might as well keep it at 640. 600 is a bad number for most!
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 05, 2009 02:41AM
if the 640 guys have to spend money to change the 540 guys should have to do the same. anyway who wants a little 540 motor not me. stay withbig cubes and big turbo
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 04, 2009 02:06PM
I agree. I have a super farm tractor I might switch over to lps if they limited the turbo and not the block. This will help the class grow
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 05, 2009 03:41AM
540ci is a great number all colors can fit in with out alot of money being spent to machine shops, the cost is prolly about half to build 540ci verse 640 and when u limit the turbo size that drives the price of turbos up with companies sayi ng they have the best 4.1 out there and the next company doing the same thing and each time the price is increased, and for what to line there pockets. if they keep it at 640ci might better not even have it, that to close to a pro stock besides turbo size
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 05, 2009 04:11AM
let the sf pullers that want to go to 640 4.1 and drop sf to 540 and whatever charger the majority wants and that would make both classes good. Its time to face the facts 640 cubes feed by a 3x3 is like filling a silage truck with a leaf blower. I think the sf class at 540 cubes and a good charger at 8500 would give them the ride they have always wanted and here the crowd go wild! This will make the lps a good entry level class for gn level and make sf region level where this will help with limited budgets and color.
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 05, 2009 01:18PM
Quote
Pull Watcher
Its time to face the facts 640 cubes feed by a 3x3 is like filling a silage truck with a leaf blower.
GrinningThumbs Up
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 05, 2009 03:00PM
YES... that would be two good options for the SF guys.

1. Put a 4.1 charger on and run LP @ 9500

OR

2. Decube to the 505 - 540 range, drop weight to 8 - 8500 range & pick a good charger that will allow them to run some RPMS

Either of these options would be waaaaaaaaay better than what they currently are (and both options would offer quality National level competition). HOWEVER, if the SF guys don't want to capitalize on this great opportunity to improve their class... then the LP class REALLY DOES need to be at 540 or less. ONE OF THE TWO CLASSES NEEDS TO BE SMALLER CUBES, LIGHTER WEIGHT AND A BIGGER TURBO THAT MAKES POWER AND RPMS!
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 08, 2009 03:51PM
Also, allow different fuels,like gas ,propane ,and alcohol(with smaller cubes)
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 05, 2009 11:35AM
I agree!
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 06, 2009 01:19AM
the way it looks to me is the ones that are 540 are the guys that want the cubes droped just let it at 640 with 4.1 charger and go pullin.
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 06, 2009 02:39AM
I am currently at 640 and would be in favor of dropping cubes and run any charger, why leave the turbo a 4.1 and have to upgrade it every year like we do now in the sf class. doesn't make much sence. at 9500 and a 4.1 this class will be nothing more than a glorified sf class in a year or two, everyone will have the same setup just like in the sf class
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 06, 2009 10:44AM
540, P-pump, any turbo, 8500 would be better for the sport (more color, more rpms, more variety of set-ups, no high $$$$ sealed turbo, etc.).
With these rules the class would have a bright future.
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 06, 2009 11:03AM
One question
Why can't the blue guys put TG sheet metal on there tractor run a 8.3 cummins and punch it out to 640?
That would get some some color in the class.

P.S. Fuelish Fan Was right 640 cubic inch with a 4.1 charger was the best class at gordyville
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 06, 2009 02:09PM
8.3 will not blot up to ANY older tractors you would neen the whole tractor to comply with SF rulesConfused. There will be 2 blue Superfarms out this year running state around Wiscosin. But Im in favor of 505 or 540 P and any turbo @ 8500 lbs that would be a good ride show and color class.
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 06, 2009 03:06PM
Hey everyone, I have a really dumb and stupid question. Why is there a need for a limited pro stock class? I mean wasn't pro stock class supposed to be the cheap way to get into tractor pulling in the early 80's? From what I can see, if the rules were not changed from what prostock was designed for, none of this would be a problem now.
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 06, 2009 03:39PM
Yes... you would need a special rule provision that would allow you to run a safe and legal rearend adaption like the AC guys have with the
D21 - Detroit combo. You're right on with the 505 or 540, P, any turbo, @ 8500. I prefer 505... but realize it's better for the BBD and V8's @ 540 (and 540 is obtainable with nearly all the block options).
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 06, 2009 05:56PM
We don't need another class!The only reason lps is for the guys who won't commit to ps & are the same guys
have taken sf were it is today.NTPA screwed up the first time with the cu. limit in the sf class,that's why the
class is so big half want to pull & put on a show the others won't commit to a class they should be runnin.Leave
the ps cu. alone & drop the sf cu. to 540,open up the charger & bring the weight down to 8700lbs stay different.

p.s. some tractors have hips.
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 07, 2009 12:55AM
I don't see how putting any turbo limit on is going to be good for anyone, The cost to upgrade year to year will be to expensive.
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 07, 2009 04:42AM
I agree we do not need a another class.
I would like to see all the super farm to step up to the limited pro 4.1 and leave the cu. inch alone.
Now that all the SF are taken care of jumping them up to LPS we now revamp the SF to 540 cu. inch with a 3x4 charger.
I only say 540 so we can still get the BB deere in. As far as weight 9300 has worked good and a 3x4 will help them.
This does not add a class since these 2 classes already exist.
It seems simple to me.
The SF class has gotten way out of hand in $$$$ and the only reason most people hate them is that small 3x3.
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 07, 2009 05:10AM
I think somebody finally hit the nail on the head put the 4.1 on today's superfarm and then start a state level superfarm not region not grand national at 540 cubes and 3x4 charger and do what ya want with the weight. The propased set of rules for the LPS class is just fine be it 640 or 600 cubes.
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 07, 2009 09:14AM
Why aren't we trying to fix the class with no tractors?PS has no numbers but sf does & it all starts back
at state & region levels.You watch any state or region pulls with ps you'll see 3 ps & 10 sf to make a
class.Put the limitations at these levels & you might see ps rebuild itself just like alot of fellas did from
hs,hf to sf.
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 07, 2009 11:53AM
2008 Bowlingreen there was 58 superfarms, 38 prostocks, 26 lightsupers, 23 superstocks, and 20 opensuperstocks. Not sure what number problem you want to fix in the prostock class but in comparision looks pretty good to me.
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 07, 2009 02:49PM
It's about state pulls that everyone thinks should be LIKE Bowlingreen. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD EVERYONE.
Reply Quote

Re: AngryMy Opinion-- The rules in the NTPA LPS class--Thumbs Down April 07, 2009 04:00PM
Take the lps, put them at 504 or 510, let them run pump and turbo of choice and 9000 lbs, take super farm and just move the weight to 8000. You take 1300 lbs off a sf and then they will really spin the tires.
Reply Quote

Newer Topic Older Topic

Author:

Your Email:


Subject:
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically. If the code is hard to read, then just try to guess it right. If you enter the wrong code, a new image is created and you get another chance to enter it right.
Message:
Website Statistics
Global: Topics: 38,779, Posts: 229,957, Members: 3,338.
This forum: Topics: 37,098, Posts: 226,040.

Our newest member Jacklovik2009