09:38:12am, Thursday, May 09, 2024
|
Adding the LLSS Class
|
Anonymous User
|
I am happy to announce that the Light Limited Super Stock (LLSS) class has been added for the 2015-2016 season on a trial basis. A trial basis simply means that the class will not accrue year end points fund money. They will still need to purchase membership and insurance, abide by all rules (club, safety, and class), and will still receive fuel payout like the other classes. The preliminary rules can be viewed here. The few things in RED are things that need to be clarified and voted on at the spring meeting so if you are interested in pulling this class you will want to be there to voice your opinion. All general rules still apply.
This class has proven to be a hit in other parts of the country with its variety of color and fuels and we are extremely excited to bring this class to Mid America! Any questions about the class can be directed to Chris Vanatta (712-310-4434) . |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
LLSS
|
Looks like you guys are on the right track to growing this great class out west! As a llss puller I would say keep it as light as possible (6000lbs) and keep the components out. Good luck with the start up, hope it blows up like it has every where else! |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Typical response
|
There is nothing wrong with ay weight from 6000 to 6500 (although lighter is better), and nothing wrong with the component idea, the weight handicap is a great idea. People should not be penalized for wanting to use modern technologies to build a tractor. Usually fear based thinking to keep them out, if only people could understand how much easier it is to work on a component vs antique chassis.
Kudos for forward thinking and an open mind NePowerpullers!! |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
puller llss
|
Yes I agree its time for component the llss is behind times the limited should be taken off the name and 2 chargers would put on a way better show |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
My dear friend I,m almost certain that class is out there already .It is called Super Stock . Leave limited light the way it is looks to be doing better than any other class .Boy these Keyboard pullers take the cake. Most pullers seem to have dropped of this site.To many Knuckleheads. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Ssdeere
|
Is there any competitive advantage to a component chassis? And how is it even considered super stock with only one charger? Should be called limited light alcohol prostock |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Typical response
|
Most people will answer that question with a resounding "YES", but fail to indicate what exactly are the variables they conider to be a competitive advantage. They will indicate that this should be reserved for the high $$ high HP classes, and has no business beig in a "Light" or "limited" class. Limited does not mean limited chassis, it means limited ci and turbo. They can't understand the benefit of component from a build and service side if you are starting out, they will just reference the fact that this is a "limited" class and everybody should start with an antique chassis and spend gobs of money making it light, buy a proper trans, needle the diff and planetaries, buy a blanket, etc.
Also, FYI, this class is not just limited to alcohol, there are diesel options. THAT is what makes the class interesting. Now I will wait to recieve my standard token bashing on being a keyboard puller, components have no place, just go pull in another class, we still live in the stone age, blah blah blah...... |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Never happen
|
Need to get every LLSS puller in the country and have a vote on it. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Anonymous User
|
Thank you all. To be clear the components were voted in at our meeting. Unfortunately there were only a couple tractors there and I found out about 3-4 additional tractors the day before the meeting so I didnt have a chance to invite them. As a 2wd guy that would consider building for this class it is far more economical to go component rather than buying a Green chassis and starting from scratch. That said I would rather spend more on a conventional AG chassis if it keeps the peace and gets more tractors out to the track. So if additional tractors show up and want to pull but dont want components then we will remove that at the spring meeting.
I have tried to research the advantages of components and like mentioned above find it riles people up yet nobody has legitimate reasons for not allowing them. In my mind it is not a lot different then allowing the "heritage" engine swaps. The weight that was discussed at the meeting was 6700# so that some of the 466 tractors could play. I personally would like to see the weight stay around the 6250 range. Again I want others to have a chance to voice their opinion on this part if they are looking at pulling this class. Anyway, I look forward to seeing this class grow in the Iowa/Nebraska/Kansas area as it has out East. |
|
component vs ag chassis
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
There really is very little to debate on this subject. Component chassis are more durable, flexible, safer and just plain easier to work on than ag rear chassis tractors. The underlying issue in the argument is three fold. #1 Money and #2 availability and #3 the meaning of limits and its relationship to being a tractor still.
#1 Money: typically speaking a cast rear project for a llss class can start from a 2-$500 investment and much of the original tractor can be used for frame work and sheet metal. No it probably won't be a hard charging title contender but it will get someone out participating and having fun on a budget they can deal with. There isn't a local yard you can go buy a component chassis at like the ag rear. Many builds start from a stripped out old tractor and are upgraded as allowed. Components are a larger initial investment and this prohibits some from going that route. In many cases the ag rear will equal that of the component chassis in final $$$ spent its just a different route to get there. Limited doesn't just pertain to engine and turbo it includes chassis as well. A component chassis done by a top competitor in this class will eventually drive out the cast rear tractors due to better hooking and balance. It's probably why you don't see cast rear tractors commonly competing in any level that allows components. #2 Availability: I touched on this before, cast is cheap and easy to acquire to start a project and satisfies the tractor purist in most of us that pull tractors. It generally starts with some type of family farm tractor or memory and goes from there. Components on the other hand you think of calling Engler, Pfund, Barbee, Pobar ,Ace and so on. All good knowledgeable builders with great products, however not readily available for purchase. #3 There are lots of people who think tractors should still be tractors. Right or wrong you have some who cry technology and others who cry keep the cast because it's a tractor still and thats what tractor pulling is all about is tractors. And for the most part I agree until it becomes a safety concern, then the safest route is the best. Fear is what holds components back, fear because the cast guys know when it is allowed their time is up or will be shortly. Fear that the component guys are willing to spend whatever it takes to be #1( that is the perception, component=big spending) Not that the cast guys don't because I know they do too but a lot of parts are sold more due to the perception of need than the actual need. This same perception also often pushes some out of the sport because they can't afford what they probably don't necessarily need to be competitive. Sorry for the long post, I just see and hear lots of complaining about wanting everything the grand national guys have except a smaller this or that and say it's in the name of advancement of the sport when in reality it just creates a more hostile environment and less pullers at the pulls. Hope everybody has a great holiday season and a successful 2015! |
|
Re: component vs ag chassis
|
Anonymous User
|
Man now we are getting some conversation going.
Craig - Where can I find a Deere rear and trans that would work for this class in that price range? I have called numerous yards and they are all way more then that. So much that I could buy a profab, a sheet metal rear, And most of the planitaries for a component chassis. Adam yes they could spend big bucks on a chassis to be built but that same guy will spend big to turn up an ag chassis. So does it really matter? Also for whomever said that we could just build a LSS. Those are ag chassis around here. Unless you want to drive East to hook NTPA or PPL. Outlaws and I think Bush requires ag chassis in LSS. |
|
Re: component vs ag chassis
|
Posts: 744 |
Now you bring up the Outlaws LSS class. This is a perfect example of what we are talking about here with rules and voting and classes offered,
Outlaw LSS doesn't allow components. BUT the guys that wanted them moved on and started their own class...Unlimited Light Super Stock. At first it was any motor at 6200 lbs, but the intention was that would be a 504 push rod motor class at 6200, like NTPA and PPL LSS classes are. The name was already taken though. In this case it worked because there were the pullers to support it and promoters to book it. So that class is available for Nebraska and Iowa to not have to drive east to NTPA or PPL. You are just getting caught up in the name if you look at it that way. But the point is not that you should have to pull 504 push rod component class (LSS) if you want a LLSS with a component. But rather, is the process there to support the change, the pullers there to support the change, and the promoters there to support the change. This won't work everywhere, so now does an organization want a class that doesn't mirror the classes elsewhere? It all comes down to what the pullers and promoters want and if the numbers are there. What is the best as a whole? (rhetorical) Honest question for Nebraska pullers. Does the LSS class in Nebraska allow components? Because if they don't and you are using the safety angle to get it passed in LLSS class, then wouldn't it be prudent the LSS with more power have them? COO for OTTPA www.outlawpulling.com www.truck-specialties.com Schaeffer Oil Representative [www.schaefferoil.com] |
|
Re: component vs ag chassis
|
Registered: 09/23/2008 Posts: 633 |
Look around a little more, in eyesight is a 4010 rear and trans plus a 4020 rear that needs some work. The 4010 came out of a llss so I am almost certain it would work. I would lay good odds that 3k would get them and a lot of deere parts thrown in to boot; heck with enough arguing that price can probably be carved on. |
|
Re: component vs ag chassis
|
Anonymous User
|
Ol George - where at?
Adam - Not sure if your post was aimed at me or not. You are correct that Outlaws have the ULSS class for components and yes they are all LSS tractors with component chassis. Question though since I haven't ever been able to see a rule book. Did this class get changed to a three charger class or is that just all that runs it? (Not trying to fling the mud, just to learn). |
|
Re: component vs ag chassis
|
Registered: 09/23/2008 Posts: 633 |
east tn between knoxville and bristol |
|
Re: component vs ag chassis
|
Posts: 744 |
It originally was any cube motor and now its 504 push rod class like NTPA. COO for OTTPA www.outlawpulling.com www.truck-specialties.com Schaeffer Oil Representative [www.schaefferoil.com] |
|
Re: component vs ag chassis
|
curious
|
"1 Money: typically speaking a cast rear project for a llss class can start from a 2-$500 investment and much of the original tractor can be used for frame work and sheet metal."
...................where the heck are you finding a suitable model to build from for this price??? If you can buy a chassis to work from for this price, I'll take 10! You need to add another 0 to your price I think. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
building a LLSS
|
I don't think any of the 40-50+ guys that already have LLSS have any interest in allowing components into this class. I suppose we have no ability to influence what this group in Nebraska does, but it's pretty easy to figure out that we have plenty of tractors that indoor promoters will have to choose between. Will anyone really build just so they can only pull in one place? The advantages of components have been pretty clear since Max Simpson posed the concept 25 years ago. The problem with putting them in this class is that there simply is no need for it. Components were brought in because stock rearends were breaking under the power of growing performance levels. Let's face it, Farmall 560 and Deere 4010 rearends are holding up just fine. THERE IS NO NEED FOR COMPONENTS!!! This was a decision that really hurt a pulling organization and the possible success they could have in the future. What's worse is that once one is built, they'll always have to let him pull. I just hope the rest of the LLSS guys stick there guns and boycott any event where these guys get invited to compete. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
I think you are jumping the gun a bit. If a guy builds a component he knows where to pull. If the Nebraska group goes that way it will be what's works best from them. Do you plan on going pulling there? With us in Canada it is very spuratic we have anyone cross the border to pull with us so why wouldn't we do something that might build our numbers. If I someday have a desire to go south to an event I will bring my ag chassis and leave my component at home. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Typical response
|
I totally agree with your analogy of TWD trucks vs components. I also understand that if it turns a class on its ear, I guess you delete progress for traditional values, just unfortunate you can't help people understand the reasoning. The weight at 6700 is definitely a max, 6250 is a convenient compromise, although there is conventional thinking 6250 is too heavy, but there is your argument for components.......
I still stand by congratulating you for forward thinking, hopefully it will be the thought process for others in the future. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
duh
|
Why would u fools do that, now you dont match the rest of the country,sounds like some already built and found out they suck, (now make a new class)? Dont call it llss should be wantabe light super stock |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Posts: 744 |
I could care less whether components are allowed or not.
But you really need someone to tell you what advantages you can gain with a component chassis over a ag chassis? Easier to get more nose weight Easier to use flex chassis to transfer power to tires equally and consistantly Those are the big ones. At 6000 lbs if both tractors have the same HP the component could be built to get more of that HP to the ground and carry more weight all the way to the nose to accommodate a wider range of track conditions. With today's engineering and materials available there are some 6200 LSS carrying a ton of front end weight, The real question to ask is how many guys are really going to build component chassis and pull in a limited motor class vs all the guys that have ag chassis or chassis already built now. Letting components could be great in one area and kill the class in another. What was the goal of the LLSS class in the first place? It was guys (all with ag chassis) wanting a place to pull a limited motor class without having to run LSS against the 504 component alkys. COO for OTTPA www.outlawpulling.com www.truck-specialties.com Schaeffer Oil Representative [www.schaefferoil.com] |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Registered: 08/02/2008 Posts: 236 |
The way a group of guys were throwing a fit about Olivers being able to run C channel frame rails, I think getting components to pass would be a challenge. That being said, I have dozens of Oliver rear ends at my fingertips with more that enough gearing options, and I would probably go component. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Typical response
|
Advantages over an AG chassis....have you ever seen how a component chassis is built? My god man, you can service your clutch/trans/rear end without splitting really anything! Who wouldn't want that?! You actually have access to each component individually with ease! Need to pull the engine, super easy! Want to change trans ratios, done in minutes! But I guess if you are against them in principle, you don't want to understand.
You're analogy of components all having to be LSS 504 alky is ludicrous! That's how you spread fear about something....... |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Posts: 744 |
I never talked about ease of use..
Your words were "Most people will answer that question with a resounding "YES", but fail to indicate what exactly are the variables they conider to be a competitive advantage." So I addressed that. I have owned both, tell me again what I don't understand. COO for OTTPA www.outlawpulling.com www.truck-specialties.com Schaeffer Oil Representative [www.schaefferoil.com] Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2014 05:02AM by AV. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Typical response
|
Apparently you know all about them, so I don't know what you don't understand.....you seem very confused about your own question, but obviously you feel they are a huge competitive advantage. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Posts: 744 |
Yes that's why I went to one.
You don't agree with the on track advantages a component can create over an ag chassis??? COO for OTTPA www.outlawpulling.com www.truck-specialties.com Schaeffer Oil Representative [www.schaefferoil.com] |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Typical response
|
It's quite possible, but with limited HP, I would like to see if they are as dominant as you imply. Hopefully this club proves yes or no, it would be nice to have some data instead of speculation. I have an AG chassis now, but can't see the logic in investing heavily in it, would rather build the easy service chassis.
Time will tell I guess. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Posts: 744 |
Sounds good, I don't care if you allow them.
The one reason you stated you wanted it was because of ease to working on them, which is definitely nice. But if the power is so limited it can't take advantage of chassis advantage how much splitting are you actually needing to do during the season????? Does the limited power really warrant the ease of access to all the components? I bet a lot of guys go through a season without splitting a tractor. I may be wrong too, cause as it is a limited class, sometimes limited funds, so some parts may be skimped on and need replaced sooner than others. Just be careful what you guys wish for or create. I can already see some writing on the wall......the name of the new class 5 years from now.....the limited limited light super stock class. COO for OTTPA www.outlawpulling.com www.truck-specialties.com Schaeffer Oil Representative [www.schaefferoil.com] |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
2 cents
|
Looks like it should be voted on by all interested, if it's intended to be a entry level class, it should remain ag chassis. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
problem solver
|
Theres a lss for all the guys who want component the llss class is full of old ss wanabes and has beens and the ones who couldn hang with the big boys add component to the llss class that would finish the ss class and there class is just about dead already progress has spoke for it self llss is the ss class from the 70s 80s and 90s now the proof is in the pudding ss is dead llss is the class to be in and the biggest |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Would your analogy of I should keep my old cast tractor parked in the shed and not go pull or spend another 20k+ to go with a component chassis so I can spend 30 less minutes to get to my motor or clutch in a limited class be more or less ludicrous than Adam's? Sometimes a person has to step back and see if more than one side is unreasonable, just a thought. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Posts: 744 |
What's funny is I never said all components have to be 504 alky tractors, it wasn't even an analogy.
Below is the quote. "What was the goal of the LLSS class in the first place? It was guys (all with ag chassis) wanting a place to pull a limited motor class without having to run LSS against the 504 component alkys." It was a statement to step aside from your individual needs and reflect on why the class was started in the first place. Then go from there. "Typical Response" either wants to deflect from the fact he said no one will name the component chassis on track advantages or he lacks reading comprehension skills. Craig you guys got all your ducks in a row for Gordy yet? COO for OTTPA www.outlawpulling.com www.truck-specialties.com Schaeffer Oil Representative [www.schaefferoil.com] |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Ummmm no, hoping to have most of the ducks back in line by spring. 
|
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Lewis
|
I cant se anybody in any club any were that would even consider going component at this point .Because it will be a long time befor the person who builds one could pull anywere else besides the one club that allows it. Its not needed or wanted any were else this class has done evolved into what the SS class is now once and what; did the progress do weve got more llss tractors in ky than a couple states put together has SS .It will be hard to convince 200 other pullers that already have tractors let a component tractor come pull with them |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Typical response
|
AV, I have a comprehension problem?
"It's quite possible, but with limited HP, I would like to see if they are as dominant as you imply. Hopefully this club proves yes or no, it would be nice to have some data instead of speculation." You were trying to put words in my mouth the entire time you have been driving your component=dominance agenda. So let's see what happens with the decision this club has made to see if you will shut me up. You're quote regarding 504 component alky's is implying that is the only place they belong. Regarding splitting a tractor multiple times, I guess you have never had do any clutch work or attempt a gear ratio change at any time during a season. By your statement you believe everybody out there is locked and ready to roll for the season with no intent to ever make an adjustment of any kind. The price we pay for any trans to fit in an AG chassis is on par with what you would pay for a Profab box, so why wouldn't I want to pop a cover off to accomplish the same thing as splitting a chassis gets me today. As has been (and still is) the case every time some one attempts to introduce any modern technology in a class, it is nearly an end of the world scenario. I suppose if I mentioned an air bag front end, you guys would go ballistic over that one too! Name ANY class in pulling, and you'll find a person who is willing to spend whatever it takes to win (even with an AG chassis), do you hate those people too?! Perhaps we should not allow them to pull because they make the rest of the class look bad? There are clubs out there that are starting to allow components other than this one, and good for them. I guess the moral of the story here is Limited in front of any class name must equal no innovation. I can't wait for the day we have a component class with air bag fronts, common rail fuel injection setups, and 24 valve OHC heads. That day will be coming sooner than you may want, won't necessarily be at the national level, and there is nothing wrong with that. In the meantime, I will continue to run my AG chassis as that is the rule today, and I have no trouble dealing with it while I wait for more progressive (read: younger) thinkers to enter the sport and help advance it. Have at it boys, I can take the bashing. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Posts: 744 |
Well at least I don't have to wait until Sunday to read the funnies.
No agenda here. Don't own a llss, don't work on one, and hope llss vote components in. Extra credit for you. Since you think I was the one putting words in your mouth, if you can go back in any of my posts and find the word "dominate" or "dominant" , give me your address and I will send you a free Truck Specialties tshirt. COO for OTTPA www.outlawpulling.com www.truck-specialties.com Schaeffer Oil Representative [www.schaefferoil.com] Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2014 01:00PM by AV. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Haha typical response, I don't think you can take the bashing or else you'd sign in under your name instead of a pseudoname. Oh by the way there is plenty of innovation in an Ag chassis but you know that right 
|
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Typical response
|
.....keep it coming junior! Lovin' it. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Typical response
|
Glad I can inject some humor for you here, it always good to know I have put a smile on someone's face! Laughter is the best medicine I hear.....
So, to recap, you said: "But you really need someone to tell you what advantages you can gain with a component chassis over a ag chassis? Easier to get more nose weight Easier to use flex chassis to transfer power to tires equally and consistantly Those are the big ones. At 6000 lbs if both tractors have the same HP the component could be built to get more of that HP to the ground and carry more weight all the way to the nose to accommodate a wider range of track conditions. With today's engineering and materials available there are some 6200 LSS carrying a ton of front end weight, The real question to ask is how many guys are really going to build component chassis and pull in a limited motor class vs all the guys that have ag chassis or chassis already built now. Letting components could be great in one area and kill the class in another." I would say you are driving towards calling component a dominant chassis here. As I said before, I would love to see a group allow them to gather real data instead of speculating. If they are truly what you indicate, then I guess we leave it an antique class, and you win, components are for LSS only! I am not afraid to be wrong, but you don't know if you don't try!! |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Is there a reason you can't build for a component class? |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Typical response
|
Well, to be honest, I am not able to see a huge difference in the dollars to build ground up from AG vs component. Given the choice to start out, I would build the component for the reason of ease of service over the life of the chassis. I am not seeing where there is significant savings on going AG.
Just my opinion. I'm sure it will be countered with many supporting arguments as to why I shouldn't go component, and that's fine, I respect that others have an opinion. I make mine based on cost and desire. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
So your cost and desire analysis show a component is right for you. There are 4 ss classes you can enter, lss, unlss, DSS, and oss. Or if single charger is your gig, prostock is available. Pick the one that best suits your cost and desire and start building! |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Typical response
|
............and so we have arrived at exactly the point I suggested about how most people react to this issue with the second post I put on this subject. No surprise. Thanks for proving my point! |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Posts: 744 |
But do you realize that is the normal response because no one is stopping you from having a component chassis right now, but you?
A component chassis seems like a very important upgrade to your program. It would make your year so much easier with all of the clutch and gearing work you need to do. Everyone on this forum agrees your work load would lessen with a component chassis based on the reasons you provided. So back to AAR's question, why not build one? Worse case scenario you pull with a class that allows them for now like LSS (again my words are not saying that's where they belong, but simply stating a fact that's one place they are currently allowed). Then when LLSS see all the tractors they would gain by the rule change wouldn't it be easier to get that rule changed in your area? The only fear involved in this that should be considered with the change, is whether the fan base for this class would soften, and would the class experience a net loss in numbers. (gotta keep the numbers up to sell it, and have to keep the customers that will buy it) Gordyville is a huge venue for the LLSS and the fan base is there is the perfect cross section of that class' type of fan. If they held a one question survey for all the fans that asked "Do you think the LLSS class should allow component chassis?", I wonder what the results would be. COO for OTTPA www.outlawpulling.com www.truck-specialties.com Schaeffer Oil Representative [www.schaefferoil.com] |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
|
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Posts: 744 |
"I would say you are driving towards calling component a dominant chassis here"
Yes you can say whatever you would like, but you just proved I never said it. Using different words to attempt to convey someone else's message is the definition of putting words in their mouth. Maybe next time on the shirt. COO for OTTPA www.outlawpulling.com www.truck-specialties.com Schaeffer Oil Representative [www.schaefferoil.com] Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2014 03:56PM by AV. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Typical response
|
............almost forgot, thanks for the T shirt offer, but I'm sitting pretty good with what's in the closet right now. I'll be sure to spread the word about your business though, looks like lots of great stuff and neat things you do there. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Posts: 744 |
Edited to say thanks for the compliment, and leave it at that. COO for OTTPA www.outlawpulling.com www.truck-specialties.com Schaeffer Oil Representative [www.schaefferoil.com] Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2014 04:13PM by AV. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,523 |
wouldn't the old 5000-5500 modified be a perfect example,from the 60s-mid to late 70s.same idea here,power increased every year,the ag chassis got closer to breakage every year,then the component mod appeared,rest is history. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Lewis
|
Theres only one prob with this these agg chasses has been running 2 to4 turbos for years with one turbo things should be fine |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Registered: 03/26/2008 Posts: 343 |
Have one comment on this story, why mess with something that is proving it self to be pretty close to the fastest growing class in tractor pulling recent history. It is still an entry level class, or State Level at best. And component being allowed, will in the long run cut numbers in this class. (history will repeat itself) In the past couple of years more and more organizations have picked up this class, with rules staying very similar, several hooks at the end of the season with over 30 Tractors in each class, with competitors from several states, KY tractors have traveled to Wisconsin, and Michigan and Wisconsin Tractors have traveled to Kentucky. Murfreesboro, TN pull there are 37 or 38 tractors on the venue, that is the last weekend of Jan. If it is not broke don't fix it period.
I agree that components are easier to work on and maybe cheaper to build in some cases, but no one has convinced me yet they are safer, I have seen both styles fail, on different levels., This is an argument no one will ever win, but still think it will destroy a class like the LLSS, As pullers in this class we have worked really hard to keep this class a crowd pleaser, mainly worked at a rule to keep the diesels up with the alkys, and even placed a diesel in our tractor at the end of this passed season with small cubes and a intercooler, and it seemed to work very well. But hate to see anything to cause it not to grow like it has here. Eric Prewitt The Prewitt Pulling Team Public Relations for The Pulling Radio Network |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Interesting reading Well Done Chris. When I had talked to Chris earlier on in the year I traded info with him because our group in Canada have allowed components to compete for the last 4 years now. I feel it has generated interest in the class again none are out yet , a few like myself are building and should be out in the future. I run an ag chassis right now and after spending the past day splitting it I am definately feeling my choice for the second tractor to be component is the right one.
It all comes down to what works for the club. If it will bring in numbers for them then go component. If not stay ag chassis. Anyone building is going to know where they can and can't compete. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Anonymous User
|
Thank you Robert. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Typical response
|
Robert,
Congratulations on some common sense thinking, I hope this change works well in your club, you seem to truly understand where pulling is going in the future. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
predictions Lewis
|
The only component tractors they will get is a ss tractor or two that's tired of getting there a$$ thrashed in the class they thought they wanted to be in that's whats ruined about every class out there .Its not about the advantages or disadvantages its about the rules that are working .If this club wants it fine, weight can be thrown off or added if anyone wants to pull some were else. With the component chasses they are just screwed NTPA has this class PPL is in the progress of taking this class so were will the first few odd balls go they will stay home with the NE power pullers wich is fine |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Registered: 03/26/2008 Posts: 343 |
NTPA has it on a State Level with MID-South and PPL is looking at it, NTPA is no Component, there rules are the same or really close to BOB and KTPA, and the Southern Wisconsin guys, my opinion the component rule in this class is just uncalled for Eric Prewitt The Prewitt Pulling Team Public Relations for The Pulling Radio Network |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Anonymous User
|
WOW... Never thought our little ol' club would get such a heated discussion. While Adam, Craig, & Eric may have differing opinions I can understand their points and value their input. All of the other ney sayers that can't post their names, if I were to not allow components how many of our events will you be attending next year? |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Registered: 03/26/2008 Posts: 343 |
probably none from our team, but 10 years ago we never thought we would be in Wisconsin, have been there twice now, but probably would not even consider with components in the class, but just voicing my opinion, hope it all works out for you guys. Eric Prewitt The Prewitt Pulling Team Public Relations for The Pulling Radio Network |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Registered: 12/11/2011 Posts: 45 |
Chris the Spiegelberg Pulling Team would bring our 3 LLSS to a few of your pulls if scheduling allowed. We enjoy competing with the many LLSS pullers from different states and many of them will travel too to support each others events. It's good competition.The LLSS pullers are a Great group and to us they are like Family to us. As people are telling you the established LLSS rules that are out there are working and tractor numbers are growing. If you want to be a LLSS puller follow the established rules and allow your pullers the opportunity to travel and enjoy pulling with many LLSS pullers that are out there. There are 3 indoor events this winter which we are pulling our LLSS. If you really feel you need component rear ends in your class then call your class a new name because you will be a localized class. If a few are that persistent on component I feel bad that you are limiting your group from a great opportunity of being in the growing family of the LLSS pullers in so many states already. Scott |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Moderator Registered: 01/11/2009 Posts: 1,579 |
It's up to those in the local club to decide; however if components in this or any club are allowed, be aware the only LLSS sandbox you will be able to play in will be your own, unless you want to run LSS. Would be nice to see this class have a fairly uniform set of rules across the board. Its already been said here: if it aint broke don't go trying to fix it, or we'll end up with yet another set of fragmented rules that exist in nearly every other class. Bryan Lively - 
    |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Registered: 01/17/2009 Posts: 207 |
You can build a component chassis cheaper and safer than an ag chassis. I've built a couple of ag chassis and it gets really expensive. Look through videos of hubs not properly welded on axles and tires coming loose, and tell just how safe that is...Gordy has had a few broken axles, luckily no one was hurt. Now tell me how many components you've seen come apart... Just make the Components 200 lbs lighter to start with or 1" lower hitch, and adjust from there when you see how they're ending up...
[www.youtube.com] [www.youtube.com] |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
LEWIS
|
Whats so hard to understand keep your 200 pounds and go pull ss or prostock with your chassis or pull with the Nepowerpullers or that place in Canada 8 out of 10 of the current pullers in this class would vote no if it was voted on maybe not Obomas president but some people still has a little pride in tractor pulling not log skidders with tractor hoods on them. Dang a turbin engine is a lot safer than something with rods slinging around in them Lets go with them as another safety op anything can and will break.This class was started by people who didn't want to pull the ss class that's why its llss class |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Registered: 03/26/2008 Posts: 343 |
Saw both of those many times before, and yes may make them safer by going component, they were LSS not LLSS, LLSS do not have enough power to really worry about that happening. Only one that I know of has ever lost a rear wheel, LLSS that is. But no one ever mentions the planataries in components that have locked up and broke other things, Nothing is unbreakable Our class works here hope yours works for ya. Eric Prewitt The Prewitt Pulling Team Public Relations for The Pulling Radio Network |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
The allis in your clips is a component. And the deere is a lss making 3 times the power. If ur gunna compare, compare apples to apples. |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
Where's the spec?
|
EXACTLY Chris! And thank you! |
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
research
|
Search gordy vids for final decision then you'll answer your own question 
|
|
Re: Adding the LLSS Class
|
trucker/puller
|
If there cheaper,add 2 more chargers an pull super stock |
Website Statistics
Global: Topics: 38,721, Posts: 229,849, Members: 3,330.
This forum: Topics: 37,083, Posts: 225,976.
Global: Topics: 38,721, Posts: 229,849, Members: 3,330.
This forum: Topics: 37,083, Posts: 225,976.
Our newest member LT Limited Pro
