02:38:03am, Tuesday, May 21, 2024
|
ITPA rule changes
|
Fred
|
Any big changes coming to ITPA for next yr?? |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
Heard
|
They are just going to have 3 classes. 58 mods, 85 lim pro's and 2wd's. Cause they killed the rest of the classes 
|
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
They sure did...... |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
Did anything change in light super |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
Posts: 171 |
Honestly, sounds like a good idea to me... |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
illinoisfan
|
What did they decide on the pro farm classes for turbo rules? |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
Pretty sure they get to keep same turbo |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
Dave k
|
Gonna be a turbo free for all in those two classes, board of directors are not going to respond to any turbo complaints. Who's ever got the deepest pockets .......? |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
GEEZ!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Why don't you pro farm turbo whiners build a superstock? That way ya don't have to worry about turbo limits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All you have to worry about is the numbers of turbos ya have on! |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
Fan
|
Speaking of illinois hot farm that class has come a long way last few years. I have seen a lot of real nice equipment. They bring a very nice show |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
Was a puller
|
The 12 pro farm out of the 2 is by far the best group in the class. Everyone always talkin to one another at the pulls. The 95 pro farm is where it went south. They wanted water or ice boxes. The 12 already had it but no one wanted to build a bigger motor. They just wanted to ruin there class to weed out others and it was approved by the board. Now yes the 85lps is the class to get into for beginners or people that dont want to spend their life savings on to have fun. If i was building one again it wouldnt be a pro farm, it costs too much |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
You better check your price sheet again, the cost is about the same. I don't know why anyone would want to start out in a class with 20 tractors? I pull in the 9500 class. Was probably the one of best years we had as a class no whining, 5 different winners out of a average of 7.6 tractors, less than 20 points between 1st and 5th. Don't put words in my mouth or anything, the 8500 is a great class and a great bunch of competitors. Just trying to stick up for my class. |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
You better check your price sheet again, the cost is about the same. I don't know why anyone would want to start out in a class with 20 tractors? I pull in the 9500 class. Was probably the one of best years we had as a class no whining, 5 different winners out of a average of 7.6 tractors, less than 20 points between 1st and 5th. Don't put words in my mouth or anything, the 8500 is a great class and a great bunch of competitors. Just trying to stick up for my class.
Josh cain 314 220 1371 |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
If any of you guys were in the meeting, Miller got up himself and said the puller weren't the ones complaining. It was totally the board that wanted to change the turbo rule. The 95 profarm class had a great class this yeat They had a good turnout of tractors and they had 5 different winners. Let's not screw up the class if it's not broken.
To Dave K and Geez, please don't make asinine comments if you don't know what you're talking about......... Thanks |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
They screwed that class up years ago... |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
Dave K
|
The 9000 farm stock class was started out as a low cost starter class . The 2.25 inducer was a good idea it kept the turbo cost down and tractors were very reliable. The Itpa board was trying to reign in the profarm classes because when you put it to paper it's more cost effective to build an 8500 limited pro. That's why we have so many in the 85 lim pro . A few years ago the 12 profarm did not have a cubic inch limit and guys were building their motors as big as they could go, but guess what they couldn't hold them together and the class almost went away. What saved 12 profarm was the 650 cubic inch limit they put on the class motors started staying together. And by the way , 85 and95 limited pro have a smooth inducer bore rule. There's only two other classes in Itpa that can run slotted covers , super stock and pro stock . There are a number 9000 farm stock tractors that are either sitting in barns or have been parted out because the class got out of hand with slotted covers and intercoolers. |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
We can all Monday morning quarterback what they should have done many years ago with the class. What I don't agree with is going from a 3 inch slotted charger to a 3.6 charger smooth cover. If we would go that route, we would be the only pro farm class in the country that has that type of rules. In the meeting the comment was made that if the 12000 put on a 3.6 charger they would gain another hundred horse. That would only break more stuff.
To the comment on the old 95 Farm stock class, those tractors still have places to pull. Illinois hot farm stock Association, UPA and IPA all have great farm stock classes. Those tractors don't have to be put it in the back of the barn. |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
thanks for mentioning ihfspa.we strive to keep the rules the same from year to year to keep outlandish costs down to our pullers. if some one wants to step up then they can pull with itpa. through the years we have fed them pullers from our organization. almost all of the 8500 limited pro class started with us except for 2 or 3. they have 2 9500 limited pros that started with us. they also have 3 superstocks that started with us. there are several that started with us stepped up and decided to quit. the 11000 profarm class has 5 or 6 from us. through the years we probably have provided them with 20+ PULLERS. PULLING IS NOT CHEAP IN ANY CLASS. |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
U said it pulling is not cheap |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
Flatlander - who are you? |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
GEEZ(anasininecommentor)
|
And who was the director in charge of your divisional meeting? Also, who were the 2 that walked out of it? Also, what did the director in charge of the class divisional meeting say about what kind of class it was? |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
1, Miller and Mumma
2, Dean and Sam. 3, "We are a filler class." And I understand that. We aren't a Prostock, light super stock or 2nd truck type class. Your point????? |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
GEEZ
|
1. I heard that John said that, but didn't know that Mike agreed or said it also. 2. I never heard who walked out, I was just asking. 3. I heard that that was said about your class and when I heard that, I couldn't believe it was said nor do I agree with the comment. My point is this. Build a superstock because you don't have to worry about smooth bore or map grooves because both are legal. And you will probably not spend as much as you are now on turbos. Also, the weight of BOTH superstock classes in ITPA is lighter than what you are in now. That should help you from breaking rear and tranny parts. "Closer" weight for you would with what you have now would be the 8200 ITPA superstock class. Now I know, that will take a lot of work for you for the upcoming season. But that class really needs some help, and I guarantee you'd be happier pulling in that class than the class you are now. Don't get me wrong, you will have to maintain them, but if you know what you are doing with them, that should not be a problem. Also, all classes in ITPA have been "scolded" at one time or another except for one. And you and I both know what class that is. I didn't mean to offend you and I hope you have a Merry Christmas. |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
Thank you! It blows my mind that instead of jumping up classes (they have 5 to chose from), they (pro farm guys) want to change the profarm rules to suit them! As it has been stated before, it is now cheaper to build an 85 lps than a ITPA pro farm! And at least when you build an 85 you can go and pull in other organizations without changes. Because of that, there is no need to change the rules now, because the class will die out since no new tractors will be built for it. |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
Anonymous User
|
To anyone who thinks inner coolers killed the 95fs you would be mistaken. Safety equipment is what killed your numbers and we know that isn't going anywhere. I can think of 6 or 7 currently pulling in other itpa classes that made the move before the dreaded inner coolers were allowed. If you care to do any research you would see that the class numbers were almost the same as they were in 2007 as in 2015 and that was 4 years before coolers were allowed. If all theses tractors supposedly exist and are in sheds where were they then? And who is to say that all current competitors would still be in the class? I know I wouldn't be!! Also the coolers were not sought as a way to "weed out" people or ruin the class as has been suggested but to level the playing field for all colors. Finally in closing the class sought to keep the turbo rule as is to maintain the consistent rules we've had for the last 5 years.
Jeremy Reeves, proud 95 pro farm competitor since 2006 |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
Pass the popcorn
|
Wow. It's the same bs about the same classes with the same people. Your crazy if you think 2007 numbers match 2015. There was more people that didn't get a check in the 95 pro farm than there is pulling 95 pro farm your 2007 and 2015 numbers are skewed. |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
The truth right there. 10-15 every show state fair got 17 more than once. 7.6 average this year was what went to Peotone or Pontiac because the deep south guys didn't drive that far. |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
Nose Doctor
|
oh please who are you fooling? 2007 there would be 13-15 tractors there. Now you can't find enough to take the purse money let alone put on a decent show. And your just a good example of why the class died. Everybody is/was tired of the drama. Pre 2006 were the best years to pull the true "farm stock" class. |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
Anonymous User
|
The points results show that essentially 9 tractors competed the schedule that year which is not a drastic difference from the 7.6 this year so you should probably check your facts. Don't know where you came up with your figures just seems like a lot of the same non factual stuff being posted on here. If you want to talk facts start by posting your name and stop hiding behind the keyboard!! |
|
Re: ITPA rule changes
|
Anonymous User
|
Itpa wanted to change to smooth bore because the map groves on turbo where being to hard to check |
Website Statistics
Global: Topics: 38,793, Posts: 229,997, Members: 3,340.
This forum: Topics: 37,103, Posts: 226,071.
Global: Topics: 38,793, Posts: 229,997, Members: 3,340.
This forum: Topics: 37,103, Posts: 226,071.
Our newest member Jacklovik2009
