06:34:15am, Tuesday, April 16, 2024
|
Are the 2017 NTPA rules posted?
|
APTN
|
? |
|
Re: Are the 2017 NTPA rules posted?
|
Time line
|
Well, since there are committee's meeting about 2017 rules TODAY, I kind of doubt that the 2017 rules are posted anywhere yet.
NTPA not big on posting complete rules, so sometime in January, you should be able to send 6 or 8 dollars to Columbus, Ohio and get a rule book mailed to your door. |
|
Re: Are the 2017 NTPA rules posted?
|
Bud Wiser
|
I would start looking in the fiction section of your local library. Should be there in about 2 months. Maybe they should start printing it on toilet paper so it would at least serve a purpose. |
|
Re: Are the 2017 NTPA rules posted?
|
NTPA Rule Book...
|
Nothing to see here, people... move along. |
|
Re: Are the 2017 NTPA rules posted?
|
Registered: 07/07/2015 Posts: 25 |
Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
General Rules. 1. 4 clamps per cable or crimped ends are now required on engines that require cables. 2. Page 35: Section M #1c (add) or a light attached to the power feed if the kill switch interrupts the ignition power supply. (This may be used for kill switch testing) 3. The diesel fuel testing system and rules has been reinstated with new specs The rule will read: The NTPA will evaluate diesel fuel using the dielectric constant value. That value shall be determined by the NTPA fuel check meter only. The NTPA fuel check meter shall use Cyclohexane to establish the zero reference point for determining all diesel fuel dielectric constant values. Diesel fuel to be used in NTPA competition shall have a dielectric value of no greater than 8.5, nor a value of no less than 2.2. 4. Allow a 1/2" steel spacer for clutch clearance on cast OEM chassis . 5. All classes at all levels will be conducted under a floating finish. Tracks will a maximum of 330 feet with no exception boundary lines will extend to 330 feet. Vehicles get red flagged if they exceed the 330 feet and must come back for a pulloff Super Stock 1. A turbo inlet restrictor plate is required for all SS classes. (Size and dimensions to be determined) 2. NTPA will now allow aluminum billet engine in all SS classes The rule now reads on page 5: D. Engines 1. Steel billet, aluminum billet and steel recast blocks allowed. The specifications for the block will be based on factory OEM specs of the block chosen to be replaced with a allowance for the 5/8 in deck plate and limited to 540 cubic inch. Pro Stock tractors 1. Component chassis, V-8 diesel engines only be allowed if they were offered in a two wheel drive tractor from factory. Pro Farm 1. Change Rule 4C to read, intake manifold may be non OEM with a maximum inlet size 3.75 inches measured on the outside diameter one inlet pipe only. Diesel FWD trucks 1. The SSD FWD class has been made a Grand National class. 2. NTPA has added a 2.6 and 3.6 Diesel FWD (class Rules to be listed soon) |
|
Re: Are the 2017 NTPA rules posted?
|
pro question
|
Why are they specifically stating that only TWD ag blocks be allow in Pro Stock? Hasn’t it always been this way? I thought that the USS was the only division that allowed any ag block (i.e. 903 or other). |
|
Re: Are the 2017 NTPA rules posted?
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Rumor was someone was going to try to put the big v-8 out of an 8850 deere 4wd in one. Think they just cleared up a little gray area. |
|
Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
2017 NTPA Rules
|
Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
General Rules 1. 4 clamps per cable or crimped ends are now required on engines that require cables. 2. All classes at all levels will be conducted under a floating finish. Tracks will a maximum of 330 feet with no exceptionboundary lines will extend to 330 feet. Vehicles get red flagged if they exceed the 330 feet and must come back for a pulloff 3. Page 35: Section M #1c (add) or a light attached to the power feed if the kill switch interrupts the ignition power supply. (This may be used for kill switch testing) 4. The diesel fuel testing system and rules has been reinstated with new specs, The rule will read: The NTPA will evaluate diesel fuel using the dielectric constant value. That value shall be determined by the NTPA fuel check meter only. The NTPA fuel check meter shall use Cyclohexane to establish the zero reference point for determining all diesel fuel dielectric constant values. Diesel fuel to be used in NTPA competition shall have a dielectric value of no greater than 8.5, nor a value of no less than 2.2. 5.. Allow a 1/2" steel spacer for clutch clearance on cast OEM chassis Super Stock 1. A turbo inlet restrictor plate is required for all SS classes. (Size and dimensions to be determined) 2. NTPA will now allow aluminum billet engine in all SS classes.The rule now reads on page 5: D. Engines 1) Steel billet, aluminum billet and steel recast blocks allowed. The specifications for the block will be based on factory OEM specs of the block chosen to be replaced with a allowance for the 5/8 in deck plate and limited to 540 cubic inch. Pro Stock tractors 1. Component chassis, V-8 diesel engines only be allowed if they were offered in a two wheel drive tractor from factory. Pro Farm 1. Change Rule 4C to read, intake manifold may be non OEM with a maximum inlet size 3.75 inches measured on the outside diameter one inlet pipe only. Diesel FWD trucks 1. The SSD FWD class has been made a Grand National class. 2. NTPA has added a 2.6 and 3.6 Diesel FWD (class Rules to be listed soon) [ntpapull.com] Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2016 03:17AM by Wayne Girbach. |
|
Re: Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
C Haney
|
Interesting. Last piece of "stock" now gone from the "super stock" class.
Where did the restrictor plate thing come from? |
|
Re: Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
Team one
|
How would this restrictor plate rule work for a tractor like smoke n mirrors that has 3 turbos pulling air in rather than 2 ? I would think he will now have an advantage... |
|
Re: Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
Simple math
|
Two primary turbo setups would run one size and three turbo please primary setups would run another size to make the two have equal airflow. |
|
To Bob
|
LSS Fan
|
Bob,
Does that mean we will be seeing stormy with a billet alluminum block this summer? |
|
Re: To Bob
|
Registered: 04/04/2016 Posts: 110 |
Unfortunately, No, I knew nothing about this coming out, and I sold The Rolling Chassis and Turbos to Mark Fileatrau from Bardstown Ky, he and Mike Wilhite are in process of building 2 Red motors to go in the rigs and they will run out of the same trailer this coming season. I thought this wouldn't fly so I was/am kinda re thinking what I want to do In the near future in pulling. With shop workload, due to recent Pro Stock and TWD success's I don't see getting anything out this coming season for sure! I wish I had known this was even possible, because both me and Mike would build billet blocks and keep going!
BB |
|
Re: Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
Team one
|
I can see this idea ruining a lot of effective turbo set ups because they won't be able to turn them anymore , making this another expensive move! |
|
Re: Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
Everybody will suck air through the same size hole (or the sum area of multiple holes) regardless of how many turbos they have on the top stage. This rule will really hurt the Smoke and Mirrors team since John's setup is a high volume low pressure system and the restrictor plate restricts volume. I believe Jody Ross has two huge top chargers as well so it will have a big impact on him also. Jake Morgan Owner, PULLOFF.COM Independent Pulling News This page is a free service. The cost is covered out of my pocket. It takes a great deal of time and a fair amount of money to keep this website going. Donations for: photos, classified ads, forum discussion, etc... are appreciated. Side Note: We are no longer accepting PayPal donations. They have changed their terms of service and stated they would fine PayPal users for spreading "misinformation" and "hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory". PayPal did not provide definitions for some of these vague terms. Woke corporate policies regarding "misinformation" could result in an automatic fine of $2,500 which would have been removed directly from the customer’s PayPal account. PayPal did backdown from some of their policies but quietly implemented portions of them in later terms of service. A financial institute has no right to monitor social media accounts or speech. This is unacceptable and I'll no longer do business with PayPal. |
|
Re: Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
Hmmm...
|
The "sum area of multiple holes" definitely sounds like a disadvantage for those kind of turbo set-ups... not to mention a tech headache (determining, then measuring exactly how big each outside hole should be for each tractor). |
|
Re: Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
Ex ntpa puller
|
The tech part probably won't matter it will be just another rule that nobody will enforce just like the rest of them |
|
Re: Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
Posts: 744 |
think of it this way for easy math.
4" hole has an area of 12.57 sq in so if 2 top turbos had 4 inch openings... 1 turbo could have 5.66" opening 3 atmospheric turbos could have 3.27" openings So the tech would carry those 3 slugs for those 3 scenarios if the rule was a 4" opening. . And then we get to see all the "engineering" behind those 3 types of openings and find out what combo is best and what wheels work best. COO for OTTPA www.outlawpulling.com www.truck-specialties.com Schaeffer Oil Representative [www.schaefferoil.com] |
|
Re: Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
Adam,
Thanks for doing the math. I think you're dual 4" opening assumption is perfect/reasonable. Some quick questions: My question is will all Super Stock classes get the same restrictor plate size or will the DSS get one size, the LSS another, and the OSS a third size? If they get different sizes what happens to the Diesel tractors in the LSS? Will they run the DSS size or the LSS size? If they all get the same size is it really fair to have the Diesel tractors in the LSS class get the same volume of air as the Alcohol tractors when they have inherently different air/fuel ratios? I'm guessing that these are some of the details that are currently getting ironed out. Jake Morgan Owner, PULLOFF.COM Independent Pulling News This page is a free service. The cost is covered out of my pocket. It takes a great deal of time and a fair amount of money to keep this website going. Donations for: photos, classified ads, forum discussion, etc... are appreciated. Side Note: We are no longer accepting PayPal donations. They have changed their terms of service and stated they would fine PayPal users for spreading "misinformation" and "hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory". PayPal did not provide definitions for some of these vague terms. Woke corporate policies regarding "misinformation" could result in an automatic fine of $2,500 which would have been removed directly from the customer’s PayPal account. PayPal did backdown from some of their policies but quietly implemented portions of them in later terms of service. A financial institute has no right to monitor social media accounts or speech. This is unacceptable and I'll no longer do business with PayPal. |
|
Re: Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
Truck puller
|
The size will depend on what hp they want the class to be. 4.0 inlets won't lower horsepower in dss. Depending on the size they are limited to I think some will have to switch from a 4 turbo 3stage to a 3 turbo 2 stage to get hp back and keep boost in check. |
|
Re: Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
huh
|
triple bypass is running 4,6 or 4,7 turbos and is kicking everyones ass. and you think a 4,0 inlet wont knock his horsepower down? you better stick to truck pulling!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Re: Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
Registered: 04/12/2008 Posts: 398 |
SSD has just been killed. Going the way of Nascar (whatever that is). We aren't stupid. Turbo restrictions only result in ONE thing. Higher prices. Always has and always will. I hope the class "kneels down" for the season. |
|
Re: Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
Truck puller
|
None of these dss guys are actually getting full power out of their primary turbos.
I could care less if he has 4.6 or 4.7 turbos because he is nowhere near what those turbos are capable of. Two 4.1 could do 4200hp+ so why run something larger. The reason they do run larger is so they can make more power with less boost. If you would actually look at my post I'm against changing these rules. Especially because the people in charge of these associations have no clue how for example turbos work or what you can do to them. They are out their for themselves and not the pullers. Changing a bunch of rules will continue to make the class smaller and drive cost up. What they should be doing is working together to change the mindset of pullers about the diesel super stock class. To get guys wanting to run this class again. Post in this thread saying you need 4 $5000 turbos to compete doesn't help. The reason I never built a tractor in the first place is because all the exaggerated numbers people were say things cost and everyone said it. Which makes people think I could never do that so they loose interest they dont even try. These turbos you see in the dss class cost nowhere near 5k. You can get them $21-2500 range cast or billet wheel depending on size. |
|
Re: Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
Ross Fan
|
You my friend are wrong. If we are talking triple bypass, he is making over 4000 hp. And I am sure Jody wishes his turbos cost 2500. LOL, get real and don't talk about stuff you really have no idea about.
All these new ideas are just agenda items, not Rules, so please keep that in mind. |
|
Re: Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
Truck puller
|
Its his choice if he wants to way over pay for turbos and other parts. But don't act like they cost anywhere near what these guys are paying. I guarantee there is nothing special about his or anyone elses. If he really has 4.6-4.7 turbos they are capable of being 5600-5800hp range. |
|
Re: Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
Where
|
You need to be thinking closer to 5000 hp
Tell us where to get these custom turbos for $2100? |
|
Re: Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
Truck puller
|
You could try google. Search for garret thumper or uv9406. Same gtrim wheels the hx82s use along with all the same 91-106 cast wheels for $2-2100. Nothing custom about them. If you want a billet wheel that is extra but doesn't add much to the cost. |
|
Re: Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
G trim is to small
|
Who is running G trim? |
|
Re: Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
Ross Fan
|
Oh your that guy... mr. part number througher-outer... Please tell me more about this awesome truck you pull. I suppose it makes 2100hp and you drive it to the pulls. Jody is making over 300 lbs of boost, do you think stock turbos will hold up to that? Put your phone away and get back to class |
|
Re: Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
I might be ignorant to this subject but I have heard cam placement is a disadvantage in a lot of motors. Wouldn't the overhead cam been a better solution to billet blocks. |
|
Re: Items that go into effect for the 2017 NTPA season
|
Bk
|
Is it possible for everyone to run a wastegate with a lower setting that everyone could agree would still make power but not blow the top off the motor??? |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
Moderator Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 1,445 |
I know that there is a group of pullers that will/do not like the new rules, my question to them is; the Super Stock national classes are dying, what other recourse was there. Something had to be done to starve off the extinction of SS pulling at the national level. Granted the LSS in most parts of the country has plenty of state level places to hook. However the DSS class has seen state level pulling fading away and the Open/Unlimited 650 class is really a "national level" class with vertically no state level hooks at all. I believe that the NTPA has taken the lead once again in writing rules that will not only save the SS classes but also has the potential of growth within classes. Lets face it the growth in has been stagnant for years. With the Outlaws following suite the growth in both LSS and DSS should be encouraging. Now whether this will translate into more national growth is yet to be seen. I realize that for some pullers the new rules comes with a cost, however over time I would like to believe that with these rules more debility will help offset the cost of conforming to the new rules. The billet block rule being capped at 540 cubic inches really is just a LSS and DSS rule. |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
If they want to save national level pulling & attract more participants, they need to step up the precommit $$ & purse payouts. Costs just as much to get the first place tractor down the road as it does the last place one. There's a lot of pullers out there including myself who would run the grand national circuit, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't have the latest & greatest setup....BUT we like to have fun & compete none the less. But I can do it on peanuts nor can anyone else. |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
Fixer
|
Your diesel super rules fix nothing. Last I checked you needed a fuel source to burn air. Let's Worry about thunder when lightening burns your house down. |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
I agree
|
The problems is, the guys running at the top of GN DSS class are not going to quit trying to be at the top of the class.
So now they have to figure out how to get the HP back that they will lose from the restrictor plate. Guess how they are going to get that HP back? Money, lots of money They will have to go to a much more aggressive compressor and exhaust wheel and drive them much harder. I'm seeing $30,0000-$50,000 in trying turbo setups in the first 24 months. And then the turbos are not going to live as long This rule is going to make Hypermax and Columbus very happy. |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
Watcher
|
Hypers current PS turbo only lasts 8 passes,,,,, 9 if you are lucky.
And this is different how? Didn't say it was good,,,,, just that it is no different. |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
cost
|
Its different in that it will nearly triple the cost of turbos for the DSS
4 $5000 turbos vs 4 $15000 turbos? |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
Moderator Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 1,445 |
I know everyone says "let's increase the purse money" however pulling needs to work with the present day reality's that the purse that is being paid will not go anywhere until the pullers themselves stop selling their product so cheaply. Maybe it's time to cap all classes at 16 hooks per class and have the promoters bid on the classes they want. Like any product supply and demand should drive the market. Dick Morgan www.PULLOFF.com Independent Pulling News |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
Seems the only time a pull increases a purse it's to the winner. That solves nothing towards the goal of getting more participation in the class. Reality tells you that if you go to every pull expecting to win, you are going for the wrong reason. But adding purse $$ to the #1 spot is proving to kill classes not expand them. If you want to fill the field, you have to reward them. |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
To Mr. Morgan
|
Mr. Morgan
While you and many others may have good ideas, there is one central problem to all that has happened, does happen and will happen. It is called lack of thought. How does it really effect the puller?? Is this really the best thing to do?? What dollars are involved?? You cannot present an item discuss for a hour or so and make a blanket statement this is the rule. STUPID!!!!!!!!!!! This is not going to improve numbers in class for a number of various reasons. To many pulling organizations for one, The 3 major players are each going to follow some what of a different rule. So pullers are going to stay close to home and follow what is best for them and their POCKET BOOK!!!!!!!! How many people can really compete and follow at a national level? Numbers are few for sure. When you have $250,000 or more in an investment and then to run at a national level and the maintenance to run a puller at that level for a season is a little over the top. Your numbers are limited no matter what?? Billet blocks do not improve anything but drive up costs and make the number smaller of those available to even consider the national level. The air restriction rules is one that lacks thought. Quit making the pullers guinea pigs and spend their money to decide if this is right or not. Again STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Plus who's behind this,where did they pull the magic number of 4" out of ?? Is there any previous research on that?? Who did it ?? What classes did it ?? Does it work good for both alky and DSS tractors. Who knows??? No one does. Thus the reason rules, classes and everything else in pulling is so JACKED UP!!!!!!!!!!! No one is going to fix this problem and things will not change. A puller just gets to decided if they want to spend the money or get out. Could ramble on for sometime over this and many issues that plague the world of pulling. |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
Moderator Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 1,445 |
Thanks for your response. Let me ask you one question: are you satisfied with the number of pullers that are now following the national circuits? Dick Morgan www.PULLOFF.com Independent Pulling News |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
Mr. Morgan
|
Mr. Morgan
Answer to your question 1. Is there enough pullers to follow a national circuit. Answer is Yes. But are there enough pullers to follow multiple national circuits and answer is No. 2. It has been said many times on this board, Pulling is a hobby not a profession. So what does that mean? folks do not have the time to follow and maintain for a national circuit. 3. The sport of pulling is so diluted with so many organizations you just are not going to have numbers, know matter what rules get changed. 4. Lets take the LSS class at BG. There were what, 20 some in the class and most likely you could name 20 more that could have been there but were not. Why?? 5. I wish there was a magical answer cure all for it, but there is not. Thank you |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
Registered: 10/06/2008 Posts: 57 |
Food for thought
1. raise the purse. PRO: helps puller / competitor with rising costs associated with the sport. CON: Everyday it costs more to live. Wages don't seem to follow these costs. Everyday people (talented people) are replaced by a robot to weld steel, a tractor that self drives, a google car that self drives, robots that pull shipping orders, drones that will replace the brown truck driver, a bulldozer that auto grades and so on. As more time passes It will be interesting to see what people as a society will do for a value added service and what their compensation will be. That being said can regional/ state level promoter of events continue to raise gate fees to offset his/her increase in incurred cost? Does a patroon cut down on the number events they spectate at? where does snowball effect start where does it stop. 2. billet blocks/ big blocks/v8 etc. I marvel at the "how its made" and similar type tv series, the efficiency some of the factories have, even the heritage iron magazine had an article on the the new steiger factory and the rate that it could complete a new tractor in over 30 years ago!! The point is; that in scale volume, a product can become refined and cost effective. If a billet or recast block could be produced on a large scale what would the cost be? how much longer would the product last? At some point it has got to cost more to modify an existing part that it does to have a purpose designed part. 3. Limiting power to some classes ie, turbo plug limits You see all forms of motorsports revise/implement rules to "slow down power and or speed" blower motors have had over drive taken away, what do builders do they make more efficient blowers. when blowers were at near maximum efficiency they decided in nhra well heck lets turn the engine another 2000 rpms" blower is hooked to crank its gotta move more air". Did the rule this slow progress down? probably, was it cheaper? doubtful, do these engines have less power? I don't know... they set new world records every day. I would assume the same will apply to turbo limits. The amount of talented people and the resources available to a modern day competitor across our great country are astounding. Nothing is ever perfect. There are issues that need to be addressed. Taking the time and effort to evaluate potential solutions while weighing all the ramifications is tedious job. I would hate to see things get rushed into and overlooked due to the age ole " well it looked good on paper" routine. |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
More is better
|
We definitely need more pullers at the GN level.
But, how many do we need? We are talking about the premiere pullers in each class, how many premiere pullers do we need in each class? Ask all the regional pullers why they don't step up to GN and I bet they will all say time and Money. So how do you give them more time off work and more money to build a GN level puller? |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
How much would it take
|
Not sure that raising purse is feasible.
How much would the purse need to be raised to get 10 regional DSS to step up and run a full GN season? Where would that money come from? What would the purse break down look like if you paid the 15th place tractor $1500 |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
Registered: 01/29/2011 Posts: 95 |
Dick,
You make a good point that pullers are selling themselves short. It will take the pullers coming together as a group to have a chance to change payouts. The cost to run all over the country has increased over the years. On an average weekend it would normally average 6 hr drive time one way for gn pulls. So for a round trip cost of fuel would be aprox 350-400. You would leave the day before to get there without issue and the same for return so a single hook costs three days of work $$. I would normally take 500 per day of pulling for expenses. That might sound extreme but pay for meals,and other needed things on the road and you wont come home with much. That comes up to 900 plus entry(50+) plus consumables for the pulling vehicle( fuel,oil$50 ) =$ 1000 and that does not account for insurance on vehicles( avg maybe 100 per weekend spread over the year), wear on support equipment or pulling vehicles(? Hard to say/ how bad of a weekend but you better figure 300 a pass minimum just to maintain) so $1400 and you and anyone that helped missed work for min of three days. This is very conservative math. At any time this cost can rise 20k-50k with major failure. This breakdown persents a few issues and conflicts to pullers. When we look that over and realize how stupid we are it makes it hard to seem credible asking for more money because it would never be enough on purse alone. The probelm in there is that the purse for winning would not even cover the weekend expenses if you win everytime. It will not cover basic expenses with out even considering the pulling vehicle repairs. How can you attract anyone new to come along and play if they know they need a 100k hauler and 50k support items, along with a 200k puller, then cant even cover the weekend expenses. This is where it will sound like a contradiction to the above Even with all the expense and stupid behavior of the pullers for doing this for nothing we still dont like restrictions on hp. The same people will come regardless because we like to do it and cost be dammed. Its not too good on the pocket book but its just and accepted fact that you want to go out there and win. Putting restrictor plates on ss tractors just does not make sense. It goes aginst the very idea of what they are. These are suppose to be the premier tractor classes with the most hp possible. To neuter the class takes away the spirit of what it is all about. It is too bad that the pro class wants to keep the same old 6cyl battle going on forever. Would be nice to mix it up. Our plans were to have a 903 based pro out for next year if it would have stayed legal. Oh well, maybe another v8 will be used. |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
Registered: 04/04/2016 Posts: 110 |
Kevin,
You make very good points and this is a key issue that has been on my mind since I got in pulling. The root of the problem is being able to secure large sponsorship packages for both the GN and State level groups to help build a program to help fund the teams and organizations, to some level. All other motorsports has this, and its needed for all levels to stay viable in the future with costs of everything we know heading North, plus factor in the upcoming election and what that outcome may be is, costs sky rocketing in next few years. Here is the real root problem, we as pullers and hardcore fans of the sport cant see the forest for the trees. How does Pulling appeal to Fans and how does it expose itself to new potential fans. If I didn't love the HP and the Engineering and the good people involved, just purely as a spectator pulling has a lot of down time and can, honestly at times be really lacking in the entertainment department! This is what has to change going forward! And the pulling higher ups need take note, and honestly some new blood in the promotion side , and some new ideas of what could be appealing to young fans or just people that have never been exposed to the sport is crucial, what could make it more exciting going forward,...guys its nobodies fault, no blame needs placing on this group or that company or anything, its the universal constant, all things change! I've been thinking on this for quite some time, and honestly Pulling needs something NEW! I'm talking like incorporating a speed or time into the runs, maybe initially just for entertaining facts during the runs. ie NHRA 60ft 330ft times and speeds and so fourth. On the PPL TV show the little graph at the bottom of the screen as vehicle progresses down the track I find myself watching that and building excitement or frustration around this tool! What if somehow, a 150ft time or speed or both factored into placing, or here is a LULU, What if vehicles competed on Two tracks side by side, for time distance speed, all together qualifying you for another round, or finals? Just throwing things out there that has been on my mind. New excitement to the sport is whats needed to really draw new fans and re-invigorate old ones too. Just Imagine a starting line experince for some new fans at Tomah Wisconsin if they had a Podium to stand on just behind the start line and Adam Bauer and Bill Vories hooked side by side and left the line at same time? Yes before the Pulling hounds set their teeth in here, I understand this is a huge thing, no I don't have all the answers or even a complete one, but a committee needs to be formed of the best of the best, and IMO need to bring in some outside point of views as well, a non puller point of view for what is good for an exciting fan building program. These ideas wouldn't have to be at all levels, start out at GN ofcourse, state hooks, things like 2 tracks and go out for some professional announcers, have trackside interiews with competitors after the hook, amp it up it'll payoff big in time. The huge changes I talked about wouldn't have to take place right away, or maybe not at all. Maybe a few small tools of time speed distance and exciting "booth guys" talking about these facts along the runs or during slomo and full speed replays of runs may do it for now! Sorry for such a long post, I just feel time is now for changes! BB |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
LSS Puller
|
So are these only grand national rules or will they be followed by state level associations? |
|
I agree with Stormy
|
Kevin H
|
I agree with BB You have to add a little "show" back to the show. I remember going to the pulls in the 80's and 90's that TNT put on and they would run a truck class / runs some monster trucks / run a triple engine mod class / pull some exhibition trucks (like the 2wd fire truck etc) Some of the pullers hated the monster trucks, but thats what brought in the big crowds. USA did some of the speed runs with a christmas tree and a time clock. Fast runs / granted, they were a little dangerous but they were entertaining. USHRA did some side by side drag racing in the domes with 2wd, 4x4, and triple engine mods. The triples hook up and go fast. TNT even had some big time wrestling at half time once in Jackson MS:-) I wasn't a fan of that but it brought in a bigger crowd. Some of the Pro Shows pulls had pulling for the first half of the show and a country music concert for the 2nd half. Just a thought - everything needs a little renovation every few years. I still enjoy seeing a good hammer down monster truck jumping some cars and doing donuts like Grave Digger or Bigfoot and then back to some pulling action. Just my $.02 |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
Registered: 04/12/2008 Posts: 398 |
I have a DVT-800 that I wanted to try, but apparently it makes a lot more sense to allow billit blocks in these classes but its not OK to build off of a platform that is an agricultural based block that is both stronger than blocks currently used and cost 5% of what the billit blocks cost. Purely a builders rule.......Yet again..... |
|
Re: You can have a V8 Pro Stock.....
|
read the rules.....
|
Kevin,
The possibility exists to build a V8 Pro Stock, you just have to use a 2WD based ag block. And thanks to the most ridiculous rule in the book, you can wrap that in whatever sheetmetal you desire! Feel free to use the CAT, IH, or Perkins based engine. They were all produced in a 2WD ag tractor, so stop your whining. There is a reason they didn't want the 903........it should never have been allowed at any level (just like the any sheetmetal rule), look what it's done to the sport. Equally ridiculous is having nearly every LSS headin for a IH 400 series block.......just more stupidity. Circle that as the class I could care less to watch now. |
|
Re: You can have a V8 Pro Stock.....
|
Registered: 03/30/2008 Posts: 97 |
Getting to the point you can just about remove the "T" from NTPA. |
|
Re: You can have a V8 Pro Stock.....
|
Registered: 01/29/2011 Posts: 95 |
Read the rules.....
First, put a name to a post. No need to be a coward. I am well aware of the rules and what is available to build. The v8 blocks available to build are crap. That is why i would not want to start with one of them. If thats want the class wants thats fine. I just dont like to have the same stuff as everyone else has. That is where the fun is for me. Thats the excitement i get out of it. I am always looking for doing the next better thing. Not just figuring out what others are using and purchasing that. I did not do that with the 903cummins alky and will not do it now. Both ntpa and ppl were both won by a 6cyl alky ss tractor this year so it ia hard to say the 903 destroyed anything. Just helps push the bar higher. I get it, you are a purist tractor pulling fan. Meaning it should pull the way it was built from the factory. I love the idea too in some cases. I still pull antique tractors from time to time and enjoy it. I have an oliver 88. The difference is that ss/prostock classes are long away from that anymore and to think it some how is, you are kidding yourself. We built controlled chaos with one stock IH part. The headlight bucket. Even if we built a 6cyl it would not have one IH part in it. When at this level the stock parts are not the awnser. That is for classes below the ss/ps |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
Puller 12000
|
Mr. Campbell, The Pro Pullers put that on the agenda, because they don't want 903's to screw up the class like the SSO class!!!!!!
There is a class for you to run the 903 engine, pull in that class |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
Real Effects of Rule Changes
|
It would be nice to hear the objectives of the rule makers when NTPA decided to add restrictor plates. It seems most assume they believed the change would bring/keep more competitors. The effect will likely vary widely between classes:
In DSS, it may work. As stated previously, though, it will most definitely increase the cost of turbochargers dramatically. So the real question becomes, will the increased turbo charger cost be offset by SIGNIFICANTLY less breakage costs? Will this rule change compel new competitors to build and compete in this class? In the alcohol SS classes, NTPA just signed their own death warrant unless OTTPA and PPL follow suit. The top running competitors aren't going to "hamstring" themselves with the restrictor plates, they will simply compete on the OTTPA and PPL circuits. The competitors who do compete with NTPA will be the ones who are currently sub-par and can't compete without such "help". And the people who do compete with NTPA will likely have a lot of fuel system related explosions and wind up spending major portions of the competition season rebuilding since these explosions seldom result in only minor repairs. The restrictor plates will cause a significant change to the fuel curve the engine needs, so the existing fuel system tuning expertise will be of minimal benefit. The photographers should get a lot of good fireball shots, though. The best way for the organizations to "level the playing field" would be to decrease the advantage competitors gain with added horsepower, such as decreasing the competition weight. |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
LSS Puller
|
No fireballs, will only richen existing setups. But I do think the restrictor plate thing was a terrible idea. Who proposed this and who all was ther to vote on it? |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
LSS Fan Too
|
What's so terrible about the restrictor plate rule? I think it is a terrific idea to level the competition. You can only move so much air through an opening. Look at NASCAR, the restrictor plate seemed to even things out at the big tracks there.... |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
Moderator |
From my point of view, this restrictor plate idea was never meant to reduce cost in the sport, it is saying we have pushed everything to the limit and it is time to stop. It has happened in every other motorsport and now it is pulling’s time to draw a line in the sand. I have no idea if it will work or not but where the NTPA has failed is to not put any meat behind this announcement leaving us message board warriors wondering what it is all about. Love him or hate him, any time Doug Roberts makes a change like this, you get a complete statement on the history of issue, why the change is being made, why the change will work (usually backed up by data such as dyno runs) and what is to gain going forward. Here we have a NTPA statement backed up by a TBD which immediately gets gearheads wheels turning as to why it will never work and/or how can I get around it. |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
Registered: 04/06/2008 Posts: 974 |
I appreciate the Pro stock pullers who stepped up and stop this. I know Iam going to take flack for saying this but the future of the class is the big block deere. Period. Now don't get me wrong I WILL NOT say anything bad about what Mr.Shipley has figured out or Harts motor or the boyd big blocks. They have all used blocks allowed by the rules and have a considerable amount of power than others. I am still amazed by the amount of power 1 turbo can produce. But to allow another Big block motor will only hurt the class. Lets face guys you CANNOT get an IH motor or deere small block to make the power and livethat a 619 deere can. if it was possible harts would have done it. Yes i know there is always big numbers at BG and it will continue as it should. Eventually there will be a need for billet big block deere motors too as they will become few are far between. Just my two cents |
|
Idea...
|
SS FAN
|
IF this truly is a necessary step... to "save the SS classes". Would it make sense to give pullers two options: A restrictor plate class and an open class. Go from three SS classes to two... where everyone can choose one side of the fence or the other? I'd be in favor of whatever would make the classes a good diesel vs. alcohol match-up. |
|
DSS class
|
Registered: 09/16/2014 Posts: 153 |
I agree with Dick on this, everyone has watched this class lose numbers for years. When I won the 9,500 Super Stock class at Bowling Green, OH in 1995 there was 32 in the class and 11 in the pull-off. The 7,500 Super Stock class had more than that. Most of the events that year had at least 15 to 20 tractors. I do not expect us to ever see those numbers again but it has to do better than the direction this class is going now, especially the last 3 years. When you look at the proposed restrictions with a restrictor plate and if it is done right it will keep the Grand National tractors on the track without breakage and by bringing them back in horsepower closer to the regional and other DSS tractors in the country, they will get more competitor to hook with them at different locations. There are still a lot of DSS tractors in different parts of the country and about 25 in our area on this side of river and over 100 on the other side. Some of them will feel like they have a chance if they get the right draw, etc. and not feel embarrassed by how far the gap has widened between Grand National and the rest of the DSS competitors just in the last few years. Yes, this is Grand National tractors and if there were 10 to 15 at every event supporting the class this wouldn’t be an issue, but that is not the case anymore.
I crunch a lot of numbers and try to pick up on trends in Outlaws every year and try to stay ahead of the problems. The wheels really came off the wagon in this class with NTPA in 2014 and now 2 more season have gone by and nothing has been done and it hasn’t improved. I got all this info straight off the NTPA website this morning. When you look at the Grand National tractors compared to the others the average gap is about 38 feet. That is a huge amount with these modern drop sleds as they really tightened up distances when they came out compared to the older drag sleds without pan drop. Even the Grand National vehicles are getting a wider distance from top to bottom among themselves. The average number of vehicles in the class this year was 8.7 with all the tractors including local tractors. You could probably drop another point off that average as a lot of vehicles bumped the sled for points and many scratches at two day event. The 50th anniversary pull at Bowling Green, OH had the highest number of 15 vehicles on first hook, then just 9 the second hook as 1/3 of the class scratched. When you look at the other Super Nationals they just had 12 hooks at Tomah, WI and 10 at Chapel Hill, TN. At the Grand National events Hutchinson had 10 and all the rest were in single digits. I really enjoyed the Jefferson City, MO pull as we got to see NTPA there at the same time and enjoy the DSS and Unlimited Modified class. Even then I wondered how long this class could keep this breakage up. In 2013 I saw Sieferts come into Jeff City with the points lead and break their engine the first night and out the rest of the year. Then in 2014 Blagrave comes into Jeff City with the points lead and breaks their engine and out for rest of year. Also one of those year’s Demers lifts the head off his engine. When you look at the people that have left this class you have to ask yourself why they left and a lot of them love pulling and went to a different class. Sieferts ?, Schaendorf (MINI), Gettinger (USS), Jay Fuqua (LSS), Rob Russell (PS), Tom Martin (MOD), Bill Vories (MOD), Roland Barr (2WD), Larry Roberts (USS & MOD), Jeff Hurt (USS), Lustik (USS), Kwiatkowski (USS). These are just a few that come to mind from my pulling days and lots of others. When you look at this class the last 5 years here is what I took off of the NTPA website. 2012 – 25 hooks, 14 taking points, 10 in point race, top 7 went to every event, 7th place was over 100 points behind champion. 2013 – 23 hooks, 13 taking points, 9 in points race, top 6 went to every event, 7th place was over 100 points behind champion. 2014 – 23 hooks, 11 taking points, 4 in points race, top 2 went to every event, 3rd place was over 100 points behind champion. 2015 – 16 hooks, 12 taking points, 6 in points race, top 3 went to every event, 5th place was over 100 points behind champion. 2016 – 19 hooks, 8 taking points, 6 in points race, top 3 went to every event, 4th place was over 100 points behind champion. As you can see the last three years has been bad for numbers and that hasn’t showed any sign of turning itself around on its own. If done right and a restrictor plate is put on this class it will bring down the horsepower on the Grand National tractors and close that 38 foot gap between them and the rest of the DSS tractors in the country. The best shot this class has at getting more vehicles is from that pool of over 100 DSS tractors that now know they do not have a chance to get close. If that gap is closer without all the cost and maintenance some will try that Grand National circuit plus more will show up at Grand National events in their area. The numbers will also improve with the existing Grand National tractors if not all the breakage and scratches at events. If the horsepower is cut back then everyone will not need all the aftermarket parts and can stay in their budget. They will still be competitive, but may not have the longevity. The ones that has the budget to buy the aftermarket parts will not have a competitive advantage but a maintenance advantage. The second best way to get more DSS vehicles is for other pullers in different classes to see that this cost and maintenance has improved and might be an option for them as they want to move up in the sport from lesser classes. Right now I am working with Larry Richwine and NTPA on this as we want to have a limit for Outlaws before we get to the point NTPA is at now. This was not our main reason for less numbers this year after gaining vehicles three years in a row, but I feel it will be the main problem in the near future. Right now most are talking a 4 inch opening in restrictor plate on the top two turbos that equal 25 square inches of opening. No one knows for sure what that number needs to be and we have one tractor going to try that size this weekend in Brandon, SD. There is a couple of NTPA Grand National tractors that are going to try a 4 inch and 4.25 restrictor plate at Georgetown, OH the next week. We encourage others to do the same as the more we learn the better. I think a 4 inch restrictor plate will not make a difference on our tractors as most have 4.1 or 4.25 turbos on top. By the time you take out the area for the shaft and inside part of compressor wheel a 4 inch opening will not change anything. I may be wrong but that is just my opinion. This will be a harder sell for NTPA as this will probably cut back the horsepower and that is the goal. Then I hope NTPA & OTTPA will have the same restrictor rule and our tractors may still have room to improve some from where they are now and be closer to the same as Grand National tractors. This way pullers can hook with both associations when it fits their schedule. At first there will be some cost for Grand National tractors as they try to figure out what they need to do, but this one time expenditure has to be better than the expenditure of better turbos, pumps and aftermarket parts every year or two to be competitive and the maintenance that goes with it. Hopefully some day they can sit around after a pull and drink beer, eat and enjoy each other’s fellowship instead of having to work on their tractors all the time. Time will tell! Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2016 12:16PM by Doug Roberts. |
|
Re: DSS class
|
Judge Roy bean
|
Sounds like a schramk rule if u can't beat them get a rule change and screw the guys that were running big air and no pressure Ross Raymond Boxler this will make Hans jr want to come back right away |
|
Re: DSS class
|
drink beer
|
That may be what this rule accomplishes.
Push out the the last of the pullers that want to excel and let let the guys that want to set around and drink beer instead of work on their tractors be the best of the best in tractor pulling. |
|
Re: DSS class
|
Moderator Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 1,445 |
This rule will not drive out any pullers that want to excel. Where are they going to go? Pullers pull because they love competition, engineering and the camaraderie. Pullers are competitive by nature and this may be just another area for them to R&D. And as far as the Young Blood team I would hardly call anybody that has won 5 championships in a row scared. Dick Morgan www.PULLOFF.com Independent Pulling News |
|
Re: DSS class
|
Registered: 01/29/2011 Posts: 95 |
Doug roberts,
Are you looking to increase numbers at events with regional vehicles from those areas the events are at or regional vehicles campain the gn tour? You might get some vehicles to come to events in their area but i could not see someone joining on for the tour. The cost of travel all over is still there and kept them away in the first place. I guess i am just curious as to your motives on this. Is the concern numbers at individual events or overall points tractor numbers? |
|
Re: DSS class
|
Posts: 744 |
I don't want to put words into Doug's mouth, but from my conversations with him this is the idea.
1. Stop the class from getting to the point that NTPA has gotten for power. 2. By limiting power level to around 3200-3500 hp , keeps current members on the track with less breakage from pushing the limits on current parts 3. creates an environment that the hyper/recast/billet blocks, billet cranks, and big pumps are not mandatory to compete or be reliable 4. creates a class that is still good power but reasonable, and hoping more current dss show, new dss get built (either new or competitors change class) But how to achieve it and not open a can of engineering worms and buying more new parts to compete behind the limits is the crux of the argument. Will current top end competitors buy in to the idea and keep coming? If they took 800 hp off the GN DSS or Pro class and a weight out of the box we probably couldn't tell from the stands there is a change. But how................. COO for OTTPA www.outlawpulling.com www.truck-specialties.com Schaeffer Oil Representative [www.schaefferoil.com] |
|
Re: DSS class
|
Registered: 09/16/2014 Posts: 153 |
Pretty close Adam on that explanation. I am slow at typing and you beat me to it. Thanks, Doug |
|
Re: DSS class
|
SS down a peg
|
A big concern with this is knocking the HP down to 3200 - 3500, that would move the Pro stocks up to the premier HP diesel class.
You are right that the fans would never know the difference though, all the tractors pull the same sled the same distance . |
|
Re: DSS class
|
Registered: 09/16/2014 Posts: 153 |
Hey Kevin, you caught me at the right time as had time to get on here and correct some spelling in my last post. Not sure we have ever met as you started pulling maybe after I stopped. I started this restrictor plate rule for Outlaws as we do not want to have the problems and numbers that NTPA is experiencing now. I just want limits to keep our tractors on the track and with NTPA and us having some of the same tractors at events it is good to work together on this. We both want the same results with more vehicles at our events for our promoters and fans. Rules for fair and even competition plus less breakage has worked for us in the past to increase numbers in every class we have done this in. In Outlaws this DSS class has not been in trouble numbers wise till this year and that was for many different reasons, but I am always crunching numbers and trying to look ahead to see problems coming. The DSS was the first class I ever pulled and has always been one of my favorite classes and it is a fan favorite. Something needs to be done before it dies out. I certainly do not have all the answers and some stuff I have tried before has not worked but it is certain it is not going to fix itself. So that is why I get on here to get ideas and feedback. Right now the restrictor plates looks like the best solution to help this class, but I am always open to other suggestions. Thanks, Doug |
|
Re: DSS class
|
Registered: 01/29/2011 Posts: 95 |
Doug,
I cant really say what will be a good awnser to the issues at hand. We make restrictor bushings for truck classes all the time. If you would like some insight in what we have found you are welcome to give me a call 412-217-7363. I think you will be suprised what can be done to make it work to your advantage. Testing at georgetown might be an eye opener on how they work and not the way you would expect. I know many of the pullers throughout the ss classes ntpa and ppl and have not talked to too many on the side of being in favor of it. Maybe in the end it will work out or we will sell more bushings. I know the concept of bringing the levels closer together makes sense for the organization but for the puller it is a hard thing to want to do because we all like progress in the hp department. |
|
Re: DSS class
|
Hold on...
|
I've been keep an eye on this thread and want to add a few things. The intake pop off idea would only work if the valve is capable of dumping enough air to limit the boost at some preset level - meaning it has to be able to max out the chargers flow and then some. Back in the CART/USAC days when they used pop off valves the engine designers and crews found they could overwhelm the valves with big turbos and get the boost up past what the "rules" allowed. Another thing that most folks don't get is that when the intake pop off is open and limiting boost the turbo(s) are maxed out flow wise, meaning it's taking maximum energy to drive them. A centrifugal compressor is a mass flow device and the power required to drive it is mass flow dependent. This obviously puts maximum stress on them. The pop off wold most likely continue the charger war and escalate the $ spent. Flow restrictors of any type are intended to work by putting an area into the flow regime that will go into choke at some pressure differential across that area. Choke happens when flow at an area reaches the local mach #. When this happens, mass flow will not increase no matter how much you lower the downstream pressure. the only way to increase mass flow is to change the density of the upstream conditions ( pressure/temp in this case) . This holds true for convergent/divergent and nozzles, as well as longer tubes or pipes, but NOT for a thin sharp edged orifice. The reason for this is that choke is going to set up at the throat, or vena contracta, - the point where area is smallest and velocity is highest. In nozzles and pipes the vena contracta is constrained, as is the area of diffusion behind it. With a thin plate orifice thats not the case. The photos Doug posted show a restrictor with which the performance of will be very dependent upon the geometry behind it. It's going to max out differently on different turbos and placements, if it maxes out at all because thin plate orifices never truly choke. This is why over the pond, and here in the SCCA, in any classes of motorsport that are using airflow restrictors, they use a convergent divergent nozzle of common design with rules on where it is placed. That way it is the same for everyone, it doesn't matter to the restrictor what is lowering the pressure behind it, because the area of the throat of the restrictor is confined . I'm all for using plates, at least on a couple classes. If a group of folks want a class with no limits they should certainly get it, but there needs to be a place for the rest to be able to run competitively as well. The way it's implemented and the how the rules read will be very important though, otherwise as stated above, the costs will go up fast as the turbo guys figure it out. Just my .02. |
|
Re: DSS class
|
Hold on again
|
Meant to say " I'm all for using restrictors" not plates.. |
|
Re: DSS class
|
Anonymous User
|
Great technical. I was thinking the same thing, and I think everybody else is saying this too. If you put the restrictors in front of your inlet on the turbos I don't think it will work consistently. Really you need to put it between your turbo and intake manifold inlet. Then it wouldn't matter what set of turbos you have on it. Radiusing of the restrictor will be huge, and will need to have rules for it. Also would probably have to dictate the size of the pipe before and after the restrictor. Pretty much probably will need to supply the restrictor to the pullers. I don't have a horse in the race, so I think it really needs the pullers support, and from someone that has pulled it would be hard to support it. As much as it is nice to know you have a chance to win because the competition might be closer together. I like to see when some one really has a good run and can put out some power and put some distance out. As a spectator, watching everyone be 2" apart isn't that exciting. So this is a really interesting proposal. From the stand point of durability and cost will it work. No one know unless you try. The interesting thing is that competitors always find a way to go faster. The reality is that the parts will not cost less. It is just a matter if you don't have to replace them as often. And too that extend allowing new technology that is stronger to be used while maintaining the hp level very close could result in cost savings. Even though things such as billet blocks ect. ect. cost more. It may last longer. But like I said competitors find a way to go faster. |
|
Re: DSS class
|
Registered: 04/12/2008 Posts: 398 |
So what you are getting at is "single feed intake manifold on diesel Supers and inlet should be no larger I.D. than some predetermined size? That would really hurt the high volume setups. |
|
Re: DSS class
|
Anonymous User
|
No matter what you do your going to hurt one or the other. Your going to need multiple restrictor sizes to make every setup the same. So a choice has to be made, will not be able to make every puller happy with it. |
|
Re: DSS class
|
Mr Thinker lol
|
Looks like there are too many variables in the class The best solution is to adopt one set-up for this class then use a sealed waist gate. This will be the cheaper and most effective way. |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
Registered: 01/29/2011 Posts: 95 |
We have/do pull in that class. |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
There's a set of rules that say you can build this to this. But nowadays if someone goes onto the far side of those rules and is still within the limits, they'll get penalized/banned either before or after it's built. Those that don't want to enhance within the rules get their panties in a bunch and have rules catered to make their cookie cutter tractor competitive again.
Do any SSD run OHC or have an engine that came with a 4 valve head? Both are legal at the SN/GN level. The SN/GN level is the top tier so the real restrictions should be on regional and state level. The top nascar race cars don't go race at the local tracks with the local racers and vice versa. In my opinion the big 4wd engines shouls have stayed in the OSS/ULSS class, but that ship has sailed. Banning the big V8s in PS because "it might beat us" and break up the green parade(7 out of top 10 in points) is a way to keep it a cookie cutter class. Just gonna be more enticing for someone to decube an 855 Cummins or 3406 Cat. Everything's the same, nothing's the same. |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
Less horsepower , less fans period. |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
Registered: 08/16/2016 Posts: 6 |
Last night I dreamed it was July 4th 1985, I was at the Indy Super Pull. I went because the poster read " Come to Indy and watch the Worlds Best 12,000lb tractors compete for the $1Million Winner take all CASH Purse.
Rules written by Dave Stangle, There will be a shredder on site for any tractor found to have Cookie Cutter Parts ( CDS, Hypermax, Etc.) Or a Whiney Driver Will Shredded! It was Terrible, The entire state of Indiana was used for parking, I parked in Fort Wayne and was on a shuttle bus headed for INDY. Then I woke up. That sucked, I really wanted to see Smokey Yunicks new tractor run! |
|
Re: A great move by the NTPA
|
Anonymous User
|
I the continuous talk about cookie cutter parts very disheartening. These companies, my included put enormous amounts of time and money into developing parts and technology. Some of it is never paid for. And then to look down at the pullers that buy these parts is wrong. You are saying to them that what they do during the day or night to earn the money to buy the parts is less worthy. Well maybe I don't how to run a farm, but they do, and Im grateful they do that instead of trying to build parts, because that is what I'm good at. Plus you also insinuate that you can just buy the win. It isn't true. You have to do your home work and work hard to have a winning tractor. Its more than just parts. Track setup, weighting, driving and tuneing the tractor. Maybe you should just build everything you need to live, and then maybe you would appreciate the hard work manufacturers and their employees put into their products. Its great if you can do it, but not everbody can. Just because you can not weld or machine a part doesn't mean you shouldn't be pulling. A lot engine builders were pullers. Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2016 03:09AM by No Limit MFG. |
|
Question: Can someone clarify?
|
Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,347 |
What is considered a "Super Stock" class for purposes of the restrictor plate rule. Hang with me a second....... Does it only refer to SS Diesel, SS Open, and Light SS tractors? What about multi charger Super Semis or multi charger Super Stock Diesel FWDs?
Do Semis and SSD FWD also have to use restrictor plates, or is this only on tractors? If this is for all multi-charger classes, then the next question is moot. If the rule is only for tractor classes, then Logical question (please explain the thought process): Why wouldn't Super Semis, with larger engines and in theory as much or more power/torque than a SSD tractor engine, also be subject to the same rule? After all, we all saw what happened to Jack Kielmeyer at Bowling Green. Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2016 03:00PM by The Original Michael. |
|
Re: Question: Can someone clarify?
|
Registered: 09/15/2014 Posts: 27 |
If this class is loosing why don't they try the combine 2 classes in to one do like we do here on the east coast and do ss pro stock combined class just make sure theirs enough handicap on both ends to make it a level playing field ...USA east has done this for years and some days a pro wins some days a ss wins and oh yeah they let heavy alkey ss in the class as well |
|
Re: Question: Can someone clarify?
|
Smoke fan
|
Wondering how this will effect smokers in gn LSS, region/state LSS, and region/state HSS. Be nice to know what the size of this hole will be. And if it will be the same size hole for every class. If they don't make a difference between alcohol and diesel it will eliminate any competitive smokers from those classes. Hopefully the smokers will have the same size for each class. That way you don't have to change turbos and restrictor plates if you want to pull both classes! |
|
Re: Question: Can someone clarify?
|
more smoke fan
|
Instead of restrictor plates, why not insist on 4 inch max diameter of the inlet wheels without any map rings (or whatever diameter is decided upon)?? That would limit technology trying to improve what happens after the restrictor plates. Four inch max wheel inlet technology (for now) is pretty well maxed out ?? |
|
Re: Question: Can someone clarify?
|
About time
|
Why not put a sealed waste gate on the intake pipe at a determined psi for diesels (160-psi) and one for alcohol (80-psi)? It would be retested every year and if there was any concern it was tampered with. If you are caught with a relief that has been tampered with dq and 1-year off. This is the same as the rpm limiters on the turbines. No new parts would have to be purchased besides some slower gears. People in the stands can not tell the power level of a truck or tractor if they are all the same. It would also make it very easy to adjust year to year to even the playing field with alcohol and diesel tractors or state to grandnational level |
|
Re: Question: Can someone clarify?
|
I like it!
|
The sealed waste gate is a great solution. It will eliminate expensive turbos (special compressor wheels that will suck a golf ball through a garden hose), and eliminate other games with turbo inlets. Unlike the other solutions being kicked around, it wouldn't have major costs associated with it, and would be easy to police. |
|
Re: Question: Can someone clarify?
|
Sensible
|
I can't believe nobody is jumping on the sealed wastegate idea.......but I guess that's just too simple...... |
|
Re: Question: Can someone clarify?
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
A sealed wastegate... some setups are high pressure setups (most 4-turbo setups) and other setups are high volume low pressure setups (big three turbo setups and a 3-into-1 four turbo setup). If you limited boost then it would simple become a race for the highest volume setup/head/manifolds and you'd want the biggest cubic inches s you could to move that air... you'll also want to turn more RPM's to move that volume...
I'd be willing to bet that Pro Stock boost numbers aren't really that much higher than a decade ago, they just move more air with much better heads/manifolds/turbos now. Yet they are probably making 1000-1500 more Hp than they were in 2006. I don't think a sealed wastegate is the answer. Jake Morgan Owner, PULLOFF.COM Independent Pulling News This page is a free service. The cost is covered out of my pocket. It takes a great deal of time and a fair amount of money to keep this website going. Donations for: photos, classified ads, forum discussion, etc... are appreciated. Side Note: We are no longer accepting PayPal donations. They have changed their terms of service and stated they would fine PayPal users for spreading "misinformation" and "hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory". PayPal did not provide definitions for some of these vague terms. Woke corporate policies regarding "misinformation" could result in an automatic fine of $2,500 which would have been removed directly from the customer’s PayPal account. PayPal did backdown from some of their policies but quietly implemented portions of them in later terms of service. A financial institute has no right to monitor social media accounts or speech. This is unacceptable and I'll no longer do business with PayPal. |
|
Re: Question: Can someone clarify?
|
Posts: 744 |
Because it isn't that simple. Boost is not a measure of power, its a measure of the inability to consume the air that is produced.
A boost rule will reward the teams that spent the most on balance and flow in their setups already. It most likely would punish the guys with some older heads and parts that have to have a high boost number to run where they are currently at. Some could not run at all after a boost level is chosen. And any pop off valve I have ever been around on the intake side usually needs taken off and cleaned every few runs from the soot and water going into it. They get gummy. So seal it up and now it doesn't open at all for one guy while the other guys are all handicapped. Or it won't close at all and hurts a guy. Might be able to make it work but its not cut and dry and there are some really good systems out there that can make a lot of power with low boost numbers in relation to other setups especially older ones. A bottom turbo limit would face the issues of not being equal across all the types of set ups. 2 turbo vs 3 - 2 stage vs 4 - 3 stage vs 3 into 1 setup. A bottom turbo limit does not have an equal effect across these setups. Could make 1 to 3 of those setups obsolete if a puller wants to stay competitive. COO for OTTPA www.outlawpulling.com www.truck-specialties.com Schaeffer Oil Representative [www.schaefferoil.com] |
|
Re: Question: Can someone clarify?
|
Registered: 07/22/2013 Posts: 80 |
Because you then leave the semi class open to being dominated by a single turbo truck if you handicap multicharger trucks. I believe Jack was about 120psi short on boost if the diesel supers are running 300psi, the problem stems from a weakness in that block and not an issue with the class. Three engines in two season all splitting along the cam bore, that isn't coincidence. SSD4x4 already nueter their engines themselves, they have their engines cut back because almost all of them are traction limited. |
|
What about the bottom charger?
|
Question of the day
|
Why worry about the top chargers? Why couldn't the bottom charger be limited? No matter how big the top chargers are the bottom would be your restriction. The vehicle has to be tech'd anyway so why not measure the bottom charger and put a seal on it (like your Super Farms) and then the rest of the season the tech guy would just have to confirm the seal. If you limit it to a 3.9 bottom wouldn't that make the size of the top chargers irrelevant? |
|
Re: What about the bottom charger?
|
Who's gonna tech this stuff? There's 100's of rules already on the books that never get enforced. I have never see CID checked nor fuel in anything besides a super farm nor the wheelbase, etc.... |
|
Re: What about the bottom charger?
|
Smoke fan
|
Cody is right. Bottom charger would be a nightmare. It would never get checked. You would have to take your turbo plumbing apart every time to tech the bottom turbo. Having a set size for the top turbos would take a lot of time to tech as well. The restrictor plate will be very hard on turbos. But it would be the easiest to tech. There is no real good answer that I can see.
As far as limiting boost it wouldn't work at all. Boost is restriction to flow. Big motors with big valves will flow more. If your turbo housings are too small you can build big boost with low power. A 540 motor with a small head needs to have 300 pounds of boost to make the same power as a low boost 540 large head motor. So limiting the boost means you just need a big flow motor with huge chsrgers to make power. And you will make a lot of power. I have heard some guys dropping their boost from 340 to 240ish from adding larger turbos. The motor is actually making more power and more apt to splitting the block with the lowwer boost and more power. Don't know what the answer is. Have to wait and see what they decide on for sizes! |
|
Re: What about the bottom charger?
|
Registered: 03/26/2008 Posts: 343 |
Going to try and get some answers on the changes tonight please tune in at 7:00 P.M. Eastern time at www.pullingradionetwork.com going to try and get some answers on the changes. Will have Larry Richwine on tonight and see if I can answer some of these questions. Also you can download the app to your I-phone or Android phones for free and listen in, also there is a chat room on the website that you can click on and the shows play on that page also. Eric Prewitt The Prewitt Pulling Team Public Relations for The Pulling Radio Network |
|
have they considered?
|
curious jim
|
looking at the picture, which seems simple enough, is there any clarity on how far away from the charger it has to be?
im still learning but have seen an organization put a rule out there for the limited guys that instead of for example a 3x4 they just have to have an inlet of 3 inches approximately 6 inches from the turbo itself? so the smarter guys just ran bigger chargers with a 3 inch pipe in front of it made a big difference, wondering what effect if any that would have on the supers |
|
Re: Question: Can someone clarify?
|
Peter T.
|
Already know of a couple tractors with multiple pop off valves or waste gates. All of them are popped at the end of their run and still making 300lbs, so pop offs aren't the answer, unless there would be one at every stage. |
|
Re: Restrictor plate pictures
|
Registered: 09/16/2014 Posts: 153 |
Here is some pictures of an Outlaw competitor that is going to try out the 4 inch diameter restrictor plate. This is a 4 turbo International engine that ran 2 weeks ago with 280 lbs. boost. His system can be turned up to 340 lbs. but he is not going to change anything but add these restrictor plates in front of his 2 – 4.250 inch turbos. These are 1 inch thick with ½ inch of that being the 4 inch diameter. The back of the restrictor plate is about .250 in front of the MAP ring so it can still do its job. Not for sure how far the restrictor ring is in front of the face of the compressor wheel but that is one area we think needs to have a maximum distance put in the rules. Also other rules maybe how thick the 4 inch diameter needs to be. .500, .750, 1.0, etc. I personally do not believe it will change anything with this size compressor wheel, but it might. I think the key is what diameter NTPA comes up with to slow the tractors down that are running 4.4 to 4.7 turbos and find where they want to be horsepower wise. Next weekend there are some NTPA tractors that are going to try different size restrictor plates at the 4 day pull in Georgetown, OH. I hope some others will try this before the season is over as any info will be helpful. Maybe some NTPA Light Super Stocks will do some testing as that class has the same rules as our USS class and our competitors may be interested in staying with the same rules as NTPA in that class. We do not offer a class like the NTPA USS class. Thanks, Doug |
|
Re: Restrictor plate pictures
|
Registered: 08/16/2016 Posts: 6 |
Last night I dreamed it was July 4th 1985, I was at the Indy Super Pull. I went because the poster read " Come to Indy and watch the Worlds Best 12,000lb tractors compete for the $1Million Winner take all CASH Purse.
Rules written by Dave Stangle, There will be a shredder on site for any tractor found to have Cookie Cutter Parts ( CDS, Hypermax, Etc.) Or a Whiney Driver Will Shredded! It was Terrible, The entire state of Indiana was used for parking, I parked in Fort Wayne and was on a shuttle bus headed for INDY. Then I woke up. That sucked, I really wanted to see Smokey Yunicks new tractor run! |
|
Re: Restrictor plate pictures
|
Nathan binder
|
If NTPA does this in the alcohol class how will they compete at a PPL pull? There aren't that many Supers left to divide up. I wish Outlaws had a heavy unlimited super stock class. I am from Missouri so we don't get to see them often . |
|
Re: Restrictor plate pictures
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
They won't be able to compete at all unless ppl allows them to. And my guess is that ppl will allow them to. |
|
Re: Restrictor plate pictures
|
Nathan Binder
|
Why don't the pullers in the class get to vote in the rules. If they think the restrictor is the best idea then they should vote it in. I love democracy. |
|
Re: Are the 2017 NTPA rules posted?
|
This whole restrictor plate issue is certainly stirring up a lot of conversation. Here is a few thoughts that I have come up over the past week. Let's start with what are we trying to accomplish? Are we trying to get the numbers up, or longevity of motors, or control costs.
To get more numbers in the class I am not sure that this will help and do agree with Kevin C. on the costs and time that it takes to run a grand national circuit is the limiting factor. I do agree that the DSS numbers were down this year but let's step back and look at the reasons a few of the regulars did not run full circuit. Lock n Load had motor issues that they fought most of year, Red Horse didn't make Hutch due to a sandstorm at home and had to take care of the cotton crop, Hi Tech Redneck didn't get new tractor done yet, Smoke n Mirrors was busy taking care of some changes at his business, Red Line Fever health issues. So with these 5 not running complete circuit this year and all showing up next year we would be back around 8-10 in our class. Is that enough if so we have fixed the problem with no rule changes. A few of us discussed this earlier in year, why do people build new pro stocks instead of DSS, is it cheaper to run a prostock? I don't have the answer to that but do know that when I built mine I went DSS due to pulls that had my class in my state. If you are going to run GN the location of pulls is not an issue as you will be traveling. Longevity of motors. The restrictor might help with this but I don't feel that it will eliminate motor problems as all parts will time out. Also we will be pushing everything to the limit as that is a given with motorsports. We all want to win. We already have a built in restrictor in place as an example we add more air with better chargers we blow out fire rings, once that gets fixed we will need more fuel, then we get that we will burn pistons due to not enough water, so we add water then we tear up rod bearings and on and on. The moral of story is we push everything to the limits and fix the weak link which will find the next weak link. Control costs. These restrictor will not help with this as with every class that has restrictions their will be a new latest greatest turbo or pump out every year and we will need to upgrade to keep up with the leaders. The neat thing about the SS classes you can run your own combination of turbos and motors to try and compete. Do you know how many people told me I couldn't make a 3 charger 2 stage system compete? I think it is cool that Smoke n Mirrors is running a 3 into 1 system and doing something different than others, this is what makes the SS class different. I'm not sure you can control costs at the grand national level with all the engine dynos out there.Those that are on top now will work on the dynos until they are on top again. Final thoughts is I do care about the longevity of the SS classes and am open to discussion to keep these alive but let's not make a knee jerk reaction to this, how about take a year and come up with a solution not a month. Or let the OUtlaws try it for a year and monitor the results. Travis Schlabach |
|
Re: Are the 2017 NTPA rules posted?
|
Three better options
|
1). Let the Outlaws test (pilot) the restrictor plate set-up for a year --- then consult them and make a unified smart decision
2). Offer both a restrictor plate class and an open class (i.e. Diesel SS and Light SS use restrictor plate, Open SS continue to run without one) 3). Lower cubic inches (with a build to future x-date grace period) --- the current OEM blocks should be de-cubed for strength |
Website Statistics
Global: Topics: 38,561, Posts: 229,571, Members: 3,319.
This forum: Topics: 37,055, Posts: 225,835.
Global: Topics: 38,561, Posts: 229,571, Members: 3,319.
This forum: Topics: 37,055, Posts: 225,835.
Our newest member BadHabit2
