Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 06, 2017 05:44AM
I want to thank everyone that came to the meeting. There was good discussion and decisions made and look forward to pulling this summer. Thanks, Doug
Reply Quote
Attachments:
open | download - Light Super Stock meeting results letter.pdf (89.5 KB)
open | download - OEM Cast Comparision.pdf (134.8 KB)
open | download - Cast OEM Housing drawings.pdf (240.8 KB)
open | download - NTPA LSS Grand National Champions.pdf (92.6 KB)
open | download - Outlaw Tractor Measuring Diagram.pdf (51.7 KB)

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 07, 2017 02:48PM
Attached are the calculations for anyone one wanting to figure front axle weight. Also attached is a Tractor Measuring Chart for any association that needs to use it, put in your rule book, etc. This one does not have the Outlaw logo or hood rules specific to Outlaws on it. Thanks, Doug


Reply Quote
Attachments:
open | download - Tractor Measuring Chart.pdf (52.7 KB)

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 08, 2017 02:17AM
On ur measuring chart, are you saying that you can only have a certain lenght hood depending on the class choose to compete in?
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 08, 2017 05:15AM
No horse in the race here, just thinking.

Everything that Doug has layed out for this makes sense to me except the fact that a Jd tractor should be able to get lighter overall then an Ih because of how much lighter they start out. This would leaving more room for moveable weight, (front end weight) making things equal? It seems to me that this will open a huge can of worms, like it was stated already every tractor brand has its pros and cons. Rules shouldn't be tailored to compensate for any brands disadvantages.

One last bit that I question is what about guys running a small frame Ih (656,666,686)(rear seated 560) are they afforded any weight because of their shorter rear/tranny??
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 08, 2017 03:00PM
These are some good comments on here but most do not understand the problems if you do not have fair competition you will see less and less vehicles and then the class goes away. I have seen it time and time with other associations and in my 20 years with Outlaws it has always been about fair competition for me and it has enabled us to grow in number of vehicles. With that said why would someone be so upset about 200 lbs. one way or the other. That is less than 1 percent of the tractor weight when it pulls the sled down the track. Surely everyone knows a 6000 lb. tractor can’t pull a 40,000 lb. sled down the track. It is all about front axle weight not the overall weight of a tractor before it hooks to the sled. A 6,100 lb. alcohol tractor or a 6,400 lb. diesel tractor does not matter in the big picture as long as both can have the same front axle weigh and have enough tire speed to lift it. The diesel tractor weighs more because of the heavier stuff it has that prevents it from having as much front axle weight as an alcohol tractor. A diesel billet steel head at 280 lbs. compared to alcohol aluminum head at 100 lbs. A 65 pound diesel sigma pump compared to a distributor, etc. If that tractor is weighing 3200 lbs. on the front axle it will weigh 20,266 lbs. if it lifts the front end. So who cares about 100, 200 or 600 lbs. of overall weight of the 6,000 lb. tractor as long as they have about the same front axle weight in the end. In talking to Kevin Bauer an Ironman Sled weighs about 40,000 to 42,000 lbs. in the cast LSS class. In the 6,200 lb. USS class it is about 42,000 to 44,000 lbs. and on a good track another weight to take the sled to 46,000 lbs. Then in the 6,200 lb. 2WD Truck class it takes about 48,000 lbs. to stop them. The 30 inch drawbar is what they have going for them and they need 3,800 to 4,000 lbs. on the front axle when it is a good track. When the tractors last year took out the cast and got the front axle up to 3,400 lbs. and ran good enough to lift it they weighed 2,500 lbs. more than the best a JD could get to at 3,000 lbs. on front axle. The reason I was going for 3,200 lbs. front axle weight for everyone was that is what 4 brands of tractors could get to last year legally. We just need the other 3 brands to get to that weight also and they can’t because of the way that brand was made from the factory. Our USS tractors that have 3,700 lbs. on front end weigh 23,433 lbs. which is 3,167 pounds more than the 3,200 lb. LSS tractor. That is why they pull a 4,000 to 6,000 lb. heavier sled and LSS cannot run with USS tractors. The only thing that can change this is if the track is marginal and they have to move weight back and their front axle weight gets closer to that of a LSS tractor. Some say that the Korth/Chizek tractors weigh 3,900 on the front end. I do not know if that is hearsay or not, but if true then kudos to them for making the weight but also making the horsepower and tire speed to lift the front end at that weight. If you can do that then you greatly increase your chance of winning. The big difference is in the USS class everyone is equal as far as engine location, wheel base, etc. and if you want to spend the money to get to that you can. In the LSS class with different engine location and cast housings no matter how much money you want to spend you cannot get to that front axle weight with some brands. That is the problem this class has. Attached is the calculations I used for this. Thanks, Doug


Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 08, 2017 03:06PM
If anyone thinks that an International does not have more front axle weight than a John Deere you have not built tractors. I have built 3 Internationals, 1 Oliver, 1 Duetz and many John Deere’s for the light super stock class and one was the Glen Frese International tractor that he won the Outlaw Championship before he went component I think in 2008. The other was for Atnip that is now the Allen Ulmer tractor. I cannot remember where the third set went as we did 3 at the same time. When we weighed Glen’s cast pieces they were 100 lbs. lighter than the same John Deere cast pieces. Even though they start out with the International 518 lbs. heavier it is a lot easier to remove cast from an International. With our rules you cannot have holes in external cast you can see. John Deere just has 2 holes and you get about 27 lbs. there. International has 7 holes and our rules are you can take out to where the factory gasket covered it. These holes range from 6 to 16 inches in size. Around these holes are the thickest cast for bolt holes and strength to mount different things. The biggest hole is the whole rear of the rear end housing and that is in some places 2 inches thick and is way over 100 lbs. removed. This is 12 inches behind rear axle and just 100 lbs. moved 14 feet to front end equals 145 lbs. on front axle. The other 6 holes gets you about 170 more pounds.
When you look at brakes IH along with AC and Oliver that have bull gear pinions just have the round disc and calipers for a total weight of 14 lbs. A john Deere if you make all the parts out of aluminum weighs 64 lbs. The ring & pinion, differential weighs 116 lbs. and in a John Deere 165 lbs.
When it comes to bull gears and pinion shaft in International it is 166 lbs. while a John Deere sun pinion and plenaries weigh 123 lbs.
Since the engine power comes in and leaves on the same plane a IH can run a 45 lb. Pro Fab reverser or 145 lb. Pro Fab transmission instead of much heavier modified factory transmission. Since the power comes in and leaves on a different plane a John Deere has to run a modified transmission that weighs 162 lbs. International can also remove 3 of the 5 walls inside of cast that held factory transmission that gains another 120 lbs. John Deere has to keep all walls inside as they hold bearings for transmission.
Then when you look at the parts, John Deere has about a 100 lb. disadvantage there and 200 lbs. if the International just runs a reverser instead of light weight 3 speed pro fab transmission.
So you take that 100 to 200 lbs. and then add the 340 lbs. for engine and roll cage location, you see the problem. The reason I wanted the 250 lbs. weight increase for John Deere is that that would be 340 lbs. on front axle and at least get them closer together. International still would have the advantage but it would be a start to close the gap. Attached are weights from cast and parts. Thanks, Doug


Reply Quote

? for Doug February 09, 2017 12:08AM
Would this not also be a factor in all of the cast chassis classes?
Reply Quote

Re: ? for Doug February 09, 2017 05:32AM
If the competitors are running all of their weight on the nose and can't run full hitch height, yes. Otherwise, no.
Reply Quote

Re: ? for Doug February 09, 2017 08:51AM
So having a higher percentage of moveable weight wouldn't be advantageous?
Reply Quote

Re: ? for Doug February 09, 2017 02:46PM
My opinion is generally no. A lower CG (center of gravity) will help with stability, but when it comes to balancing the forces it doesn't matter where each weight is located, just the horizontal location of the overall CG which is directly related to the weight on the front axle.

There are several forces affecting the tractor; the CG of the tractor, the chain force on the hitch which translates into a vertical and a horizontal force, and the torque that rotates the tires which creates the opposing horizontal force. Some of these try to raise the front and some try to lower the front. It's much more complicated than the calculation Doug did, I'll try to put a more detailed explanation together and post it later.
Reply Quote

Re: ? for Doug February 10, 2017 12:02AM
Looking forward to it!
Reply Quote

Re: ? for Doug February 10, 2017 05:03AM
I have attached my spreadsheet of calculations if anyone wants to review it or use it for their own application. This is a simplified calculation in that it ignores the slight horizontal movement of the CG (center of gravity) as the front comes up. To make that calculation we would need to remove the weight of the parts that don’t move as the vehicle pivots around the rear axle (wheels, tires, axles, bull gears/planetary & differential) and establish both the horizontal and vertical location of the CG of the remaining parts. Making some assumptions I come up with the CG moving less than 2 ½ inches horizontally at 32 inches of front tire rise.

The top 7 boxes are the inputs for chain length, hitch height and length, wheelbase, wheel radius, total vehicle weight, and front axle weight. The calculations are for various levels of front end rise from 0 inches (tires skimming) to 32 inches of front tire rise.

It shows that Doug is absolutely correct that if 2 tractors both weigh the same (6400 lbs) and there is a 200 lb difference in front axle weights, the one with less weight is at a disadvantage; about 450 llbs which is 3.3% of the 13,000 vs 13,500 lbs total weight on the rear tires. His proposed 200 lbs change does overshoot a bit though because those 200 lbs do add directly to the weight on the rear tires giving a 1.5% advantage; 13,700 vs 13,500. My calculations show that an extra 138 lbs makes the difference on the rear tire weights less than 5 lbs. Essentially, since the extra weight does go to the rear tires the heavier vehicle can have a slightly lighter front axle weight and the same total weight on the rear tires.

One other note, this does show that contrary to a common belief, the weight on the rear tires actually goes up as the front end rises. The why involves the fact that the horizontal component of the hitch load actually tries to pull the front end down while the vertical component of the hitch load tries to raise the front end. Notice that the hitch moves closer to the axle horizontally, but gets further away vertically. Before everyone goes and moves all their weight back and tries to run on the wheely bars though, notice that the total weight on the rear tires with 3100 on the front and the front wheels 32” in the air is less than the total weight on the rear tires with 3200 on the front and front wheels skimming the track.


Reply Quote
Attachments:
open | download - LSS Load Calculations.xlsx (14.1 KB)

1 February 10, 2017 03:38PM
It shows that Doug is absolutely correct that if 2 tractors both weigh the same (6400 lbs) and there is a 200 lb difference in front axle weights, the one with less weight is at a disadvantage; about 450 llbs which is 3.3% of the 13,000 vs 13,500 lbs total weight on the rear tires. His proposed 200 lbs change does overshoot a bit though because those 200 lbs do add directly to the weight on the rear tires giving a 1.5% advantage; 13,700 vs 13,500. My calculations show that an extra 138 lbs makes the difference on the rear tire weights less than 5 lbs. Essentially, since the extra weight does go to the rear tires the heavier vehicle can have a slightly lighter front axle weight and the same total weight on the rear tires.

It shows that Doug is correct in front axle weights. It also shows me that people need to figure out how to get that 200lbs on the front axle without grinding and hogging out the rear end in order to make the weight of the class and getting the weight on the front end.
Reply Quote

Isn't this why components came to be, in part; because JD was at a disadvantage February 11, 2017 02:56AM
The John Deere has always been at a disadvantage because of how far back the motor sits. Bottom line is, you knew the weight when you entered the class, you as an individual decided what to build and knew the rules before entering the game. So tired of the garbage rules for people's lack of planning or poor decisions as a whole. It's nobody's fault but your own you chose to build a JD. Maybe next time consider a different brand.
Reply Quote

Re: Isn't this why components came to be, in part; because JD was at a disadvantage February 11, 2017 03:08AM
As a fan I had know idea about all this and applaud Outlaws attempt to have fair competition. I do not want to see another all International super stock class as I am the one that buys the ticket to watch. I say either fix it or just make the class go component like the other class Outlaws offers. John Deere and International both win along with AC and Ford. Just my 2 cents as a spectator.
Reply Quote

Re: Isn't this why components came to be, in part; because JD was at a disadvantage February 11, 2017 11:44AM
Hey curious, that's some pretty smart stuff you said. Basically just don't build a JD for LSS is what you say. Make it an IH dominant class. That should help the longevity of the sport for sure.

Kind of like the BBJD engine in the Pro Stock class. That seems to have worked out pretty well for the IH guys, hasn't it?

Short sighted, narrow minded people like you will ruin the sport for many.
Reply Quote

Re: Isn't this why components came to be, in part; because JD was at a disadvantage February 11, 2017 12:09PM
Wont it be nice being a Deere owner winning Knowing that just last year if you had slipped 200 extra pounds on your tractor it would have been cheating.Just make the class 200 lbs heavier these rules are just just legalized cheating
Reply Quote

Re: Isn't this why components came to be, in part; because JD was at a disadvantage February 11, 2017 02:37PM
Cheating is when you take out a section of cast to gain the front axle weight. When you run the weight you are allowed in the rule book you are not cheating.
Reply Quote

smarter than you February 12, 2017 07:14AM
Quote
Hey curious, you're pretty smart.......
Hey curious, that's some pretty smart stuff you said. Basically just don't build a JD for LSS is what you say. Make it an IH dominant class. That should help the longevity of the sport for sure.

Kind of like the BBJD engine in the Pro Stock class. That seems to have worked out pretty well for the IH guys, hasn't it?

Short sighted, narrow minded people like you will ruin the sport for many.

Until the advent of the component JD was never on top in the light super class. Moveable weight has been an issue for them for many years. Going on 40+ back to when it was 5500. Your comments show your lack of knowledge of the history of the class. Oliver, AC, Ford, IH and Deutz all have GN Champ beside their name. So just because it can't be JD green does it mean it has to be red. Again, you knew the rules before you built.
Reply Quote

Re: ? for Doug February 11, 2017 03:30AM
There is one more thing to consider that I didn't look at yesterday, that is horizontal force at the hitch point. This is the force that makes the sled move & for it to be equal the front axle weight must be the same as Doug stated. So, I think the question is, can the Deere do anything with the extra 200 lbs of rear tire force if they are given the extra 200 lbs? IMHO, all other things being equal, they will need to do something like run more tire pressure to negate the extra traction or they will have to run a slower gear, which would give them more torque at the axle, which would require more front weight that they don't have.
Reply Quote

Re: ? for deere puller February 14, 2017 03:56AM
I have a couple ? for you. First i like your evaluation well done. There are a few factors that could affect your results.
1) most frames have a rake not a value of zero and will have center line negative. Around a 2.5 to 3. deg angle is common
2) I think the hitch pt to axle is different from one make to another
Reply Quote

Re: ? for deere puller February 17, 2017 02:34AM
The angle of the frame does not affect the calculations and although the factory hitch points are not the same on all vehicles, the vertical distance is always tire radius minus hitch height, and the minimum horizontal distance is always in the rule book, so presuming that everyone is at the max hitch height, minimum distance back, and are running the same tires, they will be the same.

Here is a little more explanation of the formulas in the spreadsheet. It's Statics, Geometry, Algebra, and Trigonometry.

The sum of all forces on the vehicle must be zero so I calculated the torques around the rear axle. Assuming a vehicle moving left to right like the image I attached to my calculations post, the weight on the front axle is a clockwise torque equal to the force multiplied by the horizontal distance from the front axle to the rear axle. The horizontal component of the hitch load is also a clockwise torque equal to the force multiplied by the vertical distance from the rear axle. The vertical component of the hitch load is a counterclockwise torque equal to the force multiplied by the horizontal distance from the rear axle. Since the weight on the rear axle is a horizontal distance of zero from the rear axle, it produces no torque around the rear axle (this is one reason why the rear axle was chosen as the reference point). There also is a reaction torque where the vehicle is attempting to rotate counterclockwise around the axle due to the axle driving the tire clockwise. This torque is equal to the horizontal force at the ground multiplied by the tire radius and the horizontal force is equal to the horizontal hitch load since they are the only horizontal forces acting on the vehicle and their sum must be zero. The ratio of the horizontal and vertical hitch loads is proportional to the angle of the chain, so that allows all of the unknown torques to be expressed as a function of the horizontal hitch load and the geometry of the vehicle creating a single equation with a single unknown that can be solved.
Reply Quote

Re: ? for deere puller February 17, 2017 04:18AM
That made my head hurt lol
Reply Quote

Re: ? for deere puller February 21, 2017 03:36PM
Deere puller, according to your formula it would help make the class more equal with a longer chain and less angle, correct? Seems to me like a easy solution to lenghen the chain for the light class. Is it very difficult for most sleds to do that?
Reply Quote

Re: ? for Doug May 27, 2020 06:06AM
Quote
Deere Puller
I have attached my spreadsheet of calculations if anyone wants to review it or use it for their own application. This is a simplified calculation in that it ignores the slight horizontal movement of the CG (center of gravity) as the front comes up. To make that calculation we would need to remove the weight of the parts that don’t move as the vehicle pivots around the rear axle (wheels, tires, axles, bull gears/planetary & differential) and establish both the horizontal and vertical location of the CG of the remaining parts. Making some assumptions I come up with the CG moving less than 2 ½ inches horizontally at 32 inches of front tire rise.

The top 7 boxes are the inputs for chain length, hitch height and length, wheelbase, wheel radius, total vehicle weight, and front axle weight. The calculations are for various levels of front end rise from 0 inches (tires skimming) to 32 inches of front tire rise.

It shows that Doug is absolutely correct that if 2 tractors both weigh the same (6400 lbs) and there is a 200 lb difference in front axle weights, the one with less weight is at a disadvantage; about 450 llbs which is 3.3% of the 13,000 vs 13,500 lbs total weight on the rear tires. His proposed 200 lbs change does overshoot a bit though because those 200 lbs do add directly to the weight on the rear tires giving a 1.5% advantage; 13,700 vs 13,500. My calculations show that an extra 138 lbs makes the difference on the rear tire weights less than 5 lbs. Essentially, since the extra weight does go to the rear tires the heavier vehicle can have a slightly lighter front axle weight and the same total weight on the rear tires.

One other note, this does show that contrary to a common belief, the weight on the rear tires actually goes up as the front end rises. The why involves the fact that the horizontal component of the hitch load actually tries to pull the front end down while the vertical component of the hitch load tries to raise the front end. Notice that the hitch moves closer to the axle horizontally, but gets further away vertically. Before everyone goes and moves all their weight back and tries to run on the wheely bars though, notice that the total weight on the rear tires with 3100 on the front and the front wheels 32” in the air is less than the total weight on the rear tires with 3200 on the front and front wheels skimming the track.

I am trying to adjust the numbers in the spreadsheet for a truck. The numbers are coming out very off, is there something I can adjust in your spreadsheet to work with trucks? My Email is jandstransit@gmail.com if that would be easier.
Reply Quote

Re: ? for Doug May 31, 2020 02:59PM
Email sent Saturday
Reply Quote

Re: ? for Doug February 13, 2017 05:10PM
The guy explained his answer using simple mechanized physics and I don't think hardly anyone appreciated it or even understood it haha
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 07, 2017 03:42PM
if you cant make the weight for the class the way it is, do a little more work to get there or change classes. I think it looks like the pullers that made the effort (and hard decisions ) are going to be the guys that are going to be on the short side of the class
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 07, 2017 08:59PM
It means some brands no matter how much work and effort they do aren't going to make weight to be competitive. All we need is another all red super stock class. Oh wait, we already have that!!!!
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 07, 2017 11:16PM
Wow. Some guys are truly incapable of processing the data set in front of them.....Doug has gone to great llengths to show what the issues are. I am not a puller, just a fan, but it sure looks like Doug is trying awful hard to create fair competition in a class where weight (and it's placement) is immensly critical. I give him alot of credit for trying this, as most orgs and competitors can't see the forest for the trees most of the time. It's guys like Doug that have the vision and understanding to protect individual thinkers from themselves......except these people can't undertsand that.

Just look where this class has gone nationally. Fully component, any sheetmetal, any engine......it's a true rich man's class. NTPA and PPL has pretty much killed it for cast based tractors. No wonder LLSS is gaining traction almost everywhere. It will soon replace this class.

If Doug's current idea doesn't work, I'd say jump on the band wagon and make this the all red component class just like the National boys. That should fix all the problems, right guys?

Geez.....
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 08, 2017 12:22AM
Pretty simple IH's are designed better so you got to handicap them to make it fare for the Deeres
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 08, 2017 01:20AM
Actually in the Outlaw groups LSS (they call it unlimited super), there is way more Deere's than red ones!

Outlaw USS
505 ci
6200 lbs

Deere had 8 tractors aquire points.

IH had 4 tractors aquire points.

NH/Ford had 1 tractor aquire points.

Case had 1 tractor aquire points.

AC had 1 tractor aquire points.

The top 5 tractors in points were all John Deere's and are probably some of the toughest running John Deere LSS tractors in component chassis in the nation.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 08, 2017 01:39AM
It would be nice to know the 2017 Outlaw schedule sometime soon!
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 08, 2017 02:01AM
Outlaws has some tuff running red tractors like Frese and Hoffman, but one broke and the other one missed some pulls. Holman probably strongest runner at end of last season. Made a big difference in the component class where the playing field is even. Some of the red and Ford boys in the Light Super wants a unfair advantage to win. They need to put on there big boy pants and quit complaint over 200 lbs.
Reply Quote

Dump the class and promote the LLSS February 08, 2017 03:15AM
It's time to pull the plug on a class that died 20 years ago. This class has been on life support way to long. This new set of " women's tee" rules are just one more band-aid. Just promote the LLSS WITH OUT Doug rules. Outlaws do not special rules for every class.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 08, 2017 03:17AM
MR. EXACTLY is what we call a key board puller !!! he doesn't know the diff in uss &lss The truth 'ths JD'S housing are 518lb's lighter than IH'S so why in the @@#$%y give them anything? They allready had to overcome 518lb' the truth is the right person hasent built a JD OUTLAWS must be using common core math !!
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 08, 2017 04:56AM
It's always wonderful to see brands being given favors due to undesirable traits in their design.

My X brand tractor can't reliably reach the cubic inch needed to be competitive, does that mean I get a handicap?
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 08, 2017 05:22AM
Yes, you already see that in USS class. Ford and others going to international engines.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 08, 2017 08:20AM
Often times pullers forget that we are putting on a show for a crowd. And if the crowd is unhappy they don't come back and if they don't come back then the promoter doesn't book pulls and if promoters don't book pulls then you have no place to pull. The average spectator goes to a tractor pull to watch his favorite brand of tractor and doesn't care what engine is in it, as long as it looks like there brand of tractor. They are already running Rockwell rear end and Franklin planetary, what tractor had that setup factory? They went to component chassis for dependability and move able weight. They are going International engines for dependability and performance.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 08, 2017 11:41AM
Facts John Dears Suck so bad this has to be done face it they are for girls What a disgrace to the pulling world these rules are.LLss don't need any of the guys that made those rules in there class in that class you suck it up or change brands
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 08, 2017 12:48PM
Very intelligent comment there FACTS.... Idiot
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 08, 2017 10:55PM
Agree. What a tard. Pulling can certainly do without people of this caliber.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 09, 2017 11:25AM
Big help to you guys to understand. Two of the three tractors deemed illegal was built by Doug. I have had two different individuals tell me they seen the tractors , before they went to south Dakota and two of the three was not legal. I didn't see them in person , but I will say I believe both people who told me. Because they had no motive to Lie to me.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 09, 2017 12:21PM
This was discussed when they got caught cheating. So Doug builds tractors 10 years ago, both been through two owners, cast rules have changed and Doug is still responsible for them. Be for real! The owner of the tractor has the responsibility to make sure they are a legal entry in Outlaws. They for sure didn't have over a foot of the case missing in each tractor when they left Roberts Machine. When the old Atnip tractor won at Wisner the year before and Dave Bennett interviewed him and asked about the tractor the new owner said there wasn't anything left of the old tractor. When he got caught cheating this past year he claim it was that way when Roberts built it! Can't have it both ways. The bottom line is they cheated, the tried to hide it, they got caught, move on!
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 09, 2017 12:49PM
Had a friend told me Atnip tractor was missing a foot out of the clutch housing. I personally didn't see it but I trust what he told me.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 09, 2017 12:10PM
Sorry Guys you two must own JDs. Another rule should be added that the weight differences should be announced for each tractor so if you Jared Parker win with your JD the fans can be proud or at least no why the IH got beat.And Big healp ive forgot more about tractor pulling than you will ever KNOW Don't take it personally but you guys are crybaby ..........IDIOTS CHOOSE YOUR WEAPON WISELY MY FRIEND THAT MEENS BRAND
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 10, 2017 05:11AM
Well FACTS since nobody knows your real name the fact you say you know so much about pulling is irrelevant. Now I don't have a tractor in this class and so it doesn't make a bit of difference to me what they do. ( I don't agree with the rule change) But when people like you that think they know everything and need to make a worthless ignorant uneducated comment just because you don't like John Deere or agree with the classes decisions ( mind you they voted on this) I get annoyed enough to comment. My point is grow up.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 10, 2017 12:20PM
I'm Sory Jared I could tell from the start you were one of those key board pullers that didn't know there A$$ from a hole in the ground its easy to agree with shitt you no nothing about myself and others are not into making the class into a childs T ball game what a joke
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 10, 2017 12:58PM
Bahahahaha!!!!! Keyboard puller...... not hardly......
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 09, 2017 01:49AM
First of all I have only seen pictures of their housings, and have not talked to him personally about this. I am not claiming that I know all the facts. That being said in my opinion he just removed more than others out of his housings when he put in the aftermarket transmission. The rules were very vague as to how much of your housing you could remove to put in these transmissions. I have spoke with them on more than one occation and don't feel they would purposely violate rules. I was called a cheater once when I put a pair of 20 inch wide rims with a pair of 20.8 x 38 tires and pulled in a stock class. There were no rules in the book about widening rims. Was I looking for a competitive advantage, yes. Was I am violating written rules, no. This is one of the things that Doug is trying to correct. Eliminate the gray area and have written rules to be enforced. Just my opinion. Not trying to start an argument. Trying to look at the positive and make a better class. I appreciate this site and the opportunity to have these discussions. Thanks Morgans
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 09, 2017 10:18AM
Hate to disappoint you but they knew what they were doing to win. That whole camp up in South Dakota just cut the thing off and threw it away. No gray area there, just wrong and they knew better or wouldn't have added shielding to hide it or could have least brought it to the board. I will give Doug credit, most associations would have slapped there hands and say don't do it again or fix it next year. Doug's not going to stand for cheating. I've known him to long!
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 08, 2017 02:59PM
I am very impressed with the amount of research and development that Doug has put into this subject. I agree that the class has to be made as equal as possible if they want to keep tractor numbers. We are on a bit leaner budget for our tractors then some are. We put together a tractor for this lss class last year and pulled with you in Wisner last August. Your research made me curious so we weighed our front end. It weighs 2860 pounds with all of our available weight on front. We do not want to tear our rear end apart again and regrind and strip more cast and spend more money. Does that mean we can weigh 6600 lbs? Maybe when you roll across the scale we need to weigh everyone's front axle and decide what the total weight can be after that, and not go by the color of the hood. No matter what decisions are final, two things are for certain in my opinion. #1Doug Roberts has the best interest of pulling in mind when he is doing this work, not trying to make an advantage for green tractors. #2The Ulmers are not cheaters. They are innovators and went to the extent of the rules.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 08, 2017 11:01PM
Very well tought out and written. We need more individuals like yourself involved in pulling. The fact that you are intertested in what makes for relatively fair competetion translates into a great show for fans, which is what what generates revenue for the promoter, which ensures a healthy future for the org, class, and sport.

I hope this post helps promote prosperous discussion on how this class (and perhaps it spills over to the LLSS nationally) can become a model for others.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 09, 2017 12:14AM
I agree with everything you said except last line! So you can't make front axle weight so if you just cut off 20 inches off the back of your clutch housing like the Ulmer's did you would have enough weight. Would you be considered and innovater or a cheater?
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 09, 2017 09:31AM
I know Doug is trying to help the class but I think it will do the opposite. Rules that favor one brand ultimately run off everyone else. Look at antique classes that have excessive rules to help favor a particular brand - no one pulls after a while and the pulls become a joke.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 09, 2017 10:12AM
I think it will help the class. It favors some brands now and is running off some brands. What's wrong with everyone having a level playing field. Especially when the one brand is the most recognized of all brands.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 09, 2017 11:11AM
I am glad to see some changes and stuff ironed out hope it helps the class grow
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 09, 2017 02:46PM
The fact is no matter what happens, you can't please everybody. I have to give Doug and the outlaws credit, least they try to keep parity, just look at the mostly green pro stock classes all over the country. Least everybody could do is give it a chance, nobody said it couldn't be revisited if somebody runs away with it.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 09, 2017 04:11PM
If cast iron John Deeres are at a disadvantage in the light , how did Darrel Meese kick so much butt? Was watching an old atpa tape tonight thought to myself [ there is a cast John Deere that would give the umlers a run for their money]!! Just wondering maybe someone can explain what was so different back then. I would have thought technology would have came a long way from the early 2000's. Maybe he done his homework while everybody else was whining !
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 09, 2017 08:11PM
The only tractor in Light Super with a Brent Long overhead cam engine. Grandfathered in and no one else allowed one. Stupidest rule in pulling back then.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 10, 2017 12:38AM
I think you missed the point , Doug says a John Deere cast tractor won't compete with a international tractor at a light weight. Looks to me like that cast chassis worked well.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 11, 2017 07:30AM
Horsepower can make up for a lot of short falls. Meese had twice the horsepower as anyone in the class and could have won with a 15 inch drawbar. He got grandfathered in as the only Brent Long overhead cam hemi head in the class and no one else could have one in that class. Another Tom McConnel screwup!
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 11, 2017 02:49PM
Quote
?
I think you missed the point , Doug says a John Deere cast tractor won't compete with a international tractor at a light weight. Looks to me like that cast chassis worked well.

And that cast chassis of Kurt and Jacob Kesler still works VERY well and the power plant in that chassis does NOT have an overhead cam. The reason it works so well is that THEY HAVE DONE THEIR HOME WORK!
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 10, 2017 01:33AM
I couldn't agree more with Engine. Outlawing overhead cam engines was one of the dumbest thing they eve did to the light super stock class.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 10, 2017 02:06AM
Wouldn't be easier just to add the component rear end
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 10, 2017 02:23AM
It would be a lot easier to have component rearends but Outlaws wants to be in the stone age. They should have a light super stock component (like the rest of the world) and a light limited super (with the same rules as everyone else) and the people that fall in the middle will have to make a decision of which class they are going to pull in.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 10, 2017 04:50AM
Component = LSS 6000 pound

Cast = LLSS 6250 pound (just add the damn class!!), with same rules as majority orgs.

Problem solved. Seems way too easy to me.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 09, 2017 03:39PM
Quote
Change
I think it will help the class. It favors some brands now and is running off some brands. What's wrong with everyone having a level playing field. Especially when the one brand is the most recognized of all brands.

Is that one brand something "special"?
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 10, 2017 12:51AM
The thing's we have to do to git a JD in the winning circle !look's to me like it would have been easier to hire Darrel Meese
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 10, 2017 01:26AM
all this talk about how john deeres are at a disadvantage... Justin Edwards built a john deere 504 cube 3 charger on alcohol named firewater that ran with the weapon and hayleys comet
he proved this at several locations in Missouri including the big jeff city pull the shrameks put on for a few years. so it can be done, they just need to do the work
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 10, 2017 01:49AM
Why don't the IH guys just run a 666/686 rearend?
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 10, 2017 02:17AM
well that's another grey area with outlaws, they don't allow the 400 series engine bolted up to a 656/666/686 or 460/560 rearend but they allow the 4010 rearend to be used with the 466 block. doesn't make sense to me how they can allow one not the other
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 10, 2017 02:38AM
So you can run John Deere 4010 rear end with a 466 which was never in that tractor, You can run an Oliver 1800 rear end with Cummins 8.3 which was never in that tractor. You can run a Ford 5000 rear end with a 474 which never in any tractor, truck and combine only. You can run Case 830 rear end with a 504 which was never in a 30 series Case, not to mention use a 4 cylinder bellhousing wihich is different length than a 6 cylinder bellhousing. BUT CAN'T RUN A 666 REAR END WITH A 466 BECUASE THEY NEVER DID THAT FACTORY?? Its not like you have to build an adapter to marry them together, they make factory parts to bolt them together. That doesn't seem that grey to me, but I'm not color blind.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 10, 2017 04:44AM
Speaking for the Deere side.....the block in a 4010 has the same crank throw as 466 (stroke), same bore spacing, same mounting bolts, same bellhousing mounting points, no adapter plate required. You can make as many cubes out of the original 4010 diesel as you can any 466, so what are you proving there? Small Block Deere is Small Block deere....that's from 380 (original 4010) right through the 8.1L (496).

IH 460-560 is an entirely different engine than 300/400 series, a generation away from anything else. An adapter plate was used at the bellhousing here. CI was never more than 291 as a stock factory offering, in blocks that were different between gas and diesel, and were nothing even close to the next gen 300 and 400 series. That's like putting a SBJD in an old two cylinder. 656 had the same engine choices as 560........666/686 only ever had a 300 series engine, the 400 series was not offered, and to my knowledge you can't swap any internals between 300 and 400 series IH, the bore spacing is entirely different.

Ask the Ford guys, but most of the internals will swap between 401/456/474 so not sure what you want to argue there....

Oliver and that whole AGCO group......well, that's just a dog's breakfast to sort out. You got manufacturers/generations/brands that cross multiple lines. It's kinda like a melting pot in society. But I don't agree with Cummins in an 88 Oliver to be sure....
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 10, 2017 06:19AM
I was unaware that all the small block deeres are the same. Since thats the case lets make rules read that block must be original block (cast #) for that rear end, it sounds like that is not a problem for a Deere. Why do guys look for later blocks if they are all the same?

So as long as internal parts interchange then the engines can be interchanged? If so, the timing gears, rocker arms, and some connecting rods interchange between 300 and 400 series. Also the crankshaft bolt pattern and both front and rear of the block are the same bolt pattern between them. If so then you put a 400 series infront of a 666 or 686 rear end.

This is very slippery slope.There is arguments for both sides. There is no way to make every one happy. The pulling comunity need to come togther and make rules more standardized, but that is yet to happen in alot of places.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 10, 2017 02:43PM
Pretty much everything you just said there is wrong.......all you did was twist words and statements into a version that suited your needs.

I did not say all deere blocks are the same. I said it spins the same crank with the same stroke, and that you could make the same cubic inches out of any block. Wtf does it matter what block that same 4.75" crank is spinning in.....does the block itself mysteriously make the power by itself? Proof you are an idiot.

Also, you handily twisted the internals statement sideways......is the bore spacing the same from 300 series IH to 400 series IH? No, I didn't think so. Therefore no 400 series in IH 666/686. Saying the crank bolt pattern is the same....my god you're an idiot....I guess then we say the same thing for deere then. 2510 crankshaft (4 cylinder) has the same bolt pattern on the rear of the crank, so by your logic I can now put my SBJD 6 cyl engine in that featherweight 2510 chassis. Do you see how stupid that statement you made was now?

My goodness man, educate yourself and make a factual, reasonable statement/argument. Stop acting like a child.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 11, 2017 03:38PM
"Small Block Deere is Small Block deere....that's from 380 (original 4010) right through the 8.1L (496)." Those are your words not mine. Maybe you should elaborate on that statement.

You are correct, I twisted your words and statements into a version that suited my needs. Everyone interprets rules in a way to best suite there needs. And that was kinda my point. A disagreement in how people interpreted rules is what has caused this whole discussion. The people who decided that the rules where interpreted wrong, is the same people who decided that some brands had a factory disadvantage and are changing the rules to "even" them out. This is a great way to stunt the growth of pulling. Why cant they just step up your game like the rest of the brands have done?

Apparently I have struck a nerve with you. You don't have to get so worked up sir, they have already decided to give the John Deere's a crutch of 200 lbs. Getting upset, name calling, and be belligerent is not going change there decision, or the inferior design that the John Deere's have to over come. So please calm down, you people have won the battle. But only time will tell who wins the war.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 10, 2017 03:01PM
I can put a Ih 706 rear with a 400 motor in the 6000 lb class with moveable weight
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 10, 2017 03:49PM
Yes, you can guys are running them with four turbochargers , it takes a lot of time and money.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 10, 2017 05:25PM
Only difference is that Ulmers want to run at full drawbar. You guys and girls are splitting hairs.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 11, 2017 08:40PM
Moveable weight isn't the issue, everyone has a bunch of that. It is how much the front axle weighs. If you are a true LSS it needs to be at least 3,200 lbs. to be competitive with Outlaws. Do you have that. Probably you are not hanging all on the front as a LLSS. It's all about tire speed. Someday you will need it!
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 12, 2017 01:39AM
ANY class that has more than 1500HP should be allowed component chassis . Eye Rolling Chrome-moly is cheap in 20' sticks. Send those cast rears and transmissions to China on a slow boat. Cool
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 14, 2017 03:02AM
Why is 1500 hp the magic number for components? So torque doesn't matter? Weight of the class doesn't matter? Horsepower is the only factor?


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.

Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 15, 2017 11:40PM
Exactly why 1500. Makes no sense, but what Doug Roberts is trying to do does. They need to fix that class if going to continue to run cast housings or just do away with it and go component.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 16, 2017 05:42AM
If 1500 HP is the magic number for components then LLSS should be component as well. That logic doesn't work. There are LLSS over 1500 now.

I see what Doug is trying to do, but I think he is also possibly opening a can of worms. If we use logic like this in all of the classes to make things even it is really going to get confusing. Once this can of worms is open the next thing will be Allis and Ford cant complete in Super Farm so those rules need to be adjusted somehow to make it even. In Prostock no one can compete against the BBJD so we need to handicap them or improve the odds of the other brands. Same with LPS certain brands cant build an engine to compete so we need to adjust weights for one brand over another to accommodate engine sizes. This is a very slippery slope I think they are treading on, but that's just my 2 cents, and who cares what I think.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 16, 2017 05:52AM
looks like the pioneers of these classes didn't have very good foresight.......
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 16, 2017 09:08AM
Competeing straight up, would be both tractors weighing the same. And over coming the pitfalls of the brand, YOU chose to build, to win.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 16, 2017 11:05AM
You just said a mouthful the second thing would be when not enough people would have the balls to step in and stop things befor they got out of hand because maybe its a friend or they think say a bigger tubo wont amount to much let em have it. And may not for a couple years until someone spends a wad and gets it figured out then gues what its a rule cant go backwards so now lets give this other group something to catch back up with gues what it just happened again theres no stopping
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 16, 2017 06:26AM
I think Doug is right on with this. It's not going to effect any classes except maybe LLSS someday if they get enough tire speed that front end weight is a issue. This has no bearing on any heavier classes that weight is not a issue. I know of no Super farms, 466, limited pros that do not hang weight back in the rear or belly bar. He is not addressing engine, turbos, or anything like that. Just trying to let everyone get to same front axle weight. I think it's good that someone can figure this stuff out. One thing about it, myself and many others on here have sure learned a lot from this post that we didn't know before.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 16, 2017 07:31AM
Bottom line is uncompetitive Deere pullers set rules to help themselves and love it, everyone who gets screwed hates it.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 16, 2017 08:02AM
The bottom line is some do not want to give up the unfair advantage they have had for years and have to compete straight up.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 16, 2017 09:33AM
Competeing straight up, would be both tractors weighing the same. And over coming the pitfalls of the brand, YOU CHOSE to build, to win. Unfair advantage would be giving certian brands a weight allowance becuase of a design flaw of the brand that YOU CHOSE to build. I love the light super stock mainly becuase of the diversity of brands in the class. But I dont understand why someone breaking rules has brought up new rules. Are they going to give tractors with International 301, Allis Chalmers 301, Waukesha 310 or Hercules 340 engines a weight advantage, they have a disadvantage because their engines are limited on how big you can make them? Lets just stick with the tried and true rules, but enforce them.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 16, 2017 03:27PM
The last thing little engine tractors need is more weight. They hang weight back and not enough tire speed to lift.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 17, 2017 12:21AM
while I completely understand the thought process it sure seems to go against one of the basic founding principals of the sport,the brand of vehical itself.i cant imagine how the ss classes mould have evolved if the quad squad in their era had the mindset of 'oh well we're just going to be in 2nd place behind the in guys',or if Kevin Lynn was happy placing a Ford where it 'should be' in the pecking order instead of where he believed they 'could be'.I can't imagine the sport today if bryan,ernie,and Brent didn't really believe they could compete and BEAT the most dominate force the class has ever seen,hypermax.or how about shramek and Simpson, 5 years in a row,did the impossible,completely dominated with a block that was wrote off as obsolete in the 80's.those great pullers didn't give up but used something far greater than money to reach thier goal,they used inteligence along with a combined team effort to succeed .and lewis,I'll join ya with the bad grammar and puncuation,you're vision is good enough for me......
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 17, 2017 03:09AM
My opinion after looking at all the drawings and measurements is Conner's and Lynn had a abvantage in the cast rearends era and Shramek wouldn't have won 5 championships if still the cast rearends era. My 2 cents worth!
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 16, 2017 10:22PM
I heard Outlaws was starting the LLSS class for the small 301, 310, 340 engines in 2018. They can't keep up in Light Super Stock anymore. Weight sure will not help.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 16, 2017 11:07PM
I just don't get the logic in this. Because those tractors can't compete, they need to switch classes where they are more competitive. But because other tractors aren't competitive the rules will change to even things out. Who dictates who stays in the class and who needs to moves on? I don't disagree that the 301, 310, and 340 engines can't compete and need to move to the LLSS. But that also means if the John Deere's cant compete in the LSS they they need to move to another class too, or keep in the LSS and figure out a way to be competitive. It is crazy to give certain brands different rule because of an inferior design to others. Especially a chassis flaw when component chassis have been in this class every where else in the country for so long. Maybe it is time to phase this class out and get caught up to the times?
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 17, 2017 05:56AM
I think this is great, Maybe Doug could hook up and consult with NBA when he gets tractor pulling sorted out.
Would love to see more short white men playing basketball at the national level.
Maybe lower the net 24", and make the ball smaller diameter so it is easier for short people to handle.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 17, 2017 07:07AM
Bring back Larry Bird! Yea let the ones that can't make weight move on and let's have a all red class and see how that works out. Oh wait we already have super stock classes like that!
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 20, 2017 05:23AM
No matter where you went at the farm show, in Broadbent Arena, Freedom Hall, or sitting around the farm show this was the most talked about thread. I for one and learned a lot from this post and many others did also. You may or may not like Doug but not many people like Doug will get on here and give their opinion and back it up with facts and calculations. Most people you talked to didn't know how to do a lot of this stuff until Doug explained it. Not all might agree with it but everyone agreed it made sense. One thing for sure Doug has made lots of contriversal decisions over the years and most all have worked. He just thinks different than most but results don't lie, look where Outlaws started and where they are now. Thanks Doug for what you share with everyone on the message board and thanks to Jake for having a place to do it.
Reply Quote

Re: Outlaw Light Super Stock meeting results February 20, 2017 01:18PM
The most talk I heard was actually about his pretty daughter no one knew about. Just saying
Reply Quote

Newer Topic Older Topic

Author:

Your Email:


Subject:
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically. If the code is hard to read, then just try to guess it right. If you enter the wrong code, a new image is created and you get another chance to enter it right.
Message:
Website Statistics
Global: Topics: 38,615, Posts: 229,671, Members: 3,325.
This forum: Topics: 37,064, Posts: 225,890.

Our newest member JD_8520