05:37:41am, Tuesday, April 16, 2024
|
NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
I have thought about this letter since it was sent out to the NTPA light pro divisional committee about proposed limitations. I have put my thoughts on paper to hopefully get people to think about long term rule changes and if they are needed. The light pro class and any version of it is one the best power to weight ratio, to operation expense, to vehicle numbers, to any diesel class in the nation. As pullers, builders, promoters, and sanctioning bodies we need to look at what is good for the class long term. I believe we need to remember the people sitting in the stands and the sponsors are the ones paying the bill to make the tractor pull possible. We as pullers, builders, and sanctioning body OWE it to our customer “The Spectator and Sponsors”. Most of the spectators are in the stands because the tractor pull is the entertainment for that fair or festival. They do not follow tractor pulling very much. They want to entertain with variety, noise, smoke, and action. Spectator and Sponsor could care less if it makes 2800hp or more. We all need to have an open mind what would be better for the sport long term. We need to leave our tractors, research and development projects at home. Some pullers have spent the time and money to find the next big power gain and I applaud them for that. What we need to look at, is the continuous improvement and an action item list to achieve those goals. There is a history to review by looking at the pro-stock and super stock class. Light pros are approaching and surpassing 2600hp and over 3000ft/lbs of torque. Go back and talk to the pro-stock pullers where they were power wise when the sanctioning bodies decided the ag chassis was unsafe. The potential of the light pro over the next few years with the current rules will be over 3000hp. If there is nothing done to limit the power then in a few years we will be talking about allowing component chassis?
Goal is to have a class of quality vehicles that are safe, durable, and bring variety to the show. The suggested limitation in the letter was to limit the turbine wheel to a “G” trim. Questions? What is a “G Trim Turbine Wheel”? Do all turbo manufactures use the same dimensions for a “G” trim? How do you handle custom made turbine wheels? Turbo manufactures already are making turbine wheels for the pro and super. As one turbo manufacture told me: the G trim rule would only slow down the horsepower advancement . After talking with Brent Payne “GMS”, Phil “REI”, Jeff “Hypermax”, and myself the consensus was to put a restriction in front of the turbo. Pros of restrictor in front of the turbo: No turbo change required Could be easily removed if sanctioning body does not require Easy to inspect with no go gauge Could be adjusted if power and reliability becomes an issue in the future Cons Easy to remove Also keep in mind the off color brands will struggle to find durability due to lack of numbers doing research and development and the willingness of builders to invest in unique parts for low sale volumes. I may be a builder mainly of red but I am a spectator when I go to the pulls. I get tired of seeing 1066 internationals go down the track. Look what Carlton Cope has done for the pro stock giving something different to cheer for. If the light pro class truly wants to grow then color needs to be added to the class. My suggestion would be to adopt the pro stock rule of running any sheet metal you want. If you really look at the rule book and some of the tractors with new sheet metal they are out of spec. We need to allow any sheet metal. Back to the demographic of the spectator that most attend one pull a year. That same spectator could probably relate to something that had Kobuta sheet metal instead of a 1066. Overview: Long term goals for light pro Restricter in front of compressor wheel Component chassis If don’t want component then need to limit power Ways to add variety to class by allowing any sheet metal I hope this gets people talking and thinking about how they can sustain and improve the light pro class for the long term. Dave Waesch Wipe Out Enterprises |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
Registered: 02/23/2012 Posts: 542 |
Dave you are right on
Thanks for your input!! |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
Moderator Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 1,445 |
What a well written, thought out post. I realize there will be push back on the topic, however your willingness to look down the road at what "will" be in 3-5 years is just what the sport has failed to do time and time again. If you asked any PS pullers 10 years ago what he/she thought the HP would be in 2018 there never what have guessed at the numbers that the top PS tractors are making today. Pulling has never been proactive, it's time to change that mind set. Thanks Dick Morgan www.PULLOFF.com Independent Pulling News |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
litepro
|
As a current light pro puller I honestly don't like any of these proposed rules other than a turbo limitation or slug but I know my one voice won't make a bit of difference so it is what it is and I really think the any sheet metal rule is silly, one of the dumbest rules out there ( I get that nobody wants to see a all red vs green show but still ) it should never have been an option in any class especially light pro which has lots of color now like fords, ih, john deere, allis, case, and massey, etc. in it already what really grinds my gears about it is while at a pull and a diesel chevy truck pulls up to sled and the announcer says here comes some chevy duramax power and in reality its a 5.9 cummins under the hood or a Minnie Moline tractor pulls up to sled and same deal, the announcer says look at this rare tractor and power plant when it actually it has a big block john deere under the hood, it would be like dating a women for a few weeks and then finding out she used to be a man under the hood lol false advertising in my opinion, so my point is say what it is under the hood I guess if your going to do the any sheet metal/power plant thing. |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
Registered: 05/04/2013 Posts: 114 |
Dave, what do you think of lowering the hitch to make power less of an advantage? I support the restrictor also.
Ps what ever happened to the restrictor in ssd? |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
Matt Kaster
|
I know this is going to be unpopular, but I've said from the start, leave the rules the way they are and lower the weight to 8,000 lbs. The lower the weight of vehicle, the less the power will help and the more set up and driving come into play. |
|
Re: light pro component
|
Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,347 |
I like the concept of keeping the same rules, but I also think components should be allowed.
Reason? Because even though the rules themselves may not change, the underlying technology will in that innovation will keep propelling the horsepower. A stock chassis should not be expected to endure that many times the power it was manufactured for. Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2018 07:17AM by The Original Michael. |
|
Re: light pro component
|
Posts: 744 |
I am not advocating one way or another, just asking some questions for discussion.
Does this class need to keep gaining HP to help pulling grow? Does pulling need another 3000+ hp class? Just thought I would ask as it has been discussed below about vehicle turn outs and pulling future with numbers. If we allow components in this class and hp gets to 3500+, will a new 2000 hp class pop up because some pullers didn't want to go to the 3500 level? (this has happened over and over already and compounds the numbers issue) Is this progression healthy for pulling overall? Are we in a pattern that we are watering down the overall product of tractor pulling? Interested in the page's thoughts. COO for OTTPA www.outlawpulling.com www.truck-specialties.com Schaeffer Oil Representative [www.schaefferoil.com] |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
Sir Issac Newton
|
lower the hitch and or take 300 pounds from them whats it cost to do those two things if long term cost is at issue. the any sheetmetal and component deal needs to stay with pro stock and the super classes. less weight and less hitch will turn it into less of a horsepower game and a setup and driving game which should offer those with less horsepower but great setup and driving skill more chance to win. let physics and the six inches between the drivers ears determine who win |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
8000# sounds good to me! |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
Truck puller
|
Maybe take a lesson from the european prostock class. They run 7700lbs with more power. The class is still mixed ag and component chassis. It would be a good idea to ask the competitors in that class why they went from ag to a component chassis. The US prostock at 10000lbs is a bad example to use for comparison to the US light prostock because of the heavier weight. |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
Heres a thought
|
maybe if we applied common sense to the rules rather than sticking with the same way of thinking about rules for example pro stock has to weigh 10 thouisand pounds to be called pro stock we might have a whole lot less problems and more pullers |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
Another thought
|
Sounds like just a bunch off whiners to me. If you can't keep up go to a different class. Those selling pulling parts stand to make the most here and likely cost pullers more than they think. |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
Registered: 05/04/2013 Posts: 114 |
That mentality is why we have too many classes. They get out of hand, so people start another class that also gets out of hand |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
Maybe
|
Why not put them on a 4.1 turbo smooth bore same at the 640 limited pros and a 13mm barrel and plunger rule for injection pump. It would make the class very cost effective and keep them from breaking parts. Leave the weight the same. Guys can buy smaller pumps and turbos cheaper than bigger. If they want to go bigger go to a pro stock. Or jump the cubic inch up and go to a 640 limited pro and keep the same turbo. |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
Registered: 07/09/2008 Posts: 103 |
Technology will always advance and hp will increase but hp will only increase if rules alow it and for what reason?
Why do we need so many classes with engines over 510 or turbos over 4.1? Why pumps bigger than 13mm? Why such heavy weights or high hitches? Why 30 different classes, realize might be exaggerating but maybe not lol. Spectators could care less they just want to see variety and numbers at a pull. I went to a very big pull or at least once was last weekend and almost no class had more than 8 tractors and used to have into the high teens to over 20. The crowd was nill to. Competitors need to think about this when deciding rules in my opinion. |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
Registered: 01/29/2011 Posts: 95 |
A restrictor bushing is a slippery slope deal if not very strict on the dimensions and enforcement. We have seen this with ones we make for truck pullers. It can be hundreds of hp difference in the way they are made. How they are made and distance from the wheel changes a lot. On the exhaust side a “ g” limit does keep cost in check. Its a two fold issue on cost. Much bigger and you have to modify the exhaust housing for the wheel and gets expensive there too. Most would be running a holset based turbo and a limit to a 3521034 wheel would make it simple as thats the most common 11 blade wheel available. It will also get expensive if you limit it to a dimension. Custom shafts made to fit the size will come along and be expensive. So would allowing modifications to the stock wheel like what is done in super farm with a cut down center. |
|
LEAVE IT ALONE
|
Howboutthis
|
Leave it alone! You all act like the sky is falling and it’s in its death roll. How about figuring out how to save the ULSS class. How about saving the light super stock class (which is easy, knock it back to 6000). The one class in the country that isn’t struggling and people act like it’s coming to an end. Restrictions will drive the class up further in cost. Technology will change and they will still be where they are at today. There are already custom turbos being designed to the 4.4 (aka g-trim) that will turn a 4.6 - 4.7 compressor wheel and will runabout 12-13k dollars. The guys that want to win will buy them and the guys that can’t will still be crying or creating another class. This class was out of hand right out of the gate when OEM type heads were allowed as opposed to OEM heads only. Now you have Himes, Lemke, Hyper, Payne all with aftermarket heads in the class. Again though, it has continued to grow. It reminds me of a 4 year old kid running through the yard, falls and screams bloody murder, the kid wants a band aid even though there is nothing wrong; so the kid gets a band aid and falls silent. The people crying in this class are that 4 year old kid looking for a band aid when it’s not needed. Again, why isn’t the conversation focused on classes that need saved? |
|
Re: LEAVE IT ALONE
|
Seriously
|
I'm amazed how this keeps coming up. I thought this thread died a while back. I agree with Howboutthis.
Awaa,Awaa,Awaaaaaaaa. I keep getting beat!!!! Somebody do something, change the rules , change something!!! Aaawwwaaaaaaa!!! |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
Just thinking out loud
|
I’m sitting here reading a lot of these posts and thinking out loud.
1. With all do respect to the builders mentioned. Why would you want to limit turbo’s? Why not heads, valves or even manifolds? You know things you guys sale. I’m not trying to be a butt head about it. But it’s always better for class if it doesn’t effect me. 2 like many in class. Yes I’ve bought the heads, valves and manifolds etc. Also have bought bigger than G - trim turbo’s. So now what. 3. To say the average fan doesn’t care about HP. In my opinion is a bit False. Even if so, they won’t care if more. Don’t get me wrong. I love the fans. I think free open pits are great way to promote. But I didn’t get into this sport cause of fans. I did it cause it versus ideas against other ideas. 4. I always hear go pull pro or super. ( go getcha some)If I could I would. My brand doesn’t let me get there on cubes or 3 or 4 chargers. This is the closest I will ever to A complete hot rod tractor. 5. I’m in favor of not changing anything up or down. I like many others built to the rules. However if we Really Really think we need restricted. After reading and thinking about other posts. Weight or hitch height would take strain off stuff and maybe take some importance off HP. Plus it really doesn’t upend someones whole operation. Just so not to get too light it excludes brands or engine types. No I’m not a V8 owner either. 6. Guess I’m just getting tired lately of all the talk how pulling is dying. It may or may not be going thru a cycle. But it’s definitely not dying. I travel a good bit around country wearing pulling shirts and it always sparks conversations. Crowds maybe be down some but streaming has gone way up. 7. We need to quit worrying about what others have or not.Not that I want or like to see it. But ,are you really concerned about competitors rearend drives? Power wise or component wise. Has there been a rash of breakage I’m not aware of? The big numbers that started this train wreck where made 2 or more years ago. Still running same rears. Remember it is impossible to make more HP than you can consume. A water break is not loose dirt peeling out from under tires. 8. Ya think maybe just a little. There some manufactured crisis going on. |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
ex lite pro puller
|
This is exactly why I sold my lite pro. They are a money pit like you cant imagine\ |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
Dave k
|
Lowering the the drawbar for all classes would be a good place to start. The 20 “ height rule was set back in the sixties when tractors barely had 300 hp. The sled operators would appreciate it,they wouldn’t have to spend so much time and money improving their sleds trying to stop all these high powered machines. Oh and by the way lite pro already has a tractor over 3000 hp. Saw it at Louisville when it popped a turbo before it would have slammed into the wall! |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
Lt pro puller
|
I don't think that is correct the proposed rule amongst the pullers was a G trim no bigger than a 4.5 and no altercation to the stock exhaust housing |
|
that’s stupid
|
Howboutthis
|
Not modify the exhaust housing? That’s stupid. Every one out there running right now with the smaller exhaust housings have already modified them to accept a G-trim wheel! Which numb but came up with 4.5? 3521034 is stock 4.4 Not sure how big you have to go on a holder exhaust housing before they come stock g-trim but, pretty sure it’s above 42. Anything below 42 will mostly be stock F trim and smaller. I would be shocked if anyone in the class is running bigger than a 32, probably mostly 28 and 26, both of which already need modified to accept the G-trim exhaust. |
|
Re: that’s stupid
|
Light pro puller
|
Apparently you're stupid you don't know anything about this Turbo rule .you don't even pull in our class keep your pie hole shut !! If you knew anything about a Turbo you would understand when we said 4.4 G trim no bigger than a 4.5 And as far as the exhaust housing is.nobody's machining it down to fit a G trim you moron they make them 28 30 and a 32! That's what everybody's running if you knew anything at all!!!! |
|
28,30,32
|
Howboutthis
|
Do not accept g-trim wheels from the factory. They have to be bored out (aka modification) to accept the g-trim wheel. |
|
Re: that’s stupid
|
Actually
|
Actually both turbo comments about machining or altering of the exhaust housing are a bit inaccurate. Holset made a 32housing g trim cut but has a bolt on flange for the exhaust like a 60 and the part number was discontinued eons ago and are very rare. There are a few different part numbers for a 28 housing that have varyin exhaust outlets and trim cuts. The standard 32 holset comes v band exhaust 5 inch discharge with e trim profile. This having to be machined to accept the g trim turbine. |
|
Re: that’s stupid
|
Light pro puller
|
If you don't pull in this class don't comment first of all second of all the rule idea came from the PPL 4.1 class the Turbo side. No it's not inaccurate Mr. know it all we've done the homework this is what it is for our class ! |
|
Re: that’s stupid
|
Registered: 09/23/2008 Posts: 632 |
can't comment stick it in your ear, I have really liked the idea of the light pro more than the limited class, but to think there don't need to be adjustments or suggestions even borders on myopathy. Differences of opinion are a part of any activity, I don't pull in this class but have considered a vehicle. So with that being stated if I want to comment I will whether or not some anonymous person says I can or can't. As for the class some rules to be established to keep people not only in the class but to keep it growing. |
|
Re: that’s stupid
|
Registered: 01/29/2011 Posts: 95 |
There are g trim housings from the factory all the way down to a 25. 28g is very common along with a 32. Have plenty in stock |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
could it be
|
Dave Waesch, please clarify as in my interpretation of your following statements, you contradict yourself:
1) You said: "We all need to have an open mind what would be better for the sport long term." I totally agree. But then you immediately state a contradictary sentence: 2) "We need to leave our tractors, research and development projects at home." Really? Why? We do that and their is no pull or show. Please calarify. And then the next sentence is: 3) " Some pullers have spent the time and money to find the next big power gain and I applaud them for that." This contradicts #2. Then you talk about the turbo restrictor plate. You list: "Cons - Easy to remove" If easy to remove, how is that a negative? "litepro", you stated: " light pro which has lots of color now like fords, ih, john deere, allis, case, and massey, etc." The "lots of color" is only IH red, mostly the square boxy 66 series. Yeah, like Dave W, I, too, am very tired of seeing them in literally every tractor class. Very few JD's. And how often do we ever see "allis, case, and massey"? Seldom. And what brand or brands qualify as "etc."? I would love to see any of these other colors (beyond IH) in greater #'s and very competitve. And the only way you get a very competitive class, is with a bunch of restrictive rules. And then we will have the 'cookie-cutter' whiners belly aching. I have watched this season one class with Lgt PS. Sounds like many competitors have spent the big $$ to install that new big charger as they sound like a PS from a few years ago as the Lgt PS tries to spool up the turbo with its hissing, crackling, popping sound initially. Once past it, that engine is roaring for action. And so is the big money game to spend another good class into pulling history oblivion. . |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
green
|
Still trying to ruin best class pulling ???? WHY ??? |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
LEWIS
|
Its a money game its in every class from the old 3 mph classes up ruins every class and whats worse after the rich ruins the class they finely get tired of the game and quet themselfs,Its plain and simple we as pullers are a bunch of dumb asses for letting it happen i dont care who you are and really people like no name green above now rag me cause i no what im talking about and dont give a crapp.Even Mr Chezic will get tired of the game someday he has put together a great team |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
green
|
Really U Know LEWIS and Jake U are the reason a class gets RUINED tractors being BUILT for the RULES and some WHINER wants to change it !!! |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
Wow, Lewis and I sure have a great amount of influence! What about the classes that haven't made many changes... like Open Supers, and Diesel Supers... they just keep getting better and better right? Numbers sure say otherwise. Pro Stock too... it's numbers are cut in half compared to what they were ten years ago... it just keeps getting better and better right? You can just ignore a small cancerous mole on your arm... after all it's just a little thing and you feel totally healthy and fine so don't change a thing right? Nope you deal with it before it kills you. Sure it's small but it can grow. The same approach should be taken with pulling but some people just can see the big picture or the writing on the wall. It's an awesome class but what will it be in 5 years? The writing on the wall is clear for the Light Pro class, the class can go in two clear directions... no changes to the engine rules and eventually it will go full component and everyone will buy a complete new chassis (they will too, just look at the PS class, 95% component now). Or they can put an additional very mild restriction (maybe on the engine...air, etc...) and still run there current chassis while keeping the horsepower in check. Those are the two choices facing the class. The writing is on the wall in big bright letters. We can pretend to ignore it, but that won't make it go away. 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: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
Dave,
Thanks for the great post. I'm a fan of the restrictor tube or restrictor plate idea for exactly the reasons you stated. My two biggest concerns for any changes are cost and ability to police any new rules. A restrictor tube or plate addresses both of those concerns since the cost would be minimal and the ability to tech it would be extremely easy. Also since the cost is so minimal a sanctioning body could also easily modify the dimensions in the off season if there was a huge development/increase in horsepower that was having a negative impact on the class. I really hope a restrictor tube or plate is added to this class in the next couple of years to keep the class healthy and growing. 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: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
Still not the problem
|
I guess I don’t understand. Everyone has an opinion, but let’s look at some facts that directly contradict.
1 Interstate Mod Turbo 540 A pump, OEM Head, and now this year G-trim. Today’s numbers 6 to 12 tractors. 10 to 12 years ago 20 to 35 tractors. 2 FPP Limited Pro. 540 A pump, recast Head or block, and now G-trim. Today numbers 6-12 tractors. 10 to 12 years ago 15 to 25 tractors. Both of these organizations has seen a huge drop in tractors. Sometimes if not for the teams having two or more tractors they’d really be hurting. This is not a shot at either group. Both have been around for a long time and will continue. But the simple fact that there are more limits on either one of these classes than light Pro. Yet there numbers are definitely lower. Making new rules up or down simply doesn’t fix the problem. Kind of like shooting the duck on the pond cause it watched the fox eat the chicken. There is no rhyme or reason. On the other hand truck classes have grown. Probably more so cause of common rail and laptops. Not sure but I’d bet there is the same amount of pullers. Just other classes got bigger and those above got smaller. All the limits on the world won’t stop evolution. Look at Drag Racing |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
Registered: 01/29/2011 Posts: 95 |
I ran in the mod turbo/ limited pro in the 15-20 year ago era. There is a big difference from then to now and its not the rules. Its the money it takes to be competitive. At that point if you had 30-40k in a tractor you had something competitive. The classes were younger in their years so develpoment of parts and hp was lower. Today you would be hard pressed to be competitive at double the money. Not really cause of any rules change, just the evolution of the class and the people in it pushing forward. |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
I have a lot of opinions and responses but it would take all night to get them typed out. There are a lot of people with opinions that don't pull or pull in this class or anything similar that don't understand exactly what they are saying. on this thread. I can see how people are getting frustrated.
The light pro stock class is great as it is. BUT, it is on the breaking point of changing. Guys are proving that the horsepower numbers can still go up drastically. So, is this a good thing or a bad thing? Ingenuity and development are always the determining factors in pulling. And guess what, they both require money. You will never stop a class from improving and getting more powerful, but you can slow it down. If that is what people want, I think the G-trim exhaust housing limited to 4.5" is the way to go. Allow the turbo builders to still develop new ways to get more air on the intake side. Any other engine limitations would be much harder to police. As far as the component issue, I am sort of torn. If you don't think there are already components in this class, you are mistaken. They are in much lower level classes too. Just because its an ag case doesn't mean there isn't a truck rearend or a component transmission in it. And not just because they hold up better, but because they save horsepower. Many of the top guys probably are running components. So do you keep with the ag rule or save some people money by just allowing components? The class at this point is dominated by by IH there is no doubt. Other brands will just have to catch up but making rules to help other brands is silly. So is the idea of running any sheet metal. I agree, it is like being lied to. A Chevy isn't a Chevy with a Cummins in it. A Harley isn't a Harley with a Kawasaki engine. Most of these other rules don't make sense to me. Lowering the draw bar will just slow the pull speed down, making for less entertaining. And making the weight lighter will not reduce traction, it will just make it more dangerous. |
|
Re: NTPA Light Pro Limitations
|
LEWIS
|
How many comments have been made on here about the fans in the stands dont no the difference ,At one time it would have been a no way on any sheet metal but knowing my favorite class the llss has IH 560 rears with all kinds of sheet metal from 460s to MCCORMICKS AND 1800 OLIVERS has anything from the MFs to the Whites Cockshutts and MMs so whats it really matter,4010s with all the latest sheet metal todays tractors the young farmers recognize are Kobotas Mahindras and others get some more colors from brands that cant its not real anymore anyway its the WWF on wheels truck motors bus motors = s fake news Chezics armed and dangerous with M5 Kobota sheetmetal = awsome |
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
