12:10:53pm, Wednesday, April 24, 2024
|
What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,347 |
There are for and against opinions on these, but for discussion purposes, some rules I would like to have seen proposed include:
* (as alluded to in a post a month ago)- finding a compromise that would bring the heavy Super Stock class back together. The split classes worked for a time, but looking forward a few years, it should be a top priority to find a way to reunite them, preferably with maybe a year or 2 lead time so whatever compromise is chosen could be intelligently implemented and thought out. * Adding Light Pros as a GN class. (Super Farm is dying. No denying it. Not too long ago BG had 70, this year 28. Every year guys have switched to Light Pro or Limited Pro. That trend will only continue. In 3 years, outside of Michigan, there may not be a SF class left. NTPA should be proactive and not reactive and add the Light Pro class now, because within 3 years the SF may be lucky to get 15 entries at BG. The rest will be running Lt or Limited Pro. If they wanted to add Limited Pro as a GN class also, I'd be fine with that but at a minimum the Light Pros have proven worthy imo). * While finish line distance was addressed in the proposals, I would have preferred one distance. Europe has ran 100 meters for years and years (which is very close to 330 feet). Maybe NTPA should adopt metric, set the distance at 100 meters and be done with it (and for those who are unable to deal with it, add feet/inches conversion under the meters on the scoreboard if not cost prohibitive). If 330' or even going back to 300', fine, but make it the unvarying standard. Only with impending rain would it be eased. Bottom line: PICK A FULL PULL DISTANCE AND STICK WITH IT. Frankly, 350' seems unnecessarily long. * For multi-track events, only one vehicle can pull at a time (ie- no drag racing). * Allow twin turbines as a legal combination in the light unlimited class. I really don't think twin t-64s are going to dominate a top running twin screw blower or 18-71 combination. I'm not sure how many would follow the circuit, but at least I'd like for it to be a legal combination. Heck, in the 7500 RN mod class in R2, the turbines in that class are having trouble staying within 30 feet of Feiss and Writsel on twin 14-71s. For any pullers, promoters, builders, or fans, what rules were not proposed that you would like to have seen? Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2019 02:34PM by The Original Michael. |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 10/01/2017 Posts: 34 |
I don't quite agree about the SF class "dying". PPL Champions Tour has 18-20 every hook. Badger state has a group that only campaign their circuit. NTPA GN has a short load of 10 this year, but that may be due to farming being so messed up, as NTPA R2 always has 10-15 show up. Mid South has a group as well(not sure on numbers). Not to mention the outlaws. Just because only 28 decide to run BG isn't a fair assessment of the entire class. Most guys don't want to deal with unhooking the cooler and having to dyno a Different set up for only 2 hooks a year. Throw in the new farm show rules and that would equate to guys having 3 different set ups. The class is still strong, but the different rules across the sanctioning bodies will limit how guys choose to attend. Make 1 set of rules across all sanctioning bodies and I'm sure you would see attendance grow. Just my $.02. |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
SF turbo
|
I’d have like to see them all go to smooth bore 4.1’s. Smooth bore would solve several problems in several levels of pulling |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Just To Clarify
|
So basically, you want them all to convert to 4.1 Limited Pro? |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 12/31/2008 Posts: 101 |
LLSS Grand National Class |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 10/29/2018 Posts: 82 |
Components in light pro stock. |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Wheeler
|
LLSS GN would let a whole different group of tractors to compete at the national level, could you imagine how awesome itd be to see Allis chalmers 180's and Farmall 560's or even oliver 88's back at Tomah like how they used to back in the 80s in the 5500 super stock class! Im all for LLSS to be a GN class and also having a place for the class at NFMS. |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 12/31/2008 Posts: 101 |
I’m going to be running the Orange Crush 180 next year at Tomah. Next year is the 40th anniversary of the Orange Crush |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Wheeler
|
Mike Kavanaughs 180? If so what class are you pulling it in? |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 12/31/2008 Posts: 101 |
Going to a butt whooping in LSS but I don’t care |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 03/17/2019 Posts: 65 |
Component light pro ya that would be great. I have one for sale could be the first to ruin another class ya |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
? For Fuzz
|
Just exactly how would it ruin the class |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
I could see it ruining the class short term and if it ruins the class in short term, how many numbers would be left for long term? Long term components are great, but how many will be around for the long term? I think I know exactly what Fuzz is saying. But I could be wrong. |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
? For Fuzz
|
Same thing was said when the pro stocks adopted it |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
Um yeah! I know and so does Fuzz!!!! |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
? For Fuzz
|
So then you both know it’s not the death of a class... |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
That depends on how many numbers you want to see at every pull you attend to as a fan and as a promotor. |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
? For Fuzz
|
Quite frankly it should have started out as a component Chassis class as well as most anything else that is over 1500 hp. Problem is no one wants to realize this until it’s to late |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
longtimer
|
Then this means Limited PS should also be component.
But that has not been the intention of the political powers at hand when the classes came into existence. I think both classes need to left as originally intended - ag chassis. If one of those pullers really desire a component chassis, then move to the top tier classes - PS or SSD or even SSO. After all, that has always been the thinking - a puller is starting in a 'starter' class and moves to a higher level of power over time by 'moving' into a 'higher power' class. |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
green
|
I can not believe this keeps being brought up noncomponent is what makes this GREAT only a TRUE jack--s would want to change them to BE KILLED!!! |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
Wow, I get a thumbs down, but I really don't care. |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
GB
|
Components in the Light Pro class would be fantastic but it would be the end of DSS and 50% of the guys with Pro’s would switch within 12 months. The class would explode (even more) with competitors when the inevitable happens. |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
? For Fuzz
|
Longtimer: the intent being ag chassis is fine however if that’s the intent the horsepower limiting rules are not in line. In fact limited pro and light pro are already at or surpassed the horsepower level that was deemed unsafe for an ag Chassis in the prostock class. With the extensive lightening required in the rear ends of the light pro’s and the turbine limit which now pushes torque production to a higher level the light pro’s are going to be in a more unsafe position than the pro’s once were. |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
green
|
Ag chassis built right not a problem with new turbo limit and as you said light pro is only 8500# not 10,000# the class does not need components or alcohol to have a very good class leave it alone === change is not good if it is only for the sake of change that someone not in the class is stupidly proposing for their one adgenda |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
red
|
Wasn't that class and unlimited turbo class originally? If so then there was a "change" made,...…...basically to eliminate the V-8's advantage on higher fuel output from the pump limitations . Ag chassis only rules in classes over 2500 HP is counter productive and eventually a safety issue. Someone is gonna mill off1 pound too many and eventually get hurt. 
|
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
green
|
turbo limit of 4,5 out p-pump |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
green
|
to your note about someone milling 1 pound too many I say you can not fix stupid |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
red
|
How is it "stupid" to know which 1 pound is too much,...... until it fails? 50 year old cast iron ,...……………. 
|
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
green
|
There are a lot more ways to light weight than grinding casting maybe running wrong chassis or frame THINK !!! |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
red
|
Rigid cast iron takes all the torque in that class,...……..no need to "think' about that,... because it's a fact. The word chassis is overused in ag rear classes,...……….. …..Bolted on frame rails welded to a steering assembly is the only option.
Front end weight is a premium in that class,.....who has the most will do the best. |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
After pulling in the lss class for over 26 years in the state of Illinois, I can really see all points of this discussion. |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
? For Fuzz
|
Green, Red is right this time and he hasn’t even started down the road of...... a component Chassis is cheaper, more durable and safer than your “well prepared ag chassis” |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
green
|
come on NOT at all CHEAPER if you have to start over--- really for bitch on budget to ruin another class cause can't keep up with current rules no more excuses needed |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
? For Fuzz
|
Yeah yeah, went thru this once already, proves my point it should have been done in the first place. Just makes it harder on everyone when reality comes around |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
longtimer
|
"? for Fuzz", for what reason(s) would "50% of the guys with Pro’s would switch within 12 months"? |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
? For Fuzz
|
Well that wasn’t my quote. So that being said I could see some from dss or prostock switch to this class to save a little money. Don’t think you’ll lose to many prostocks if the turbo limit passes |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 03/17/2019 Posts: 65 |
Light pro started out as a 1600 to 1800 hp class (approximately ) in 5 or 6 yrs it has become a 2800 to 3000 hp class I think at today's power it should go component. The point I was trying to make was this class is following the same path to distruction that almost every other class is heading down. If you create a new class with a wide open set of rules. the big egos and checkbooks will take advantage of it every time.this has been a trend with ntpa for 40 yrs when will we learn you can get mad at me if you want but once again history is repeating itself. When the intended hp range in a class is reached it is time to move on up not make every one else try to keep up |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
green
|
to uninformed Fuzz class started out at 2200 to 2600 class and is back to that with the 4.5 " turbo rule |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
? for Fuzz
|
I completely agree with your analogy, which is why in a previous post I stated any class over 1500 hp should automatically become a component chassis class.
There is no class that has ever stayed within the intended range of horsepower it started with. This 4.5 turbine rule that green keeps harping about is not going to limit the class to 2200-2600 hp. In fact there are some 200 above that now with the 4.5 turbine. The pumps will eventually evolve more and the turbo technology will too and soon enough they will be over 3000 hp. Green you can walk around with your blinders on and think no improvements are right around the corner but history has shown that to not be true and it will yet again |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
green
|
Fuzz do you have a dog in this race ? |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 10/30/2018 Posts: 749 |
LLSS after doing a lot of research sine we have all these engine combinations and hoods and rears that dont natch nothing any way could make a cheaper build going component First there would be lots of options to hold the horse power that wouldnt have to be the same stuff the ss and others are running 2nd some of the parked SS guy may drop down a notch and join in And also go for the any sheet metal rule |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 03/17/2019 Posts: 65 |
Hell no I'm building a llss. So you go ahead and keep up the pace that its going and see in 5 yrs how many are left you had a great class when you started out but now your approaching the point were blocks start breaking and cranks and busting up cylinder heads I would like to see more young people getting into this sport but if you keep raising the level of competition on every class all the time numbers will fall not rise. If you want to build a 3000 or 4000 hp tractor there are classes for that you can get as mad as you want and won't change the facts |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
And this is a VERY good point! One that I am concerned about also. Well stated Fuzz. |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 12/31/2008 Posts: 101 |
I’m just saying if there was a LLSS NTPA GN class I would precommit for next year right now |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Light pro puller
|
I wonder how many would actually run across the country chasing grand national points... I’m sure a few would but I think most are perfectly content staying closer to home. Don’t get me wrong I’d love to see it happen and would fully support it. So that brings up the questions, who all do you think would run and what events would have the class? |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
All for LLSS
|
If llss became a gn class i would start building a tractor right now for the class and have it done for the 2020 season. Tomah and BG would be perfect events for the class and so would NFMS, light and lim pro are at tomah and nfms so why not llss? |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
G
|
Look I’m sorry if I offend anyone but I don’t respect the class as a grand national class it is literally a straight hill billy class sorry not sorry |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
green
|
Back to dog in the running Lt Pro WHY NOT ASK the TOP 50 pullers in the class what they would like to do I--do not think it is components so why someone not in the class would propose it is about as crazy as any keyboard puller would say it needs to change |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Yep
|
Yep- its a hillbilly class, talk about assinine ignorance, some people you just think is stupid, then they open their mouth an remove all doubt, geez, alot of the GN guys started with a class like or similar to LLSS, like it or not LLSS is as popular as any GN level class, an by no means are they anything less than professional level tractors an pullers, LLSS would be very popular at BG,TOMAH or CHAPEL HILL, alot of older die hard fans still like the class !!!! |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Light pro puller
|
NTPA hasn’t been around for as long as they have by making dramatic rule changes and adding classes to the grand national level every time someone thinks their class is deserving. They will make the changes when they see it’s necessary. It’s really easy to look back and see that maybe if this rule or that rule would have been in affect that maybe things wouldn’t have progressed so fast. This just proves how competitive these classes are and the ingenuity that builders and pullers have. I’m not sure that any one class is dying as some think. Yes some have switched classes due to expense or the fact that a similar class in that area has gained more popularity. When you look at actual numbers of each class they really aren’t that bad it’s just that certain organizations and events draw certain classes better then others. Now would I like to see the light pros become a grand national class sure I would, but at the same time I understand that if every class that wanted to be grand national was it would no longer be the top tier of the sport. |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Whistle Prick
|
Most GN classes only pay down 10 spots to begin with. The super national pulls pay down a little further, but still why would more than 10 tractors want to follow the circuit if there is a chance that you travel 10 to 12 hours and come home with nothing. Thats almost as asinine as your stupid comment about "8 to 10 tractors". I don't know why any of you think that the classes need more than 10 in them, I bet if you knew that you were going to finish out of the money you wouldn't go either. Maybe once socialism infects the country it will change tractor pulling as well and you fools that get on here and demand this or that will get your way. Reading some of this stuff on here is the perfect example of why the country is going down the @#$%& pipes. |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Llss will never be as GN class. Too many variables, to much bitching. Yearly rule changes, etc. Plus the sport doesn't need to cater to the "older diehards", it needs to attract younger fans. I don't see how adding llss will do that. Some classes are meant to be state/regional and that's it |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Yep
|
Grubby, never is a long time !!! I aint sayn it should or shouldn't be made a GN class,but to be called a hillbilly class is just wrong on so many levels, aint nothing hillbilly about them, just let the powers to be add them at BG OR TOMAH or CHAPEL HILL an see what kind of turnout they get. |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Wheeler
|
Its not about catering to the older diehards, llss gives younger pullers a chance to compete in GN because you dont need to own a trucking business and pay people to drive for you to win or be a large grain farmer that hires someone to build the tractor for you. Just because LLSS pullers know how to build their tractors and dont need to invest as much money in them compared to other gn classes doesn't make them hillbillys, it makes them true tractor pullers and thats the kind of class that deserves a spot in the GN circuit. |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
First off, I never called it a hillbilly class, but it is a starter class in my opinion. Starter classes don't belong on the GN circuit. I pay more at GN pulls because I want to see the best. Llss isn't the best. It's a fine class, but it isn't as popular nationally as you seem to think. Can I run a local dirt track late model at Daytona? |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 10/30/2018 Posts: 749 |
How many llss tractors are there nationally seems to me numbers are growing all across the country Your high dollar classes are already in the casket waiting to be buried WOW a 8 or 10 tractor grand national class to cover the whole USA of Trump Land is really something to see or brag about play the fiddle its over over priced and washed up |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Pointer outer
|
I dont believe a class with limited in the title should ever be considered a GN or CT class unless there in an "un" in front of it.... just my thoughts |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
outerpointerof thepointerouter
|
And as usual, your thoughts suck as they have for years. There may not be an "un" in front of it but all classes have LIMITS. |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 03/17/2019 Posts: 65 |
You bitch about llss sit threw a stupid farm class talk about boring all red and green no rpms big pigs with little mufflers on top. there was never a class so out of balance |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
whiner
|
.......and yet it is one of the most popular with great numbers. Obviously you watch them every chance you get, since you are so critical of them. Sounds like you or a close buddy have been butt hurt by them or feel unjustly wronged by the class. Maybe just stop the whining and enjoy the classes that are out there today.........maybe try thinking positive for a change? |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,522 |
I think the ssd and the sso should both be dropped and replaced by the llss..numbers would be doubled ,alky and diesel would be combined,the class with the most color would be seen,motor-sheetmetal would match,and it would be traditional chassis class |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 02/19/2009 Posts: 526 |
I would like to know how many member states like Badge State and WTPA have the LLSS classes witch belong to PPL and NTPA respectfully? So before we get excited on a grand national or champion tour events we think about this logically. Yes the class is growing with lots of interest. If we want to get this accomplished, all the complaints about rules and who region is better is not going to help David Runkle class rep for Badger State LLSS class. 815-821-4686 |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
There are twice as many limited pros as there are llss in Wisconsin. Just because it's popular in the south doesn't mean it's popular everywhere. |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 02/19/2009 Posts: 526 |
Gubby you may be right , but next year we have two more alcohol tractor on there way and one was broke and two only showed two times this year . So if we had every one that pays dues for next year , we should be at 13-14 tractors. Now that a pretty good class. Plus you add in the WTPA tractors and there a few others in Wisconsin, should total around 25 give or take. David Runkle class rep for Badger State LLSS class. 815-821-4686 |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Posts: 513 |
David, should have another 2-4 LLSS tractors for the 2020 season in ECI as well, if everyone shows up, should/could have 10 ish for us at any one hook. --- 
|
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Puller
|
Pretty much just have to take a set of rules that most clubs use and if someones tractor doesn't fit the rule they have to change something on their tractor to meet the rule. No need for bitching or arguing llss pullers just gotta make it happen. Nfms changed the turbo limit in super farm, what did the super farm pullers do? They changed their turbos and made it happen. The few people that don't want to see LLSS in GN are the same people who dont care to see the numbers dropping in other classes and dont mind seeing an all green or red show. |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Registered: 03/17/2019 Posts: 65 |
Llss was and is not intended to be a GN class the class really doesn't need that headache to survive. Sure it would be cool to see them at BG or TOMAH. And I would go. but the class will make it where it has following anyway I think for llss and some others they should focus on putting on a good show for the fans and the promoter so they will have us back next year. this means showing up and not being busted all to peices |
|
Re: What rules were not proposed that you would have liked to see?
|
Just change the rule to read "All breather tubes Must exit in front of the rear tires ". |
|
Oil Down Penalty
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
The Original Michael,
I agree with every thing you originally posted on this thread. One rule I'd like to see implemented would be an Oil Down Penalty. There are guys with no catch cans that dump oil all over the track on every single pass. Catch cans should be mandatory in ALL classes and there should be some penalty for Oiling the track. I understand that everyone has catastrophic failure from time to time (which sucks) but there something should be done to minimize oil dumping and track clean-up. 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: Oil Down Penalty
|
Registered: 02/18/2018 Posts: 244 |
Jake, how would an oildown penalty be added to a vehicle that is not running for points in that series? ie a PPL vehicle competing at BG Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2019 12:29PM by Jake Morgan. |
|
Re: Oil Down Penalty
|
They need to enforce the rules they have in the rule book. NTPA has a rule on page 89 of the current rule book that says Excessive loss of liquid onto the track by a pulling vehicle while hooked to the sled will be DQed .
Langford 2 years ago I watched the winner of the LSS class makes it first hook and put what looked to be a gallon of oil on the track . I figured he burnt a piston and because of internal damage he was not DQed . Crazy thing is he came back in the pull off and won and put down another gallon of oil on the track . Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2019 12:30PM by Jake Morgan. |
|
Re: Oil Down Penalty
|
Registered: 12/31/2008 Posts: 101 |
What about a excess amount of water from a intercooler? Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2019 12:33PM by Jake Morgan. |
|
Re: Oil Down Penalty
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
No prize money, loss of placing (either moved to last place or moved back a certain amount of places), subtraction of a certain amount of footage (20' penalty for example), DQ, etc... I think a distance penalty could be simple and effective. It's an easy call for a finish-line official to make and the announcer simply has to inform the crowd that a 20...30...40...50' penalty is subtracted from their actual distance because of excessive oil. Cory, I completely agree with you. Mandating catch cans would have eliminated the gallon after gallon of oil on the track you mentioned. It's funny, a few LSS tractors were ones that came to my mind when I was writing my original comments. Those are the type of Oil Down runs that I think should be penalized. There are a few mod guys that push oil out of their valve cover breathers every pass as well. Again, catch cans should be inplace to capture the oil. Some guys seem to be consistent/repeat offenders. Someone burning a piston and putting oil on the track is unfortunate breakage and a little leniency can be granted, but it's passes that you mentioned that annoy me. I'm not as concerned about water, but yeah, they shouldn't be dumping that on the track either. Any fluids running on the track make the sport look less professional. 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: Oil Down Penalty
|
Registered: 08/28/2014 Posts: 178 |
We used to run water in our block and when we had a head gasket blow we would push water out the overflow. And on back to back days of pulling we didn't have time to change them so we would just run it. And the flag man would always let us know to get it fixed or else next time dq. We eventually just drained the water and ran dry the rest of the season just so they would stop yelling at us. But since we wasn't winning all the time we where the ones they where forcing the rules on. So it forced us to hard block our engine in the off season so they can't yell at us any more. But I still haven't seen them tell anyone else to get their oil or water problem under control. |
Website Statistics
Global: Topics: 38,608, Posts: 229,663, Members: 3,325.
This forum: Topics: 37,062, Posts: 225,887.
Global: Topics: 38,608, Posts: 229,663, Members: 3,325.
This forum: Topics: 37,062, Posts: 225,887.
Our newest member JD_8520
