Rule variances request that were said no too January 03, 2020 06:53AM
Other than Doug Robert's request for a component rearend in his super,what other request has the board said no too ??
Reply Quote

Re: Rule variances request that were said no too January 04, 2020 02:46PM
Interesting question. I can't think of any off the top of my head but I do remember talk of the NTPA trying to rescind the variances to ProPain and Fools Gold. I also remember a high budget Prostock team talking about building a very high dollar version of Fools Gold but I don't know if they actually applied for a variance or not.


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: Rule variances request that were said no too January 04, 2020 03:42PM
Quote
Jake Morgan
Interesting question. I can't think of any off the top of my head but I do remember talk of the NTPA trying to rescind the variances to ProPain and Fools Gold. I also remember a high budget Prostock team talking about building a very high dollar version of Fools Gold but I don't know if they actually applied for a variance or not.

I've posted this several times before, but it should be legal to run a factory fuel in any tractor class with "stock" as part of the name of the class....

And variances should never be given. To quote Dennis Johnson of Shagnasty fame (as relayed by another puller years ago), it's either legal or it isn't.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2020 03:45PM by The Original Michael.
Reply Quote

Re: Rule variances request that were said no too January 05, 2020 02:25AM
What was the "very high dollar version of Fools Gold" supposed to be?
Reply Quote

Re: Rule variances request that were said no too January 05, 2020 06:45AM
Somewhat similar to Fools Gold, but with a much, much, much higher budget... a billet headed, billet jugged, "gas" powered MinnieMo Pro Stock (true MinnieMo power... not BBJD) with all the bells and whistles.


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: Rule variances request that were said no too January 04, 2020 03:27PM
Quote
patches
Other than Doug Robert's request for a component rearend in his super,what other request has the board said no too ??
Alot
Reply Quote

Re: Rule variances request that were said no too January 04, 2020 05:35PM
Patches, don't you mean Doug ask for a variance for a NON-component rear end, with the engine location in component location ???
The tractor he is building for himself has a NON-component rear, but the engine may be runnin OEM location and component allowed location.
Reply Quote

Re: Rule variances request that were said no too January 04, 2020 11:01PM
I was talking about his ss from 25 yrs ago that was said no too by ntpa
Reply Quote

Re: Rule variances request that were said no too January 05, 2020 07:03AM
Ok Patches, didn't realize we were talking ancient history,,,,
Yes, a former GN LSS champion ask to use combine final drives on a component tractor. Was CORRECTLY told no. Few years later a different team shows up with combine final drives, was allowed to pull, and they proceeded to prove why allowing the cast parts was wrong. They fabricated some better housings, and haven't broken them off yet.
Reply Quote

Re: Rule variances request that were said no too January 05, 2020 09:53AM
Quote
Specificator
Ok Patches, didn't realize we were talking ancient history,,,,
Yes, a former GN LSS champion ask to use combine final drives on a component tractor. Was CORRECTLY told no. Few years later a different team shows up with combine final drives, was allowed to pull, and they proceeded to prove why allowing the cast parts was wrong. They fabricated some better housings, and haven't broken them off yet.

Yes I remember that. But I don't remember why that tractor was allowed to pull? Also, different class but was there a pro stock Deere that was a composite tractor that wasn't allowed also? But I don't remember the reason for that either or maybe I am getting that confused with another rule.
Reply Quote

Re: Rule variances request that were said no too January 09, 2020 04:33PM
What did Hildenbrand (W. PA) have in his PS JD that ntpa did not allow? I'm thinking it was double overhead cam? Same with Stanley Auen's SSD JD.
Reply Quote

Re: Rule variances request that were said no too January 09, 2020 06:05PM
If I remember right it had something to do with the cam,a single ohc was being used in the 80s in the ss class tho,by a few
Reply Quote

Re: Rule variances request that were said no too January 13, 2020 12:09AM
All three engines were legal everywhere when they were built. The JD 10.5 block was NTPA legal until it got caught up in the 903 cummins mess. The OHC deal started when some of the East Coast wimper kings started changing rules because they were worried somebody might have something they couldn't buy. The no OHC rule in prostock just appeared in the rule book a few years ago out of nowhwere PPL and NTPA. We are now converting the 619 pro head to rocker arms (THE SAME HEAD) 700/800 LBS open pressure on valve springs. Wonder why the the blocks are breaking at cam bore. Said I was going to quit guess i'm just to dumb too.

Fred Hildenbrand
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: 38,779, Posts: 229,957, Members: 3,338.
This forum: Topics: 37,098, Posts: 226,040.

Our newest member Jacklovik2009