06:24:09pm, Tuesday, April 16, 2024
|
4.1 class
|
super farm
|
Any truth to 4.1 class going component in 2023 with western series? |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
I heard 2022 you will beable to there will be a lot of chassis’s for sale for cheap |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Bud
|
Good job to PPL for destroying a class. |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Ihfan
|
I've heard lots of guys will just pull with other associations. Every good thing comes to an end. |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Curious
|
How exactly does this ruin a class? It’s not like there is a rule saying you HAVE to have a component, and the rumor I heard was components would get a 300lb weight reduction. Even heads up same weight tho, I don’t see how this just totally ruins a class. |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
you right
|
You are right. It does not, in and of itself, ruin any class.
What does ruin a class is a bunch of whiners who insist on stifling progress and technology. Component should be allowed in any class honestly. But don't tell the LLSS guys that......they go bat crap crazy when you mention this!!! Lol!! |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Registered: 03/19/2018 Posts: 662 |
If it is that much "progress and technology" that to compete, you'll have to have one, then that isn't really whining is it? It's people saying enough is enough.
LLSS, SF, Light Pro, Lim Pro have good numbers. Leave them the heck alone. If you want to run component, there's classes for that and if you can't hang there, imagine how the cast guys would feel if you make the class they built for component. CP |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Bud
|
Stifling progress and technology is a tired old argument. The 4.1 class is perfectly fine as it was. They sent out a survey to the PPL pullers asking about this issue and the majority responded saying they were not interested in the change. This decision was not made with the best interest of the class in mind. It was made to keep a couple pullers happy and to avoid having to actually enforce the rules on one machine in particular. If you want component GO RUN PROSTOCK. |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
plum krazy
|
It sure seems that people just can not let a good thing be that way very long, why change when no need to, some change can be great, -- but just to change for change sake is foolish.Period. |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Ford guy
|
As for the light limited super stock, a couple of questions( actually it applies to a couple more classes as well ) #1 if LLSS did go component, how many would go compared to how many wouldn't, # 2 if it did go component, what would should all the pullers that doesn't want to go component that has already spent alot of money on their tractors to make them strong enough for this particular class do,any piece of any tractor can break at any given time, components AREN'T the cure all for everything, as long as turbo an cubic inches are STRICTLY ENFORCED ( and should be checked a couple a times a yr at any given time ) there wont be a problem, the guys that wanted to make more horsepower and had the financial means to do it went LIGHT SUPER other wise they'd stayed LIGHT LIMITED SUPER thats why theres a LIGHT LIMITED SUPER STOCK class in the first place. LEAVE LIGHT LIMITED SUPER STOCK ALONE, period !!!! |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Progress,...haha
|
The same one's wanting to stop advancement in the 4.1 class will be the first one's in line to buy the latest Wimer,...Hart's turbo too 
A component 4.1 with a 3 year box rule would the the smartest thing for this class. Letting the competitors save those 7000.00 turbo updates every year and some times twice a year,... will go a long ways in buying 20' sticks of chrome-moly tubing,................... 
Actually any national sanctioned class over 2000 HP should be allowed the safety of a component chassis,................Even Helen Keller can see that. As for the nay sayers stating for the 4.1 competitors that want progress with their chassis to go pull prostock,...how about the 4.1 competitors that want cast only pull the 3 x 4 class...................... 
|
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
plum krazy
|
Is it a safety issue ???????????? I can not remember seeing one come apart,other than engines. |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Just my Opinion
|
There have been a few driveline issues in the 4.1 Class for sure. IH carrier, even billets, have broken. Chad Russel chunked a tranny at Nashville this past fall in a SBJD, and he is not the only SBJD to do so. Several big blocks (and other brands) are removing more and more of the factory cast iron to try and gain front end weight. We are past the HP point where Pros went component, and are only going to keep gaining. The more power you make, the more driveline parts you break, the more front end weight you need, the more brittle cast iron you are spending money to whittle away so you can have enough front end weigh on those good biting tracks.
I think deep down most everyone in the 4.1 Class knew this was an inevitable at some point. I think come 2022 you will see several components in the class. I think you will still see a lot of Ag chassis still competing. And I think you will see a good mix of both styles at the top. Pulling an ag chassis against a component isn’t a death sentence on finishes. When the pro stocks went you saw several good running ag chassis still compete for a long while after the rule change, I believe you will see the same here. |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Progressive
|
The box turbo rule is a good point....the MAJORITY of the 4.1 do NOT want this...as a result of the forms they filled out....this is being done now to "protect a few" as stated above in an eaarlier post above...they need to comply with the rules.....if the said "few" next year decide to run a 5" charger in the 4.1 class will the class now turn into the 5.0 Limited Pro Stock class......a couple people went and made this rule even though most pullers didn't want it....I think a certain association may find a lot less 4.1 tractors supporting their events and going to other associations...that will happen. |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Progressive
|
and when I said the majority of the 4.1 do not one this I mean the component chassis........ |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Paull
|
All Things in Life are CHOICES, ALL< every decision, so to those that grind away the integrity of the chassis -- chose to make their own issues, Weight is a big deal in all competitive motor sports and wrestling, horses, ect. We have lost all common sense in this world, Not against any progressive new tech improvement, but the other classes offer more choices, and if the power is there, run the other class, |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Ford guy
|
The thing is ----- Component classes are already available to run on every level other than antique, if a puller wants to keep increasing their horsepower then go get in a component class, leave classes alone that have great numbers ( they have them for a reason ). Component classes already exists -- BUILD FOR THAT CLASS !!!!! |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Registered: 10/30/2018 Posts: 749 |
Just more proof how history repeats itself it wasnt long ago a prostock was a 4.1 |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
This is a testament to how little forward thinking was done when classes such as this are born. It’s also a testament to the effectiveness of turbocharger inlet restrictions and the determination of the turbo builders to thwart them, hats off to them they have done some impressive work. |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
F-30puller
|
Hey Craig..... I got some Ford parts I want to not pay you to build me a tractor by next month.... lol lol to soon? |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Ford guy
|
Its easy to understand ---- COMPONENT CLASSES ALREADY EXISTS !!!! There has to be classes for guys not chasing horsepower, if a puller can afford and wants to go component, go ahead an build for one of the component classes, why go component an then be restricted on your turbo or cubic inches, LEAVE LIGHT LIMITED SUPER ALONE, i know this thread is aimed more at the 4.1 class, but someone always has to through the LLSS in there too, my personal opinion is 4.1 should stay an Ag rearend an have limits on cubes an turbo, but thats just me, i don't run the class an dont intend to, but i do run LLSS an have no intention of going light super unless ive misplaced a lottery ticket that i haven't found yet. Just sayn !!! |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Registered: 02/27/2019 Posts: 20 |
I would like to present the other side of the coin.
I completely understand the argument where the non-component side is coming from. But, the "there is a class for components" argument doesn't resonate with me. Getting into any of the classes that allow a component chassis also brings the expense of the engine/turbo/fuel requirements that it takes to be competitive in that class, making the component chassis the least expensive part of building for that class. The component tractor that I work on has collected many second, third, fourth, etc; place finishes behind ag chassis due to better motor programs, number draws and quite frankly some days they were smarter than we were. A component chassis does not automatically make the vehicle an instant winner. If the component chassis is so effective, how is it that Mickey Shorter and the Brinkmeyer (sp sorry) team are still as competitive as they are in PS? And as all of you are aware, you have to have your proverbial sh!t together to even get a sniff in that class. Have any of you that are against the component chassis truly done an apples to apples cost comparison to build a component vs. a cast tractor? I have worked on and built both component and cast tractors and in my mind there is no comparison as to which is less expensive. It is the component. Numbers on paper, hours invested in building and maintaining. There isn't a comparison in my mind. And most, if not all of you, know that the people that we work with are definitely on a budget. Blank checks have never been presented at our shop. Now before everyone wants to dog pile on how much it costs to get a chassis and parts from Engler or Barbee or ....... Ask yourself how much it costs to have any of the previously mentioned people to build an effective cast chassis. Some may interject that on an ag chassis they don't have to have those vendors build it, they can work on it themselves. I say to you, if you are talented enough to work on an ag chassis yourself, they you are talented enough to perform the same level of work on a component chassis. Everything that you can't do to your ag chassis and are buying or hiring out the work is the same work you are going to hire out on your component. I often hear about the cost and lead time of vendors when it comes to parts. In our experience, the parts for the component tractor are more likely to be on the shelf and shipping be the lead time where as the custom ag parts are put in the que on the shop floor with the potential to be bumped over a preferred customer. And as many times as not, the parts for the component cost the same if not less than ag. I could continue on with the dollar for dollar on parts and the time saved in maintenance but all you have to do is ask TWD or a MOD competitor how much things cost for their chassis compared to their motor programs and they will give you real world answers. We need to honestly ask ourselves what is the difference between a SQHD ring and pinion in a truck housing and a SQHD ring and pinion mounted into an ag tractor? What is the difference between a SCS transmission between the frame rails of a chassis and a SCS mounted into a cut up and ground out tractor housing? The ag chassis classes already have the parts in them, they are just taking extra steps. Has anyone seen the old build pictures for Bad Medicine? |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Ford guy
|
Ok, i understand your concept, i for one will quit pulling if the LLSS class goes component, ( i know nobody will miss me ), thats fine with me, but when you can have 20 to 30 LLSS in a class at any given time, why change anything, and im telling you, change the LLSS class to component an watch your numbers go to maybe 5 or 6 , cause everyone ive talked to about this WILL PARK !!! OH IVE GOT THE ANSWER --- LETS START A NEW CLASS !!!! Thats the answer !!! |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Posts: 347 |
Thanks for making a well worded, fact based reply. I couldn't agree more on the component vs Ag chassis costs......I am not seeing any savings in building around an Ag rear. And I have yet to grind out the castings anywhere as I'm not about to compromise the integrity of it. I'm more or less an LLSS right now, and would gladly allow component build in our club, but it seems there is generally fear of the unknown about it and it will probably never fly.
I also agree 100% with your statement concerning the use of the same type individual drive line components in an AG chassis that a component chassis would use......it happens more than most people know. So what are we afraid of? All this does is cause a person to spend more to fit them in an Ag chassis than if you had cut to the chase and built component form the get go. I've had the discussion of cost on a new ground up build with several different people and most see the logic in the argument from a dollars and cents perspective (and safety if you like), but it seems there is still just a general consensus the component is an automatic winner. Personally I think that is a ridiculous myth. I'm sure I'll be roasted accordingly for my statements here........... Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2020 02:55AM by FarmersFun. |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Registered: 03/19/2018 Posts: 662 |
You guys aren't wrong on costs or availability at all.
The issue I see is that those arguements come from the perspective of a new build. The 35 guys in the class who already spent the money to build their cast machine are protecting that investment. The tractors already exist. I loathe to invalidate them. CP Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2020 02:57AM by cpr. |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Registered: 02/27/2019 Posts: 20 |
Charles, noted on the invalidating. That is why I presented the names that are in PS that are still competitive. I felt it was important to note that the win/finish doesn't directly correlate to which chassis is chosen. Just because a component would be allowed doesn't mean what they have is junk.
... and to those that are saying they don't want components to be in their class, then be steadfast within your organizations. Don't skip meetings. Encourage all the competitors to show up to the divisional, zone and main meetings. Most organizations allow these rules to be voted in on the divisional level and even the ones that give the board the final say, those board members are voted in. If you skip out on attending sometimes you will end up with representatives that won't represent you and you end up with an organization leader that calls the simplest and probably the oldest rule in the sport a "grey area." |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
CP, this is precisely what I was referring to in my previous post Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2020 03:45AM by AAR. |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Ford guy
|
Thanks Charles, your exactly right, most organizations that run LLSS don't even want air ride front ends, i know Wisconsin allows it but im not aware of any others, if most doesn't want air ride they sure as he!! don't want components, i would think air ride frontends would be approved an wanted before components, i for one would like air ride frontends but ever time its brought up at meetings its quickly shot down. |
|
Re: 4.1 class
|
Posts: 347 |
Charles I will not disagree on the the issue of invalidating. Obviously anyone with a cast rear (which I also still have) would probably be angry initially, and I get it. But this would not be the first time that something has changed in a class and caused anger. Eventually most will see the logic behind a given change and buy into it at some point.
The air ride front is also something that I feel should not be shunned. As Ford guy said, there is probably more value in it than going component (at least initially). |
|
Safety and lawsuit
|
Moderator Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,347 |
If a cast rear breaks and a puller, track official, or (however it would happen) spectator gets injured in a class that does not allow components where the accident can be directly tied to a cast chassis failure, does that then open the sanctioning or promoter body up to litigation? (same thing for wheel tethers). Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2020 03:07AM by The Original Michael. |
|
Re: Safety and lawsuit
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
It may very well and that's why we all (or at least SHOULD) have liability insurance. Pulling with a sanctioning body means that the puller, promoter, and sanctioning body itself has insurance. I broke one at Rantoul, Illinois last year. You may have been there. Charles and C Downs were there and saw it first handed. Luckily I didn't lose the wheel and no one was hurt. And nothing was ground out of mine either except where the starter went in and in the middle of the transmission housing for a bigger gear. We are talking about 1 pound total if that and that's not even where it broke. It broke from fatigue of trying to put too much through it. I had all the good parts in the rear, but that wasn't enough. After that happened, we were done with it because why spend more money to fix it and find out where the next fatigued spot would be? That said and though now we have a component, I have seen components break also. Never seen anyone hurt from one but that doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. And that could end up in litigation also. Hope every one has had a great Thanksgiving and is healthy. Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2020 11:34AM by Supertiquer. |
|
Re: Safety and lawsuit
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
Ok so why did I get a thumbs down? lol |
|
Re: Safety and lawsuit
|
Registered: 08/22/2019 Posts: 84 |
I really don't have any room to say if the 4.1's should go component or not(I have no involvement other than knowing a hand full of guys that run them). But the talk about safety in this class is interesting. I am all about safety. But if switching this class to component chassis is purely for safety reasons, then there are many more class that should be changing their safety rules. The amount of times I have seen a tractor get hooked to a sled with little or no safety equipment is crazy. How many get hooked with no Dead Man throttle, kill switch, wheelie bars, drivers not wearing helmets, etc. Now before someone says stock farm class tractors go to slow, they don't make much power, or there limited on MPH, seriously. That makes then exempt? My son pulled stock class garden tractor when he was 4. They required, dead man throttle, kill switch, wheelie bars, and helmet at minimum. A damn stock garden tractor class has more safety rules than most "farm stock" classes. If you think what I am saying is crap, then watch a farm stock tractor enter a "Run what you brung" class. I watched a driver loss control of the tractor around 150", watch the rear rim break, the driver fall off and the tractor sat there a full rpm until someone ran up and shut it off. The sled driver did attempt to stop it when the tractor started to loss control. But at 150', the box was only half way and the tractor was still able to go. The red flags were being waved and red lights on the sled were going. I did see it happen. I watched guys go up to him after that tell him how crazy it was to watch while they laughed. Really? I guess my point with all of this is this. I have probably watched well over 200 4.1 limited pro passes and never seen the need for component chassis on these tractors. Again my opinion. If safety is the argument for change, then I feel there are other classes that need to be addressed way more than the 4.1's. Safety should be top priority in EVERY class regardless of what you are pulling. |
Website Statistics
Global: Topics: 38,565, Posts: 229,582, Members: 3,319.
This forum: Topics: 37,056, Posts: 225,843.
Global: Topics: 38,565, Posts: 229,582, Members: 3,319.
This forum: Topics: 37,056, Posts: 225,843.
Our newest member BadHabit2
