04:12:02am, Tuesday, April 23, 2024
|
IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Wondering 1
|
If the 4.1 class were to go component would they also go any sheet metal? I know a lot of people don’t like the idea but it makes that class a lot more appealing to someone who has been looking at getting into the class. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Nathan Binder
|
Components are cheaper to build and safer. I think if they want IH sheet metal it should have an IH engine. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Freddie K
|
Other than about 5 people in the pits. Nobody cares if the engine block matches the paint. Not one single, casual fan gives a hoot.
Build what is more affordable, safe, and you will attract more pullers to the class. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
plb
|
That`s true, 99% fans couldn't care less whats under the bonnet. And like the man says cheaper and safer and safety is plenty important I hear. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
xxx
|
safety is important -- you hear, why are you posting if you can't make up your own mind about the need for safety every where. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
plb
|
Sarcasm is beyond some folks. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Red tractor?
|
Was the 88 series, the last models to use the DT international engine family?
So technically, should all the newer sheet metal red 4.1 tractors, have Cummins engines? Also is it possible, that the component interest is truly a top down, not a bottom up request? How many open super stocks/diesel super stocks/pro stocks would step down to 4.1 vs ag tractor, going to a component chassis? |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Like to know
|
I think your numbers are a little bit off on the fans not caring about if the drapes match the curtain. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Carpet
|
Its " if the drapes match the carpet " |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Competitor Massey
|
I can guarantee you that the majority of people that want components in current ag chassis classes are not thinking of safety first and foremost, but they are wanting this for weight loss purposes. Just look at the wreck a couple of years back at Tomah, that wreck was far worse than any ag chassis wreck that I have witnessed!!! So save the safety argument for a conversation that pertaining to safety equipment and not diet plans!! |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Competitor Massey
|
My bad in above post. That was a super farm that fabricated front end broke out of. However I still stand by its about weight loss not safety that most pullers are after with components. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Tomah winner
|
You are correct Freddie K about the fans not caring, although the pullers seriously disagree, especially around my area, when some puller comes in with a john deere that has an IH engine and beats everybody. It really pisses us and everybody around the US off when they follow the rules, and the one person who takes the other route takes home the check. I think if everybody followed the rules and ran the engine to sheet metal, the class would be a lot more competitive and fair. I mean, it was funny when Shrameks bought Russell's engine, and they beat him with his own engine at Scheid diesel. As to the component subject, I think the 4.1's are fine, just leave the components to the big boys. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Puller
|
If you let this class go component then the next thing well be let the JD run a IH motor or a IH run a JD YOU BETTER STOP IT NOW and save the class |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Apples
|
You may be surprised what the 4.1 class could grow into...going component isn’t a death sentence, how much longer can people keep spending 250-300,000 on a pro stock.... |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
See both sides
|
For most its just a mentality thing. You dont have to have a component to compete and be competitive but most think that just because it’s allowed that they have to have it. Why not let a new guy have the option to build a component if he wants? Not everybody can afford a full blown pro but this could be a good stepping stone for them to get there in the future. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
So you're saying that making the class MORE like Pro Stock will help the class? I respectfully disagree. What's next making a small change to 680 CID? Or is it to make the turbo limits just a little bigger or to change the pump limits to a cast Sigma since there are ton's of them out there cheap. It's kind of like the people moving out of California to a free state like Texas and then wanting to bring all the big government programs with them. Then they'll be surprised when the same problems start to surface. There's simply no need to have a component chassis option in the 4.1 class. It might be a WANTED by some guys but it's not NEEDED. As for the any sheetmetal rule regarding components... I've made my position very clear and I think that is one of the worst rules in the entire sport. Fans do know, and fans care. I've actually witnessed fans ask teams what's under the hood or what rearend is in a tractor and they walk away with a displeased look/expression/comment. The demographic that pulling appeals to in one of the most brand loyal groups in the country. Pretending like the fans are dumb, uniformed, or don't care is really out of touch with who pays for tickets week after week. Don't get me wrong, some fans don't care, those are the fans that are just there to drink beer and they don't really care if they are at a demo-derby or a tractor pull. Are those the fans the sport should cater to? Will alienating the brand loyal fans grow the fan base? 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: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Chris Waegele
|
Jake, I generally agree with you 98% of the time but your wrong on this one, I agree on the sheet metal engine combo that should stay true to lineage but the component part is a no brainers, the 4.1s are already past where the pros were when they adopted it. This class was at the same point when Wilemans did what they did ,the same thing was happening now in the 4.1s. If u want to spend big bucks carve the cast out and bingo u have an advantage. Legalization of components puts everyone back on a level playing field for a minimum of 10k less invested. This is just my opinion but I think in the long run will be the best for the class. The argument go pro stock if you want components no longer holds water, we both know the cost of the pumps and chargers in that class left the building long ago. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Do Tell
|
Please tell where a component chassis can be bought for $10,000.
I admit we agree that components are definitely a cost saver for someone new coming into the class, BUT there are many pullers already here and some chassis still on the market. If you want to accommodate the pro stock puller that wants to drop back or a new puller you could come up with a handicap. I live on the east coast and there are many combo classes that actually work. Dock the component 750 pounds and see how it goes. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
Chris,
It seems like the heart of your component argument is weight... am I reading that correctly? 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: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Jake did you not read the 10k less invested? Did you see the level the playing field? Did you know the engine location was evened out also? What about a Case rearend? |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
I did. The way in which Chris' comments were written the $10,000 less invested seemed to indicate that a component was a minimum of $10,000 less than a cast chassis but it didn't give any basis for that statement. Is Chris implying that a component is $10,000 less than a cast chassis in-general or is he implying that it's $10,000 less than a cast chassis because of all the machine work it takes to lighten certain cast chassis' (thus he's implying it's really about weight)? I guess I just wasn't clear what the $10,000 cost savings was referring to. As it was written by Chris, the "level playing field" also seemed to indicate that it was a weight advantage/disadvantage in the playing field among certain brands or models and it wasn't clear why component tractors would level the playing field and/or why the field is not level right now other than weight. As for your comments AAR... yes, I know a fair amount about component tractors, if you remember I lobbied quite heavily for them in the Super Stock class years ago and gave the pro and cons of doing so (you can scroll back through my old Opinion articles and see for yourself). I also predicted that they would be adopted in the Pro Stock class years ago and I got ripped apart by many (most) of you. I also predicted that they would be lobbied for in all the classes years ago and I got ripped apart for that opinion too (by pretty much everyone). There are plenty of people who know way more than I do about component tractors but I'd say I've got a pretty good grasp on them and their advantages and disadvantages. So back to your comments, Is the engine location an advantage/disadvantage because of driveshaft length, or some other variable or is it an advantage/disadvantage because of weight distribution? Again, is it about weight? What about the Case rearend? Is it brittle or fragile? Or is it heavy? Again, is it simply about weight? Is this ALL about weight in the 4.1 class or is there something else I'm missing? 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: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Weight distribution for sure. Weight loss is more of a bbjd issue. Engine location for a sbjd vs a bbjd is an advantage for bbjd. Component rule moves bbjd back to same front of engine location as sbjd therefore leveling playing field. Case rear ends are a challenge to keep together at this level, obviously the power plant isn’t a deterrent to running a case at this level.
Money would be the primary challenge, the cost of competition is what is driving change within classes and why you are seeing competitors drop levels instead of moving up. At what point does it stop making sense to put component quality parts into a casting to retain an ag chassis designation? How much weight can be safely removed from the castings you’re allow moveable weight? Would it be more sensible to pull power away to save the Chassis investment? It’s gonna require one or the other to happen. Anyone care to guess why a chassis costs what it does |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
Component chassis measurements are from the back of the engine block. A BBJD engine block is longer so the front will still be further forward in a component chassis (thus the center of gravity for the engine block will still be further forward in a BBJD component chassis).
Weight distribution is still a function of moveable weight (thus overall weight). It seems like the argument for the component chassis in 4.1 still comes down to weight. Is the Case rear hard to keep together? I honestly don't know, I'd love for more Case experts to chime in. I know Case rear-ends that have handled much higher HP than a 4.1 makes... higher torque? I don't know. If weight is the argument then that's fine, but just say it's weight and be honest about it. 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: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Ordinarily your measurements statement would be correct except this time as this was addressed also. A front of engine measurement was employed to correct the additional length of the larger engines. You can talk weight all you like. In my mind it’s all about sustainability and common sense. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
So this component chassis class is going to have different chassis rules than the other component chassis classes? Perfect. No, that makes perfect sense. Heaven forbid we keep some sort of standard rules. I'm not talking weight, I don't think weight is a problem in the class... I'm just trying to understand YOUR desired reason for the chassis change and the only reason I'm really seeing you say is weight (well and the Case rear-end thing but there are other ways around that too for the handful of guys that must be breaking Case rear-end parts). I'm just trying to identify the problem YOU'RE trying to fix. The only reasons given by ANYONE seems to distill back down to weight. You statement is vague or else I'm just obtuse but please explain how a component chassis is more "sustainable" or how it makes more "common sense" to radically alter a class that currently growing and not experiencing any problems. This change is a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. If there is a problem would someone please clearly identify it for me. 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: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Jake, I guess I see this differently so I’ll explain further.
I don’t see the 4.1 class as a growing class. If anything it appears to be on a down trend. So let’s say for discussions sake someone wanted to build a new tractor to run in the 4.1 class. Let’s say that a cast option and a component option were available from a vendor and the cost difference was 10k. Each chassis being of equal caliber parts and each built to allow the same basic ballasting. However the component chassis had an adjustment in the motor mount location so that all participating power plants were at an equal as possible weight distribution point. An adjustment of which could help in every other component chassis class. Which would be the wiser investment? Which would be most likely to give the most trouble free lifespan? Which would be best suited to handle inevitable future power gains? What option appeals to the most color choices? |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Competitor Massey
|
I agree, as stated in my post above, that weight loss is the main reason most pullers would want to go component. With the horsepower gains made in the past few years, many limited AND Light pros struggle to have enough weight up front. The easiest way to get that movable weight is to go component. Why do you think some are pushing so hard for it? |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Paull
|
As a long term puller,I see this much differently than the people running these high hp and high speed classes, (I pull antiques and some in between),some antiques are spending upwards of 40K on engines, so cost is not my concern here,I sounds like weight "IS the issue here, just like in high school wrestling, horse racing, drag racing, weight is a huge issue, HUGE ! Not here so much for drag or physics reasons,(still physics, but not the same principles as some other venues) but to simply make a class. So raise the class weight,very simple, very cheap, very easily done,very common sense, OR, if you can't control the vehicle at that weight,tune for it, on another post, we are talking about how much scales are off, and vary as part of the animal we deal with always, I have had to enter a higher weight class than I prefer at many pulls, just because scales were off and or the tolerance levels were tighter,---EVERYONE WANTS TO PULL WITH THE HIGHEST POWER TO WEIGHT RATIO THERE IS, -- GO TO MINIS. CAST REAR ENDS ARE NOT "FALLING " APART, SO JUST ADD 200# FOR FRONT WEIGHT CONCERNS, PROBLEM SOLVED, OH SOME WILL SAY 200 IS NOT ENOUGH, WELL THEN THE CLASS IS WRONG FOR YOU.Seems like Pro Stock weight was made at 10K so the 2000k plus can be run on the front. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
That's exactly the angle I was going to next with my weight argument... 4.1's don’t seem to be breaking all the time… the class doesn’t seem to be struggling for numbers or turnout at any events… There’s no shortage of ag chassis’ out there (actually there are plenty of the For Sale all the time). There aren’t any rule changes that allow new engine blocks that are only offered in CVT chassis tractors. I guess I’m really failing to see this NEED for a component chassis in the 4.1 class other than weight.
If this is all about weight… wouldn’t it be much cheaper to simply add 500 or 1000 lbs. to the class? It would probably cost $1000 to buy 10 more weights and a couple hundred bucks to make some extra front-end weight brackets. Doesn’t that seem like a much, much cheaper option? 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: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
IH
|
Jake,I’m not even sure that they actually need to wait in a class that is already 9500 pounds. I’m not familiar with the John Deere end but I know of many IH rear ends that can get to 7000lbs and sometimes even 6000lbs. Is 2500 or 3500 lbs of moveable weight not enough? Personally I would love to see the classes weight dropped to make the tires spin a little more and make it more of a drivers game but I also understand that the class is doing great so why mess with it. Just my 0.02 |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
I don't think they need more weight either. I think the class is fine just as it is. But... if THEY honestly BELIEVE they need more moveable weight isn't there a cheaper, easier, and quicker solution rather than building a whole new chassis?
I'm just trying to logically flesh out their argument, get to the root of the problem and then give an alternate solution (even though I don't agree with their premise or their solution). 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: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
?
|
Has everyone forgot that you can still lower the drawbar, a half inch low is like hanging 100lbs on the front, you always adjust to what you carry and tire pressure to track conditions, theirs been several times that ive had my front weight bracket full and ive lowered my drawbar because the track was good ( and i carry 1200lbs ) theirs got to be some thinking outside the box !!! If theres good numbers now is it really worth it to change anything, how many tractors will you gain compared to loosing ? Components is not the answer to all problems, if they were allowed, what will be the next gripe, what changes would someone want next, whats supposed to happen to all the ag rearends and complete tractors that refuse to go component ( and there will be several ) !!!!! |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Chris Waegele
|
Yes, Jake it comes down to weight, you can carve the cast out of the bbjd and now some are using the heavy IH rears and doing the same thing dropping in the components and you have a bullet proof rear and plenty of movable weight, is this safe? At what point does this ground down cast break? I cant answer that question. I do know it takes an extra 10k to grind out all that cast then there's the question is that now legal? The component Avenue just seems to make more sense to me at this point especially with the hp gains we seem to be getting every year. Once again just my opinion. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
Why not just add some weight to the class? Problem solved, and cheaply.
Currently the most dominant tractor in the class is a BBJD. The Waglers have consistently proven to be at the top of the class. Won't a lighter component chassis give them even more of an advantage to showcase their horsepower? Doesn't the heavy 5010/5020/6030 rear-end offset (handicap) them some and level the playing field? You're also saying that the guys that choose the heavier parts want a light option? Don't they already have that with a 706 rear-end or by going small block and using a 4010 rear? 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: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Chris Waegele
|
The lighter rears are having breakage problems hence why they are going to the heavy ones |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Weight breaks stuff |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
$$$$$$$$$$$
|
Speculation is that the chassis (chassis only) you are referencing sold for 120K to a MN pulling team just before Pro-pulling League changed the rules. You do the math Jake 
|
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
LSS Fan
|
Wagler sold the chassis for $120k? And what rule change are you talking about? |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Tomah Winner
|
As long as the money keeps coming from their job and/or business. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Just saying
|
Everyone seems concerned about pro stock guys moving down. To me that’s crap! I guess they bit off more than they can chew so now they want to move back down to something they can afford?? What about the hot farm and pro farm guys that want to move UP?? My thoughts are the 4.1 class should be a box turbo of some kind so it doesn’t get out of control like super farm. Keep it so guys have to use some good old fashioned ingenuity !!! That’s what’s lacking in the sport ! Pro stockers are cookie cutter machines like nascar is now !!! |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Paull
|
Ingenuity is what makes this sport fun, getting the power to the ground is all that matters. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
fourhundredserieslives
|
Yea those BBJD's dominated both series last year,................... 
|
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Bbjd1
|
I don’t know why anyone worries about the chassis. The sanction body needs to enforce the cubic inch rule. Before everyone jumps and says no one would cheat please tell me when one tractor has been checked and not back at the guys shop, that does not count. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Checking
|
Pretty sure there was a post on a different thread. A competitor at a outlaw event was checked and passed |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Ihfan
|
As a fan I sure hope this doesn't happen. I still enjoy a tractor pull. Not a modified pull. If I wanted to see that crap I wouldn't go to the local County fairs. Keep it ag so us old farmers can relate. Take the tractor away your taking lots farming guys interest away. What do I know I'm just the average guy that go to 20 plus pulls a year to watch real tractors. Have no interest in the modified diesel classes. Just my 2 cents. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
300' Puller
|
If you don't go component, then how do we get more variety in the class? How do we keep progressing the class? What about Black Cases, Minneapolis Moline's, Agco and others that want to be more competitive in this class? Weight alone isn't going to help those tractors. Box Turbo isn't going to help those tractors by itself. I don't disagree with anyone on the argument that components wont eventually add cost, and allow for far more development in the class or it may not be justified at this time in the current state of this class. However, have you ever heard of progression or innovation? Where are we headed? Lots and lots of new technology is being added to this class and thus more ground speed, traction and horse power is being created which for the tractors that it works for is great to see, however overall your are limiting your class to growth in a very important spot. The variety of equipment is being diminished because of a very unfair gap for certain types of tractors. Not necessarily a budget issue, but a pride issue. Some pullers want to make a Black Case be competitive or a Agco be competitive in this class. So, do you go backwards now? Limit pumps to 13 or 14mm's? Do you go box turbos? Put limits on fuel? All that brings issues as well and disagreements I am sure. More limits mean more issues with the tech side? Any limits at this stage will add cost to a pulling vehicle as well. No one is saying that the component thing is set in stone, nor was it meant to be used by everyone next year. It was set up for a couple of tractors to try and for the organization to evaluate results and make adjustments. Is components the right thing? Well the way its supposed to be is a test to see how it goes and will see, but I know there is a lot of miss understanding out there right now. Look at it from a business standpoint. Do we stop progression and limit our growth potential or do we take a risk and see where it takes us? The results you might not like, however what if it's something that really helps this class in areas that you have absolutely no idea at this point. How can you? It hasn't even happened! We can't keep thinking that what we have been doing is going to keep working. Lets look at this from another prospective. Cell Phone technology is advancing. 5G is out now, but I am sure there are still people that liked 2G on their phones. Well 2G gave us texting and look what that did for all of us. Now we no longer have to talk to anyone or know what their voice sounds like. 4G came along and gave us the ability to do live video over the internet while at a tractor pull. What has that done for the sport and your pulling machines. Its given everyone the ability to post videos right away of your pass from your phones. With 2G you couldn't do any of that. . Did we stop it or has anyone complained about that? What has 4G done for your pulling vehicle and career? 5G is out now. What will that do for this sport? Should we go back to 2G? No one knows what the future will be, the 4.1 class is the best tractor class out there and if you wait to make changes then what will keep going strong five years from now. Waiting to make changes to the Diesel Supers worked well for that class. Limits on the Super Farm class has done wonders for that class. Where is all the growth coming from in this sport? Classes that have and allow the most innovation to happen with the least amount of restrictions. Limits killed NASCAR! Want to kill this class? |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Bud
|
So. To get more variety in the class all the current pullers are supposed to suffer? It makes no sense. How do the Cases, Molines and agco stuff compete? They figure it out just like the rest of us did!! And they already are. There are White and Olivers in the class. The Cases have been competitive but now because they want components everyone else in the class is supposed to change?? I'm sure you will try to respond with the tired "Well you don't have to switch." argument. How did that work for the SS classes or the PS class. They all had to go component because as much as you can try to say there isn't, there is a definite advantage to having a component chassis.
All this talk about progression.. and any limits will hinder the class. Newsflash... this is LIMITED PROSTOCK!!! IT IS LITERALLY IN THE NAME OF THE CLASS!!! The current set of rules is exactly why the popularity of the class has exploded in popularity in the upper midwest. Contrary to what AAR said there are new machines in the class every year and a puller find a hook almost any day of the summer. There are lots of opinions from people not in the class saying that components in the class should be allowed. However, the actual pullers in the class, the ones who have actually spent money on machines have made their thoughts known. They overwhelmingly have said they DO NOT want components. But hey... what do I know. I only pull in the class. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
So Bud, should a limited class be allowed an aftermarket block? |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Bud
|
As far as the aftermarket block I don't care either way. Aftermarket blocks do nothing to make any more power than an OEM block. I know several competitors that have them and I can run right with them. It is their CHOICE to spend $20K on a block. If component chassis get passed everyone will have to switch or be passed up. Feel free to call me a liar on that but its the truth.
I absolutely can compare the 4.1 class to PS and SS classes. They are at the HP that those classes were at when they went component. But the difference is that now the parts that are being used are far better than back when that decision was made. Parts in a component chassis can still fail just like a non component chassis. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Dyno results have proven the aftermarket block to improve horsepower and reliability as block splitting is also now a concern in the 4.1 class. It also paved the way for harnessing future power gains which are inevitable. These future power gains are will again compromise the integrity of the Chassis. I would never call you a liar, just maybe a little naive or unwilling to visualize what the future has in store is all |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Bud
|
I will not argue an aftermarket blocks ability to hold more power. However saying a dyno can prove that an aftermarket block will make more power is simply not accurate. Horsepower is the product of fuel and air. Not cast iron. If an aftermarket block makes more power its because something else was done to make that motor get more air and burn more fuel.
But blocks are not what the issue is about. There is no consistent catastrophic breakage. Ag chassis machines are holding up just fine. And AGAIN the vast majority of the pullers in the class do not want this change at this time. Maybe someday, but not now. Leave it alone. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Apparently you don’t run a red tractor.
Yes I understand you want to protect your investment, however that doesn’t mean the investment was a good one and heaven forbid future competitors and several of your peers want to make a wise investment in their future. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Midwestern
|
Do you want to place bets on "blocks don't make power"? Recast blocks are solid with no water jackets. Sleeves stay round for better rings seal. Both D&r and Eburg have more cam bearings creating less camshaft deflection and increase valve control. Stronger cross bolted bottom end with 4 main studs which does cause the crank to turn more free as is stays in line. You say 4.1s are just to the point where components were legal in pros for hp. The first true component was 2004 when Don Masterson debuted the new Tinker Toy in Ft Wayne. That's was around the time frame of 4.6 turbos and 16mm cast sigmas. Intercoolers were scarce unless you were a Hypermax customer. Pros were barely making 2000 to 2200hp. |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Midwestern
|
You really can't compare to why all pros or dss are component today. Over 3k hp Will NOT work in a cast chassis. Most making 3800 to 4500 hp on pros and up to 5000 hp on super. You will destroy it in no time on a good track. Let alone trying to get a 13:1-14:1 gear in them. |
|
Stayed quiet, but components are needed
|
1979Buckeye
|
Here is a used rear end
[www.pulloff.com] $40,000 A new rear end from Engler will cost you $50,000 if not more now. Mr. Engler will tell you build a component. The component is a more durable piece. For those prices, I can have a far more durable piece out of a component chassis, for less money. It's going to break less often if at all depending on things like billet carriers and the like. Readily available parts is also an issue, with a component, most builders will have the parts ready to go, and there won't be time wasted on waiting on billet gears etc. So my question for all of you naysayers and those against it, why do you not want a more durable piece, one that isn't going to break axle housings, hubs, crack transmission housings etc? Why are you against durability? Durability=Safety Safety of the driver, fans, and track crew. If components don't provide a competitive advantage as some will say, why are you against it for those of you who use that line of thinking? If you don't feel your fellow competitor has an advantage over you if he has a component and you are confident in your abilities as a driver, why do you care? They are necessary, as I have stated in other posts, using cast that is 55-60 years old is stupid and the longer this draws out that cast will soon be 60-65 years old. For what? Some moral high ground that it's still a tractor. To do a cast rear-end right and have any hope at all of durability, you're going to spend more money than you would on a component. Cause that $50,000 for that rear end is just for the rear end and doesn't begin to include roll cage, frame rails, etc. So what happens if we go to new rear ends? I'm sure Wileman's can fill you in on how that works out. Have any of you made the trip to a local dealer to see how some of these new rear ends are designed? Plastic bell housings and things like that, or do you all stick to your purist high ground and refuse to recognize this is a motorsport? You don't see NASCAR using stock chassis, or NHRA, you don't see monster trucks perched on f-350 frame rails, etc. The vehicles would never survive and you'd see a lot more life threatening injuries to everyone involved at the event. I can't begin to wrap my head around not wanting durability. This is a motorsport and we have long ago passed the horsepower limitations of what 55-60 year old cast can withstand week in and week out. The limited pro's and light pro's are making more HP now than PS was when it went component. Kudos to OSTPA on being the first to allow them in and having the foresight to see the necessary change. I know guys who used to pull DSS and swtiched to light pro and are now making the same HP as they were when they were a SS. So restrict HP? Who is going to be the first to volunteer to knock their tractor back 500-750hp? Any volunteers? Anybody? Yes, men, it's rhetorical, we all know the answer. I hope the powers that be, that read this message board, WPI board members, Richwine, Mears, tech officials etc. Take a common sense approach guys. Allow them in. Quit with the BS of divisional comitttee this, agenda item that, and get it done. Don't tell me it can't be done, driveline tethers were never an agenda item. We all know guys aren't going to knock their power back. Instead of waiting for there to be blood before we allow something, how about being proactive (see also drive line tethers) Is it really going to take an axle housing breaking at 250' and a run away tire hitting someone before we say, DAMM, we knew there were more durable options, but for the sake of keeping the peace we didn't allow it, but now that someone has been hurt, seriously hurt, or god forbid killed, let's re-evaluate our approach. HP increases have surpassed the strength capabilities of the best engineered cast rear ends. |
|
Re: Stayed quiet, but components are needed
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Exactly! Very well put 1979buckeye. |
|
Re: Stayed quiet, but components are needed
|
Registered: 06/16/2017 Posts: 90 |
Here is just a honest question that I hope somebody could answer with facts and data: If components were legal in either 4.1 or Light Pro, why would somebody start with a ground-up build for either of those classes as apposed to a full blown Pro Stock? |
|
Answer MH49
|
1979Buckeye
|
Cheaper
Turbo for 4.1 or LPS $7-8,000 for PS over $15,000 Pump over $20,000for billet PS pump, again $7-9,000 for 4.1 or Light pro pump |
|
Re: Answer MH49
|
Richard Warren
|
No offense meant to you 1979Buckeye but the cost difference in pumps and chargers is pretty miniscule compared to the total cost of a new build. That's just my opinion. |
|
Re: Answer MH49
|
Registered: 06/16/2017 Posts: 90 |
Thank you for the hard numbers. What about maintenance wise between the three, is any one of them better (easier to maintain/more reliable) than the rest? I know all of them can break and break hard but is there one that you can just put fuel in and go or are they all about the same? |
|
Re: IF 4.1 goes Component
|
Registered: 10/30/2018 Posts: 749 |
If you are wanting to build a tractor just read your post and think about it real slow because if you do your mind should easily be made up and your destiny is plain and simple you are going straight to the pro stock class that already offers everything you just wished for how about a Amen That was for the 300 puller i just put it in the wrong spot SORRY Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2020 01:20PM by Lewis Conner. |
Website Statistics
Global: Topics: 38,598, Posts: 229,641, Members: 3,322.
This forum: Topics: 37,060, Posts: 225,873.
Global: Topics: 38,598, Posts: 229,641, Members: 3,322.
This forum: Topics: 37,060, Posts: 225,873.
Our newest member JD_8520
