05:42:32pm, Friday, April 19, 2024
|
Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground?
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
With all this talk of components vs. a cast Ag-rear-end chassis why is there no talk of a middle ground? We seem to be stuck on going to one extreme or another but is there a middle option?
Personally I think a middle option might be the best option for some classes. Why not make a rule that allows guys to eliminate the transmission housing and run a clutch can and an aftermarket transmission with a shielded driveshaft into a cast rear-end... as long as they run full length frame rails? The tractors would be built like a component tractor but would still maintain some of it’s tractor heritage and it would also minimize re-investment for many of the guys already in these classes (to me the re-investment being minimized is the key for guys that have already built for the class). The elimination of the transmission housing would free up weight, eliminate a great deal of machining (to fit transmissions in stock housings) and still allow for a tractor class to still remain a tractor rear-end. It would also make maintenance much, much quicker and easier. Could this be a logical step, especially for a classes like Light Limited Super or Light Pro? 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. |
|
Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground.
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
That's a good question also. But then again if that were allowed, where would the motor location be? In the stock location or 60" forward just like a component? Not arguing, just wondering.
I think there were some pullers that wanted to do that very same thing when components were started in the super stock classes and were told that would be an illegal component because the intention of the component was to get rid of all the cast iron. But I do understand what you are saying about the full length frame. |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground.
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
Clark,
Thanks for the question... personally I'd go with the 60" rule just like components run. That way it maintains a standard set of rules that are brand independent. 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: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground.
|
What’s the point?
|
I know you mentioned the LLSS class and Light Pro, but since the 4.1’s are such a hot topic, and as a puller in that class, absolutely not. I am not being mean when I say this, but that is a terrible idea. What is even the point in that?
If you are moving the motor you are still gonna be building a new frame. You are still going to be buying a clutch can. You are still most likely buying a profab transmission. You are still going to be putting a drive shaft in. You are still moving the motor from factory location. And all for what?? So you can keep a hollowed out 40 year old hunk of cast iron at the back of the tractor that still contains virtually no factory parts inside of it anyway? I am sorry, but I just don’t see the common sense here. And you say have a standard length on motor to front of tractor, but what about motor height? Does it still have to remain in factory height? What about tractors that can’t get the motor as low as others? 66 series IH rear ends certainly wouldn’t be able to get the motor as low as a BBJD. Internationals do now have the 88 series hybrid option that is being talked about, but now you are also buying a rear end, and spending the money to have that machined out, and putting billet parts in that, and dealing with all the headaches of making said cast rear end a suitable option for your new tractor. Congratulations, you have just built a new “half-breed” chassis, that is still harder to work on than a component, that has less gearing options than a component, that is still less durable than a component, that has less readily available parts then a component, cost more than a component, but is still just at the end of the day a component. BuT mUh CaSt IrOn ReAr EnD!! ThAt’S sTiLl A rEaL tRaCtOr!!! Please, when is the last time you saw an R series Deere with the same rear end as a 6030 come off a JD lot. Please, take me to the Case IH dealership and show me their new 2021 magnum with a DT466 motor option. These stopped being tractor a long time ago, these are high level performance vehicles. Let’s all just stop kidding around about keeping anything pure. If you believe components shouldn’t be allowed in a class for cost reasons, I understand and respect that opinion, and that is an option for all classes that don’t currently allow components. Half-Breed monstrosities that cost more with half as many benefits to a component are not the answer. |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground.
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
First, there are already some Ag chassis' out there with full length frame rails and it would be really easy for them to make this change with a very reasonable cost. In many instances there are chassis with partial length frame rails that could be extended for minimal cost. The frame rails would need to be full length but I don't think they would necessarily need to be one piece (If memory serves me the Lessons Learned tractor has billet aluminum frame rails that are in sections and simply bolt together. Many Ag chassis tractor could do the same. And as far as moving motor mounts... it isn't an insurmountable hurdle... it's pretty basic for many setups out there.
What's the point... to minimize costs and to remove weight, remove machining costs etc... everything I mentioned in my first post on this thread while still leaving some tractor in those tractor classes. It would also be a way for guys to gradually build to the new standard if they wanted to since they could still reuse a good majority of their current chassis if they wanted to. Could every chassis be reworked? Of course not but many (probably most) could make the change if they choose to. Is it perfect? No of course not. There's no perfect solution, it's a compromise... Even components are a compromise. I could argue; why make anyone run sheetmetal? Afterall it makes tractors harder to work on and it makes them weigh more... why not take off the hood and just run a chassis and block exposed to the fans? The reason is simple, it's a compromise that's necessary for certain classes to still have fan appeal (it's exactly why the NTPA made guys cover their frame rails. ALL classes make compromises for various reasons. This would be no different. It would be a compromise that addresses a majority of the complaints in some of the non-component classes. As for high level performance vehicles... sure they are, but the tractor classes with the greatest fan appeal (and the ones that are growing) also happen to be the classes that are more tractor-like with more tractor parts. 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: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground.
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Wilemans did that, components were immediately adopted |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground.
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
I vaguely remember that. How did that actually end up? What I remember of that is that was called a composite tractor? And then weren't composite tractors deemed illegal because the motor was farther ahead than a component or am I thinking of something else? Not trying to start anything, just asking because I don't remember all the details. |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground.
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Yeah there was something about the motor location also that they ended up having to fix. Can’t remember if it was to far forward or to low |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground.
|
In the know
|
Wilemans was built per spec of that series deere and the motor was at stock location for the 8000 series which was further forward than the 60’ rule. It was all approved by the higher ups and had paperwork to prove it but than they kicked butt and was told that components would be allowed and they must change there chassis to meet the new rules |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground.
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
Ok now that's what I remember and their tractor was not a component correct? |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground.
|
In the know
|
That is correct. And Mickey Shorter asked about running this tractor as a limited pro a couple years back and was told absolutely not but there are tractors now that are in the gray area built similar to this that are being allowed to run |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground.
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
The "grey" areas really need to be addressed. don't they. We have a lss(that is cast) here in Illinois that has his motor 2 inches farther forward than my component and I am ok with that because my competitor that is my friend built to the rules. Thanks in the know. |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground.
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
I completely agree, gray areas need to be addressed when they are found/exploited and the rule book needs to be clarified and those gray area need to be spelled out as legal or illegal. Also, the rules need to be evenly enforced and there should be no playing favorites or bending rules for certain teams. 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: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground.
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
If I remember correctly Wileman's built that version of the Diehard tractors with the stock wheel base (longer than 113 inches but still allowed because of the stock nature of it and the rule book at the time) and the stock engine location (further forward than 60" but also as per the rules of the time) but with a driveshaft instead of a transmission housing. They got approval to do all those tings because it was still in the stock locations. They were dominant that year (maybe it was the chassis, and maybe it was because they were just on top of their game) but the NTPA made them change the front axle location and the engine location, but I believe that everything else remained the same.
I believe that both former Diehard tractors continue to run the cast rear today. I believe that one of the Diehard tractors is back in Wileman's possession and still runs that rear-end setup and the other one is Mickey Shorter's Buckeater and last I knew it still ran the Deere rear-end. Yes, both those tractors are similar to what I'm proposing. The last Ag chssis version of Kwiatkowski's Wildthing also had a similar setup and I believe that when Chris Cain bought it he ran it like that for a while until the NTPA made him put the cast trans housing back in place. Ray Idle's alky SS may have also been similar in chassis setup. Again, it's not a new concept but it might be a reasonable compromise for some classes. 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: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground.
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
Good and civil discussion here. |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground?
|
JaKe566
|
Why not just handicap the component chassis with less weigh or less drawbar height? |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground?
|
1979Buckeye
|
The torque has to go somewhere. So even on a full frame chassis, the flex in that chassis is still going to stress the axle housings, which on 55-60 year old cast is still going to break. Most of us don't know the history of the rear end before it is turned into a pulling vehicle. What kind of stresses was it put under on the farm? If it came from a junk yard how many times has it been weathered? It's a safety and durability thing at this point.
Look, I've said it, this is a motorsport. Do you get upset that funny cars nitro or alcohol don't run on a mustang chassis? Do you get upset that monster trucks aren't perched on an F-350 chassis. Do you get upset that NASCAR isn't on a "Stock Car" chassis? There is a reason they are not, durability and safety. For the purists in our sport, because that's what I hear a lot, "its not a tractor anymore" Do you all feel the same about the TWD truck class. By the logic you are using all trucks should be using stock components of the make and model they are running. If you are running a Ford Ranger body, should be using a Ford Ranger rear and transmission. If you're running a t-bucket, well good luck to you. I don't know if the trucks in the class are Built Ford Tough or Like a Rock, probably neither because they are all running some variation of a Hemi, whether it be Miner or Veney etc. I still enjoy the class knowing that I'm not really watching a Ford Pick up. I know this is a motorsport and because of the extra stresses competition places on parts its asinine to expect a guy to use stock. How many axle housings, transmission housings, hubs, etc have to break? I have a couple friends that pull light pro, they used to pull DSS, they are making as much power now in a light pro as they were when they left the DSS class at the advent of the LgtPS class. These classes are making more HP now than the PS were when they were allowed component. KUDOS to OSTPA for having the fore-sight to allow them in the PS class, and guess what, it wasn't long the national orgs followed suit. Once one allows it, it will be a domino effect. It won't kill pulling either, it hasn't killed the PS class, it hasn't killed the LSS class, it hasn't killed any of the tractor classes when it was allowed in. Again, call Engler, have a conversation with a guy who has built these for years. To do a JD rear for one of these classes and make it a component rear end is going to cost you at minimum $50,0000.00. That's just for the rear, that's no chassis, roll cage, hitch, wheelie bars, front skid bars etc. That's the rear. I can build a complete component chassis cheaper and have a far more durable piece. There seems to be a hesitancy to accept what the sport has become. Jake, a guy who has been as anti-component as they come most of the time is at minimum seeking middle ground now. Today's HP is crazy, it's crazy what technology has accomplished in this sport, and while a lot of people may not like change, sometimes it's inevitable and just part of the natural progression. I can almost guarantee that the guys saying they aren't necessary are also the guys not seeing the breakage. Is that because they don't want to win, accepted what their budget allows, they don't want to run their equipment that hard, a combination of everything above? Could be, but this is competition and just because you don't want to run as hard as the next guy, doesn't mean you should be holding him back from having a more durable piece. I've long taken the stance that just because you have a tractor doesn't mean you have the right to win or even be competitive. If you really want to control the breakage you have to knock back the HP drastically, and I don't see anyone raising their hands to go back to 13mm P-pumps and 4.25x4.4 turbos (stock Holset) and OEM heads. Big difference between OEM and OEM type. I mean doing away with ALL aftermarket and re-cast heads, no Himes, no Hyper, no Lemke etc. Just stock heads. If you want to control the HP that's the conversation that needs to be had. If that conversation is not going to be had and the HP continues on the same trajectory, for durability and safety you have to allow the components. |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground?
|
Registered: 10/30/2018 Posts: 749 |
Buckeye Tractor pulling is nothing today compared to what it was before the component crap this is called Tractor pulling if Old man John dear would have wanted log skidder rear ends in his tractors he could have easily done just that .Theres only a few classes left in tractor pulling thats not a total Walmart m ail order imitation of a tractor Theft by deception bull crap for the fans who do want to se a tractor pull or the purist as some say You have a lot of good points Rules to keep horse power limited would be a WIN WIN for every body in every class. the money saved would put more competition on the track it shouldnt be a competition of who can out spend todays sleds can make any class look good |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground?
|
Registered: 03/19/2018 Posts: 662 |
No. Since the class was born in the early 80s, they didn't have to have that stuff and were encouraged to be wild. So that's what guys built for. Just like now. A whole bunch of guys built to a spec. Therefore...
Guys who wanna be or want to change don't have the right to tell the rest who already are there that they have to change. And don't even try to tell me "well, they don't HAVE to build a component..." BS. To use your own words, if you can't figure out how to make cast live, find something else to do. Don't force something on those who can. CP |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground?
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
While I appreciate your comical rewrite of history I'm going to respectfully disagree. This page has a pretty good search feature and you can use that... or you can click on my name and read ALL of my posts throughout the history of this page and you will quickly see how blatantly wrong that comment is. In fact, you can also go back and read some of my old opinion articles... you'll quickly see that I was constantly promoting the adoption of the component chassis in numerous classes. I was at the forefront of pushing the conversation to allow the component chassis in both the heavy SS classes and I was extremely vocal in promoting the adoption of the component chassis in the LSS class as well as in the Pro Stock class. I promoted the chassis in those classes back then and I still think they were the right choice for those classes. I'm still a fan of the component chassis. In fact I've helped build a few of them and design a couple as well and I think they are a far superior chassis for a number of different reasons (which I've stated repeatedly throughout the years). Does that mean they should be in EVERY class? No, some classes should have them some probably shouldn't (or at least not yet). Should they be allowed in a Farm Sock class? Hot Farm? Where do we draw the line? It's just like allowing alcohol... some classes should have it some shouldn't, but it's a far superior fuel for MOTORSPORTS. Should it be in ALL classes? As far as me "seeking middle ground now" regarding removing the transmission housing... I've proposed this idea multiple times in the past... read my opinion here from 2009. I don't mind if we disagree on whether all classes should allow a component chassis or even which specific classes should allow a component chassis, that's fine, we can disagree... what I don't like is a blatant rewrite of history. What I don't like is a mischaracterization of my current stance or of my previous stance. What I don't like is downright lying to try and promote your narrative. To say I'm anti-component is blatantly wrong, idiotic, and just ignorant. I'll chalk it up to maybe you weren't a page reader back when these conversations were taking place so maybe you didn't see all the vitriol that I got for my pro-component stance when there were few who agreed. Let's just disagree on where our line in the sand is for which classes we think should get components and which don't but let's not spread an idiotic false narrative. 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: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground?
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Jake you mentioned some classes should have them and some probably shouldn’t at least not yet. What would be your indicators that they should or what dictates when the right time is? |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground?
|
Moderator Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,347 |
Other pulloff.com thread I am not speaking for Jake, but in the link above from another thread, I laid out a method of determining exactly what you ask. |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground?
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
I saw yours, I want to hear Jake’s opinion on his comment. |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground?
|
Registered: 09/23/2008 Posts: 632 |
thats why you stay with the tractor rear , that is the limitation if you want more go to the class that allows more or spend the money on the ag chassis and pour it on. Everybody says what about innovation and all that, well you are pulling in a limited class so screw the innovations and the latest and greatest of anything and make these classes limited and if you want to be an innovator go to the classes that are designed for such |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground?
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
I do believe that's the same thing a lot of lss pullers said years ago including myself in the chat room if you remember. |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground?
|
To ol George
|
Then do not try and make ag chassis classes Champions Tour or Grand National Events. Have been there and done that years ago, so lets move on. Everybody wants a trophy, so since there is not a class to suit them they want to create another class. What not just start a new organization and call it Grand National or Champions Tour Antique Pullers Association. Although not many want to say it there are way to many classes to begin with, but that is a totally different subject. |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground?
|
Registered: 10/30/2018 Posts: 749 |
This is still called TRACTOR PULLING so the need for a few real tractor classes do need to be at those national events PS SS and those classes are nothing but a single engine modified |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground?
|
Hey Lewis
|
Go pull antiques Mr. Conner. They have plenty of BBJD G's |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground?
|
Two Cylinder Puller
|
You joke about pulling antiques to pull a "real tractor", but I know of some antiques that are flirting with being component, semi-component, whatever you want to call them. All this talk about hogging out castings, etc. goes on in the antique world too. |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground?
|
Now Lewis !!!
|
Do not get your uddies in a bunch now Lewis. |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground?
|
Registered: 10/30/2018 Posts: 749 |
No prob there i went to lawn mowers Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2020 08:21AM by Lewis Conner. |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground?
|
Another question too !!!
|
Lewis you might be the first component lawnmower puller, that'll be the next thing some of these guys will want !!! Just sayn --- they won't leave well enough alone in some of these other classes !!! |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground?
|
Registered: 10/30/2018 Posts: 749 |
Maybe we are working on the first alcohol turbo charged converted kubota diesel 70 cube engine to run with the nqs prostock diesels |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground?
|
In The Know
|
The removal of the clutch/transmission housing is not allowed, nor is a John Deere 6000 or 7000 series rear end (the engine is mounted independently of the cast) due to insurance reasons if your club is using US Pullers Insurance. They will not insure a AG class tractor that is not cast to cast to cast, but yet a Oliver or White can remove the tub and mount the motor at 60" length, but is not cast to cast to cast. About as clear as mud correct?! |
|
Re: Component vs. Cast rear-end middle ground?
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
Yeah, you have me scratching my head on that one. lol |
|
in the know
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
If you are a friend of mine on facebook, let me know there. It won't go any farther. |
Website Statistics
Global: Topics: 38,579, Posts: 229,610, Members: 3,320.
This forum: Topics: 37,058, Posts: 225,859.
Global: Topics: 38,579, Posts: 229,610, Members: 3,320.
This forum: Topics: 37,058, Posts: 225,859.
Our newest member Fechtner Racing
