01:24:35am, Thursday, April 18, 2024
|
Component Chassis
|
Curious
|
What are the pros and cons of allowing limited and light pro’s to build component chassis? I know originally the classes were set up for ag chassis but both classes have doubled in horse power since the . |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
1066
|
Here’s just my opinion on the pros and cons of component chassis.
Pros - They can hold more power and with the rate of advancement in a Tractor pulling right now the classes will become much more powerful And drive train will not be a worry. Cons- This actually goes along with my only pro which is that It would allow for much more horsepower growth which will make both of these classes even more expensive and take out many of the local builders who may not have as much power as some of the national running tractors. While this power may look good on the track, it will run people away from the class because many people will not have enough money to build and run one. Another con in my opinion is if they allow other engines from other brands in component chassis tractors such as in pro stock and super stock. This completely gets rid of brand loyalty because no one really knows what motor is in the tractor. Brand loyalty is one of the strongest part of tractor pulling and if we get rid of this in classes such as limited Pro in light Pro, I think our fan base will struggle. Another reason is that you’re not really pulling a tractor anymore you’re just pulling a modified with a tractor engine in it. For classes such as super stock and unlimited super stock i don’t have a problem because they should have very limited rules but in any other class I feel like it makes it a lot less tractor . In another thread I made I talked about how a Tractor pulling needs to be relatable and this is another way that you take down how relatable tractors are. Even though we all know pulling tractors Are far from fieldwork, people take pride in seeing that a 1066 or a 4020 can be cranked up horsepower wise and tractor pulled. Even though they look nothing like the tractors that many of these people used to drive, the brand loyalty and relatability to these tractors is what keeps fan coming to our pulls and is one of the most amazing part of a Tractor pulling. If the fans say that it’s nothing but a custom machine with tractor sheet metal they will no longer be able to relate to it and even though it is a show full of horsepower, they will not feel like they have a reason to cheer for one color or another. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
ten sixty six fannatic
|
It's interesting that you feel fans cheer harder (loyalty) for a cast rear lt pro like Mike Palmer's Red Avenger than they do for a 10 pro like Rob Russell's Work Horse. Reality is,...If a class is over 2000 HP it needs the option to be allowed component. When a driver death occurs in one of these "tractor" classes that restricts components,.....and the widow hires the right attorney,.... it's game over for those sanctioning associations. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
There was once a guy on this site who went by the user name "Where's the spec" and he'd post some interesting and thought provoking rebuttals and arguments. I'm going to speak for him for a second...so here goes... Conversely, what if a self-built component breaks and kills someone? Is the organization liable because it allows people to fabricate it themselves? There's no spec for the rear-end, the frame rails, the front-end... Where's the spec that makes them safer? Where is your proof?
(That's not how I feel about components, I think they are a great option for some classes... just presenting an opposing discussion point) My real question is why 2000 HP. Why is that some magic number? Why not 3000? Why not 4000? Why not 1000? Most of these ag chassis were designed for 100-250 HP so why not anything over 500 HP (it's double the engineering design criteria afterall)? What is your scientific rational for your number? Alternately can you explain the current non-component tractors that are well over the 2000 HP number (some probably close to double that) yet don't seem have breakage issues. There are still many out there that go down the track and don't have persistent issues. Just some food for thought... 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 Chassis
|
Fullpull310
|
Jake - The problem is it’s a different HP number for everyone. Primarily the international guys are having less issues so they don’t see a need for component. The off brands with JD included cost a $10-$30,000 MORE to get them as durable as a red one. At that point it’s more cost effective, safer, durable to build a component. Answering an earlier post I do agree paint/sheet metal should match the power plant. As HP increases you’re going to see less variety in these classes. The Massey’s, Allis Chalmers, New Holland’s, and Case’s cannot get the durability without spending $20-$50,000 on driveline parts. Some you have seen that are durable have made that purchase but most refuse to spend that much on a 40 year old chunk of cast iron or can’t because of weight issues or design flaws.
The “proof” is when I looked into making a rearend/transmission work for my “off brand” we were going to have to machine over 100 lbs of cast iron out of the housing to get a profab to fit (like internationals). Not to mention I was still going to lose 200 lbs of moveable weight which we can’t afford to lose. So now my only option is continue running an ag rearend that won’t hold up. Guess what happens when that rearend/transmission doesn’t hold up & disconnects? The motor goes to 6,000+ rpms, turbo speed goes in excess of 100,000 rpms and things fly apart. Now you’re left with junk, bent valves, stretched rod bolts, best case scenario and a rearend transmission housing full of junk parts that nobody has on the shelf. There isn’t an answer to make anyone happy but for the future of these classes something has to give to keep variety in the class. So there’s the pro’s now what are the cons? |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
I completely agree all with the statements you made, but I wasn't trying to talk about cost, weight, machining, brands, etc..... those are all excellent discussions.
My durability comment (not the cost associated with it) was was a just a quick comment with a simple rebuttal to the previous liability comment... it wasn't my main point. My main discussion point is more of a discussion of when... and I'm just trying to figure out what metrics we should use for allowing components in ANY class? Should it be horsepower? Should it be torque? When should they start to be considered an option? If there are no metrics, or no clear (or reasoned out) basis for the metrics (2000HP for example), should they be an option in EVERY class, including a stock class? How do we know when to allow them? 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 Chassis
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Jake, here is my metrics of when a chassis option would be right to be implemented: 1. Sustainability, when the economics show that a component chassis can be built cheaper than the ag chassis to equal or superior durability. 2. Safety, when power levels attainable by the rulesets in place or weight limits require excessive material removal for ballasting or aftermarket parts installation render older castings into a much weaker state. This also is a prime contributor to sustainability. 3. Potential power production, this is a little trickier but history is a good indicator of growth within a ruleset. Charting the power growth within a ruleset of established classes will show a general trend of yearly gains and can roadmap a class to see when these gains will tie together with the other criteria I mentioned above.
I don’t think it’s really that hard to establish where points of diminishing returns lie. I think the hardest part is that the investment in ag chassis’ has been so great to handle these increasing levels of power due to not having the option of a component chassis that it is a bitter pill to swallow for the option to suddenly come available. I get that, I really do, I’m a cast rear purist at heart. However at some point it seems to me that when you can have a chassis that is superior in strength, reliability and more economically sound there is no reason to not make it an option. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
What?
|
Ol George,
What happens when everyone in the class reaches the limitation of their rearend/transmission? Should they let the class die or make adjustments? Imagine if they took your Philosophy on all safety rules, well you rolled your tractor and could’ve died? Welp no roll cages just back your horsepower down or go run NHRA where they have roll cages! As your president would say “c’mon man!” |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
spec fannatic
|
2000 is used to cover Light prostock/4.1 limited prostock. Helen Keller could see that jake 
|
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Where's the spec
|
Thanks Jake. And components are a good thing as long as they are built correctly. But there is no spec on how to build one to this day. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Where's the spec
|
The "safer" component that IS a component.
[www.youtube.com] |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Brains
|
@ 1066 fanatic so you mean When someone dies from an ag chassis that is already just as “safe” as a component with all the rules Sfi an blankets an all? Lol get real there is no difference in what they are putting in a tranny or pro fab or rear all billet an nobody is breaking anything all the time it’s not an issue |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
The Law Offices of.......
|
Your experience with attorneys must be very limited,.............. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Registered: 03/19/2018 Posts: 662 |
Ok, I'll bite. What's the case history of component chassis vs ag? I'll broaden it for you. Tubeframe cars vs OEM frame cars?
I'll suggest that there is zero case history to differentiate them, only that the lawyers went after everyone and it'd be all the same guys in the end anyway and if that's the slippery slope argument we're going to use, then why do any of it? I'm so tired of the threat of being sued being a justification for everything. CP |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Once bitten twice shy.....
|
Tractor Pull Fails, Wild Rides, Wrecks, and fires!!! There's enough video history in those DVD's to keep any attorney's assistant busy for days,.............. Liability is a slippery slope............ |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Registered: 03/19/2018 Posts: 662 |
Watch away. Only incident I can think of to be shown with case-law attached to it will be the Walsh crash and that's a class where components have always been legal. Otherwise, it's just a tape of various wipe-outs with myriad mitigating circumstances. |
|
NASCAR/ Hypermax
|
Moderator Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,347 |
Is it correct that in Nascar, a Toyota has a Toyota block, Chevy has Chevy block, and Ford has Ford block?
Those blocks wouldn't be in a production model, but aren't they stamped with the manufacturer name on them? How should the rules treat the Hypermax/IH blocks? |
|
Re: NASCAR/ Hypermax
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,521 |
Or the sb deere that's been available for years |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
410 U.S. 113
|
Case law has to start somewhere. Who wants to go first? |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Why an international would cheer for a red tractor with a Deere motor I will never understand Work Horse is just a Deere in disguise. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Registered: 03/27/2008 Posts: 1,140 |
"people take pride in seeing that a 1066 or a 4020 can be cranked up horsepower wise "
One of the problems these days is, those tractors you've mentioned are basically "grandfather's machine". I remember the 966 on the neighbor farm (we had Fendt already back then) - and I am nearing my 50s. It's very tough to get anything "stock", that is not almost 25 years old competitive in any "stock" class. Transmissions way too big and the engines way too small. Component at least allow for somewhat newer engines to be used (without one of these monstrous modern Ag rears). Floating Finish - the German Tractor Pulling Web Show and EU Live Streams: [www.youtube.com] |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,521 |
I'm a die hard brand loyalist, I think the tractor class problem could have been avoided 40 years ago with a 540 cu.in limit across the board,we would have all brands represented in all classes.that being said I also see a area that can reduce cost,reduce maintenance and reduce breakage.at first I was 100 against component but I can accept it now.i do know when I take a average person to a pull with me that likes the tractor classes,that's what the conversation usually is about on the ride home,and the next few days.this is where the fan is lost,its in the misunderstanding of what they are watching,like they've been duped/tricked/fooled by the crossdressing.if the announcers became more educated about the vehicles mechanically,they could relay the info.the announcer is looked at by non educated people as being a credible source,then the fan finds out the truth and thier impression is changed forever.a very educated announcer that knows or has available a fact sheet in front of them could do a great service to fix this issue by making the facts known publicly before the hook,instead of having the fan be let down..all this could have been avoided if a 510-540 cu.in limit would have been implemented across the board in all classes. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Under_Pressure
|
Pretty much my feelings- while in principle I would like some classes to be based on factory tractors, the simple fact is that the choices are for a class to either allow components or be destined for a future as an antique class. Even if you throw fancy new bodywork on. This isn't to say that I support "any engine with any bodywork" rules, which is a different matter entirely and a terrible idea. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Under_Pressure
|
Another pro- you're not dependent upon a finite and shrinking supply of 30-60 year old factory castings to build new tractors and/or repair existing ones. Modern tractor chassis/drivetrains are often not suited for building pullers, so most non-components will always use classics. And I hate seeing good (or even not so good) classic iron cut up to make a puller. Yes, at this point many pullers in the classes we are talking about are rebuilt from older retired chassis, so were already taken out of circulation years ago, but not all of them. Plus that can't last forever. And it's particularly problematic for off brands.
Also, given that almost all stock chassis pullers are built off tractors from the 80s and earlier, how much more "stock" are they anyway when dressed up as a modern tractor? Is a 4010 chassis with 7R sheet metal closer to a "real" current production tractor than a tube frame and planetary rear? It's not always cut and dried. Didn't Wilemans have trouble years ago using more up to date factory castings and drivetrain layouts, and were banned from NTPA (which required factory rears in PS at the time) because it was too "component like?" As I recall this was a tractor that was more true (under the skin) to the then-current factory product it was supposed to represent than if that same sheet metal was thrown on an antique one piece cast rear, but yet the former was howled about while everyone would agree that the latter was just fine. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
xxx
|
Depends on whom, when and where the person is, the toes that have or will be stepped on and ect. not all protests are equal, in antiques bars were required to connect the rear end to engine side supports, - all well and good, however, only one I know of ever broke, but many non professional self taught welders, "GOOSE @#$%& WELDED ' their own weld on hubs with little or no knowledge and even less ability, - I have witnessed five break in one afternoon of pulling, no consistency in rules and tech or any sensible way to see inside welds, police policies or inspect all areas of concern.Most chassis just don'r implode or explode, but most units do travel at very high speeds with little to no impact barriers capable of stopping said runaway train weighing more than 50k ,going 20- 30 plus mph.over the sand pile and into the woods like a Case last summer, will happen at indoor pulls too. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Moderator Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 1,445 |
My biggest concern is with the part of the rules that allows any motor with any engine which is part of the component chassis rules. One of the worst rule in all of tractor pulling. The leadship of pulling has no vision, no idea what fans want to see. Fans do not want to see crossdresser tractors. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Registered: 02/19/2009 Posts: 526 |
Dick , what happens when the same company makes the same tractor and you can get it in Red or Blue . This is CaseIH farmall 65C and New Holland's T4 same tractor. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Moderator Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,347 |
If it's the same engine, then what's the difference? I see this as the same thing as a Moline G1355, Oliver 2255, and Cockshutt 2255. Same girl wearing different dress. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Michael a G1355 sports a big 6 cylinder. The other 2 sport v8 cats |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Moderator Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,347 |
Excuse me.... Oliver and Cockshutt 2270, not 2255. Thanks for the correction. Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2021 06:43AM by The Original Michael. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Test 4 Dick
|
Can you name all the cross dressers in the 10-pro class/SSD/SSO ? Is it more than 10% of all current running tractors?? |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Under_Pressure
|
No argument from me there. The sheet metal should match the engine at least to the degree it traditionally has. I honestly don't get why that would ever be in question- it's not like we don't have precedent in how to handle it. Sheet metal has been updated for years- what was originally a 766 became a 7130 and then a MX210, etc. In my understanding, traditionally you could go anywhere down the family tree but not up. So a 66 series IH can become a CaseIH, and so could a 70 series Case (not sure if that was ever actually done), but you can't put 1070 sheetmetal on a 966. Olivers and Molines could become Whites if you wanted, but you couldn't put Moline sheet metal on an Oliver. And in no case ever could you put sheet metal on an engine or transmission housing to which it had no connection- like IH tin on a JD power train. It should be no difference with components- it's just there is no rear end casting (traditionally the primary thing that defined a tractor's heritage), so you only worry about the engine, but apply the same criteria. A tractor with Challenger tin, for example, would have a claim to use any engine historically found in any Agco/White/Oliver/Moline/etc. tractor, but there would be no justification for using a JD engine. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
Dick, I gave you a thumbs up because I totally understand your point. Now with that said crossdressing has been going on a long time in PULLING. And I just don't mean TRACTOR pulling. I mean ALL of pulling. Back in the early 80's 4wd trucks did it. I will never forget Barnhardts from Mo. had 2 Dodge's that were powered by Chevrolet motors. They would pull them out the gate and our announcer at that time(Tom Menn rip)would ask the crowd " hey Dodge fan's how do you like that?" Dodge fans roared YEAH. After the YEAH then Tom would say "let me tell you something about that Dodge. It has a Chevrolet motor in it." And the fans still roared after hearing that. So my question is does it really make any difference to the fans? I know it makes a difference to you and I. And I am a cross dresser now because I have a component chassis and IH never came with a truck rear end. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Loyal fan
|
I’m just a fan and I can name most of them, Work Horse, Xtra Butter, True Grit, Young Blood, Ruttin Deere,Cotton Pickin Deere (I think), Maybe Fully Loaded? I’m sure there are a bunch more but those come to mind, but Dick is right fans (or atleast me) don’t care for the cross dressing idea. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Fan2
|
I'll speak for myself as a fan. I could care less what motor is under the hood in PS! I'm there to see a good show and that class puts on a good one! |
|
Re: do fans actually know
|
Registered: 08/22/2019 Posts: 84 |
I for one like to see the sheet metal match the block. Just my opinion. But we talk about the fans not caring. Is the reason they don't care because they just don't know. How many times does an announcer actually talk about what's under the hood. If every time a red prostock hit the track and they announce it was powered by a Deere, the red fans would care. I have been to pulls where announcers talk about what guys are running. I love it. I like to know. Just my 2 cents. |
|
Re: do fans actually know
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
To the fans that don't care what's under the hood: if mixing and matching doesn't bother you, then making them match shouldn't bother you either. Heck crate motors shouldn't bother you either since you don't care what's under the hood. At the other end of the spectrum you have people who do care. Mixing and matching bothers them. Many/Most fans at a pull are wearing some type of brand loyal apparel which indicate to me that many do care.
Allowing mixing and matching is a net loss of fan involvement. Brand loyal fans may walk away whilst those who don't care will stay no matter what the block rules. The only way mixing and matching makes sense is if more fans want to see a BBJD powered IH's. Is that something loyal fans are getting excited about? 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: do fans actually know
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Jake, what about a BBJD under a moline hood? A moline doesn’t exist in PS without any sheet metal rules. What if someone skinned one as a Ford with an IH power plant or a BBJD? Only way you’ll ever see one at that level. I’m sure your cap wearing brand loyalists would at least like to see their brand represented in at least some form |
|
Re: do fans actually know
|
Registered: 09/25/2018 Posts: 78 |
Jake,
I like to think of the cross dressing thing like this...I have been to a lot of tractor pulls featuring pro stocks and super stocks. We make a bunch of parts for both classes. Some of these vehicles are brand loyal and some are "cross dressers". And I have heard lots of people in the stands and on here talk about how they don't like the cross dressing rule. But when one of those cross dressers are backing up to the sled or going down the track I have never seen a purist get up and leave. Most stay and watch the power of these beasts and usually have a smile from ear to ear. They may grumble in between hooks about a BBJD in an IH or whatever but they never leave until these classes are done. The cross dressing rule is not hard to explain to a casual fan or even a new fan. If we as the "die hards" make it complicated in our explanations of this rule, or any other for that matter, then it becomes complicated to those we are trying to inform. Do I wish we could get 680 out of the off color brands...absolutely. But it is what it is. I know I have gotten off the OP here talking about cross dressing but I think the same applies to the component vs cast rear debate. Casual fans don't necessarily care unless we as the "explainers" project our thoughts onto them (man I sound way too political here but it's true). Our tone sets the tone for their opinion. Pulling needs new fans and we as the "informed" need to remain unbiased in our explanations to new fans. Doesn't mean you can't have an opinion at all. But I think we as current fans have the power to make or break new fans whether we realize it or not. There needs to be pure ag chassis classes and the rules for those classes need to make sure that the ag rears can hold. When it becomes a potential safety issue is when it needs to be addressed. And by "potential safety issue" I mean BEFORE it becomes an issue. The 4.1's and Light Pros are at that point in my opinion. I'm not saying it has to happen, but the conversation needs to start so we don't run into problems later. And if components are not allowed for those classes then let's look at how we put the rules in place to prevent safety or the lack there of becoming an issue. As far as a cost perspective, I really think that's secondary here. Pulling costs are high. But all forms of motorsports are. It's all relative to the size of the vehicle. Think kart racing vs. tractor pulling. I could get into kart racing for a significantly less total amount of money but to be competitive I am going to be laying out money with either one. If someone is on the fence about building either an ag chassis vs component they are going to be spending money because they are going to be building a higher horsepower vehicle of some sort. Is there a ton of time that goes into making a pro fab and truck rear end fit in an ag housing?....absolutely. Not cheap either. Is a component "easier" to build?....maybe. Not exactly "cheap" either. But both will require a significant "investment" (totally not the right word to use in any pulling application lol). As far as where to set a "limit" to allow components, it needs to be a class by class discussion. There are too many factors to just say 2000hp or whatever is the cut off. Pulling class weight, torque, how much cast is being cut away to make a pro fab fit, etc...must all be taken into consideration. That in turn demands that it be a class by class discussion so that we as a pulling community can avoid a failure of a cast tractor that will most assuredly hurt us all no matter what class we pull in. Paul Romack |
|
Re: do fans actually know
|
Registered: 07/30/2018 Posts: 29 |
Jake, does a chunk of cast (block) make it an engine? The block seems to me to like a shell enclosing the engine. Just one part. The fans that realize tractors (like mine) do not use the block that matches the sheet metal (I mean carbon fiber) are the same fans that realize that a block does not make it a deere or an IH. ONE part from the entire list of parts in a stock tractor. We use almost NOTHING from a stock tractor. With this rationale I should go to my local dealership and buy a stock steering wheel so people will think I am a true blood stock tractor.
I have no problem understanding that some people will not want to watch us "cross dressers" go down the track. That is perfectly fine. I chose to do this for lots of reasons. Most of all cause my dad farms with my "brand" and I had to use a block that could compete. My other option is to do a recast block BUT this does not make it a deere or ih or whatever either. We are all entitled to our opinions. This is mine and I will continue to enjoy my tractor as it is. Good luck to all this summer and take care. Go blue! Ha. |
|
Re: do fans actually know
|
IH 5488
|
First off in addition to being a fan I am a farmer. I still farm with a lot of old-school international tractors. So when I hear of an international that is cross dressing with a John Deere block such as Rob Russell who ran nothing but internationals for 20+ years. The first thing I think about him is that he’s kind of a sellout. Either he didn’t want to spend the money to make the red one run or he didn’t think he could. Either way he kind of threw up the White flag and took the easy way out. He lost the fan in me and I’m sure he doesn’t care. I have a lot more respect for somebody that is stubborn and is bound and determined he is going to make something compete such as the Cains, the Parrish’s, the Hunts, or Dennis and Rodney Schnicker. I think all of those guys good or bad will sync with the ship if they truly can’t make a red one run. But when you look at the results the last couple years while there aren’t near as many internationals as John Deeres they are very competitive. Now yes most of my argument centers around putting a John Deere motor in an international but really I have the same opinion in super stock of guys that are putting international motors in John Deere’s just don’t like it. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Young blood is a recast 40 series detroit. That has been a legal replacement block for the AC 426 for some time now. So that one is not "cross dressing". |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
In The Know
|
Young Blood has Rob Russell's old Workhorse IH motor in it. It's a D&R IH motor. IH & the 40 series engine share similarities, but it is a IH motor in Young Blood. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Registered: 09/23/2008 Posts: 632 |
these are limited classes if you are making more than the rear can handle back it down or go pull in the class that doesn't have this limit, instead we seem to have a bunch of people that can't understand the concept of "limited". I love to watch them all but if you want to pull in a limited class then don't complain when you reach the limit. If you desire more and can afford more there are classes that will take all you can feed them. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Young George
|
Ol George,
What happens when everyone in the class reaches the limitation of their rearend/transmission? Should they let the class die or make adjustments? Imagine if they took your Philosophy on all safety rules, well you rolled your tractor and could’ve died? Welp no roll cages just back your horsepower down or go run NHRA where they have roll cages! As your president would say “c’mon man!” |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
plum krazy
|
there is no one or the other, -somewhere in between is common sense, -but who knows anything about that anymore.if the hp is that high now, it is not the class it started out as.go to the next up class where components are allowed |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Moderator Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 1,445 |
I remember when Carlton Cope won the Pro Stock finals in 2013. I'm not sure if I have seen the fans more excited. They all knew it was a Massey sheet metal and engine combination. I think that if it had of been a MM will a BBJD there never would have been that level of excitement. Pulling fans are not stupid, the vast majority of them know what under the hood. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
spectating fan
|
"Pulling fans are not stupid, the vast majority of them know what under the hood." Where is your proof to back up that statement? I really do not believe it. But I have no proof, as I have never conducted a bona fide, significant survey. And have no intention to. Just look at all the people in the stands, especially at any major pull. Look them over and ask yourself, "I wonder how many of them are just an ocassional spectator, just to see something different and have fun?" Likely with family / friends. "And do most of them even care if sheet metal does not match engine brand?" They see the sheetmetal and 'yeah, I like the looks of it and will cheer it on'. And talking about that, many pulling trucks, be it alky or diesel power, are not specific brand matches in both regards. But does that really hamper spectator enthusiasm? As far as component chassis, lots of good points in this thread. But I keep thinking that the proponents that want to drop class weights (which is currently a different thread), especially on the ag chassis, will only make those tractors more unsafe and in time diminish quantities of class participants. Which is a double undesirable. And besides, why do we have to have literally every class, regardless of weight and horsepower, streaking down a 300' track at 27 to 33 mph? And hammering them to a stop at the last moment? That is not pulling. It is a momentum race accentuated by cubic dollars. Someday, a sled will have a major malfuction, as it climatically tries to hammer a vehicle to a stop and the results will likely not be pretty. At the moment and the after effects. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
plum krazy
|
I think XXX addressed that very issue above |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Spectating fan 2
|
I am a fairly avid tractor pulling fan and have a good understanding of the mechanics of tractors in all classes and travel to pulls with many people that are in the same boat as me, and I’m here to tell you yes we understand what’s under the hood and yes we think it’s silly to put a green motor underneath red sheet metal, I’m a red fan through and through but when Rob Russel got his Deere powered Case IH into the lead I was hoping a John Deere would blow right past him , atleast then it would be a matching combination, I was a Work Horse fan , not as much anymore. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,521 |
I'd say why we get bent out of shape was that for 40 plus years the brand engine and trans rear had to match in ss-ps, then overnight it didnt,that's just not how it should be.
When the mods,4x4,2wd,mini,semi classes were started it was any combo is allowed ,from day one.and still continues today. Theres a reason why the 80s are considered the best of times,thetes a reason why the growing classes resemble tractors of those days too..most will disagree with me,but I'd much rather watch 30 llss than 20 pros. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Registered: 09/23/2008 Posts: 632 |
no where did i imply anything about a safety rule but no one is saying anything about that just more power ; there are answers for more power go to the next class, its not difficult, definitely expensive but it is the immediate solution. REMEMBER these are limited classes keep them that way. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Young George
|
Ol George,
Safety is one of the 2 reasons components are being proposed. Can I ask why you don’t want component? If they’re safer, more reliable, and going to be less expensive over the long run then why not? Seems so cut and dry. Limited class is a poor argument. These competitors have already exceeded the “limits” of their rear ends and transmissions. They follow the rules and now find themselves breaking driveline parts more regularly. So what’s your answer to those competitors? |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
I don't think Ol George is saying that he doesn't want components. I think what he is saying is that if the limited classes are breaking parts in the class that they are in then they are making too much hp so they should go to the next class that allows components or back down the hp in the class that is limited to stay in that class that doesn't allow them. Next class would probably be super stock. Now that's just my opinion and I am not saying everyone should agree with it. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Registered: 09/23/2008 Posts: 632 |
Thanks Clark couldn't have put it any better or clearer, i am fine with components but there is an old saying stay in your lane, my lane is if you want to pull limited there has to be a limitation. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
F-30puller
|
Couldn't agree more. Seen that a time or 2. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
Lenny, yes I know you have. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
Ol George, n/p buddy. It's how I see it and I know you do also. We talked about this years ago in the "chat room" . LOL 
Also George, never argue with stupid people because they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
With profab trannies, billet diffs and full frames what is left to break? FYI - 540 A and P pumps are now over 3000HP and some are now running over 7000rpm. I know of one over 8. |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Fullpull310
|
There’s nothing else left to break in an international. For what it cost to do that and any other brand components are a much better option. When is the last time you priced one in a different brand? Read earlier posts. |
|
Quut crying about components
|
Pull fan
|
This component chassis justification because of cost analysis is hog wash!! This is no different than the green ones having an advantage in the prostock division with the 680 ci rule. How I see it is if one wants to pull anything other than a deere in the prostocks then dig deep to be able to do so. Likewise if you want to compete with the red ones in non component classes, then do the same and dig deep to do so. I agree with Jake, accidents happen regardless of components or ag chassis. Quit crying like little children trying to get your way about the component saga. Either step up and pull in a component class or be happy to pull where you feel comfortable. Its not rocket science. Pulling is already out of hand with costs in most classes. Why add fuel to the fire. |
|
Re: Quut crying about components
|
?
|
Thats the BEST analysis that ive read on here in forever, PULL FAN your exactly right, i couldn't have said it any better and ive tried to think of a good intelligent answer but you did that for me. |
|
Re: Quut crying about components
|
1466
|
Pull Fan - I just have to say that I didn't think of it that way but you are SO right. The JD guys are always complaining about the rear ends and how much it takes to build them strong but then if the IH guys complain about the 680 ci rule, all they say back to us is that we should put a BBJD motor in it. (no real red puller should ever do this)
Why cant we just understand that there are disadvantages and advantages to using different brands.If your gonna make rules to fit you in the pro stock then the IH guys should be able to keep the rules in a way that helps us in the other tractors. If you care so much about spending the money on the rear end then you can always pull an IH or go up to a class like pro or super but LEAVE OUR CLASSES ALONE There are advantages in tractor pulling and if an IH tractor is built better from the factory then it will and should have an advantage on the pulling track |
|
Re: Quut crying about components
|
billee,
|
Right on, if I choose to run an 8 hp Briggs in a pro stock chassis, just maybe I choose wrong, don't expect the rules to be changed for me. |
|
Re: Quut crying about components
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
The last few comments made here at the end of this thread are proof of the tunnel vision that will likely forever throttle the growth of the sport. I’m not sure if you are aware of it or not but tractor pulling is a product which must be sold to a fan base in order to survive. If you have only one variant in a class it promotes boring repetition and creates a harder sell to a fan. It doesn’t matter whether it component or Ag, green or red. You guys can ride your screw everyone else attitude of IH or Deere is the best and everyone can either outspend me on their color or join me with mine in my class right into extinction or possibly you could think about what might be best for the overall future of your class and your sport in general. That may mean a chassis change, a cubic inch change or some other type of power changing rule. The course it’s on right now is not a healthy one, if you don’t believe me pick a couple of your top growing classes in your area and see how much it cost to be a contender in the beginning of class and what it costs now. Ask yourself why new classes keep being brought up and why they keep appearing maybe that’ll give you some insight into why we are where we are Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2021 05:54AM by AAR. |
|
Re: Quut crying about components
|
Registered: 10/30/2018 Posts: 749 |
The fan base for tractor pulling when pulling was on the rise was brought t on by the rural farming communities and was all about bleeding Red Green Orange And Yellow NOW its not bleeding crap also during that period in time the County FAIRS was the only thing people had the big crouds are gone kids would rather play on an I phone than watch A TRACTOR PULL everyone pulling bleeds some color |
|
Re: Quut crying about components
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,521 |
I know this sounds dumb,I would like the component chassis slot more if the appearance wasnt so much like a mod from the rear.the physical appearance of the component rear just looks like a modified to me and that's not appealing in my view.i know I would be have a positive view if the tractor had more of a tractor appearance than they do |
|
Re: Quut crying about components
|
2019 PS Title fannatic
|
What advantage do you think the green ones have at 680? The only advantage I see,......is in the number of green hoods,...not horsepower.
|
|
Re: Quut crying about components
|
1466
|
Well first of all the green one have a much bigger bore and bigger valves for better head flow. In classes much over 2000 hp you are gonna want closer to a square motor (like the BBJD) vs a heavy stroke motor like a IH466. I'm not saying you can't make an IH run but it would be more expensive which is conveniently similar to the way a JD rear end works - you have to spend a little more money but you can make it run. I by no means am saying that the prostock rule needs to be changed but it is hypocritical for JD guys to want to change the rules because they don't want to spend the money to keep up with the red guys when the true red guys( not the crossdressing transgender tractors with different sheet metal than block brand) have been working to catch up with the JD guys in pro stock for many years. Majority of the red guys just work harder and innovate when they are behind and clearly the JD guys are not willing to do that when it comes to rear ends. I know I didnt make this comment but this is just my opinion. |
|
Re: Quut crying about components
|
Suggestion
|
I personally don't think that components need to be allowed but I also understand some people feel differently.
What if you made the components weight less? Maybe for light pro the ag rear guys weight 8500 and the components can weight 8200 ? Limited pro ag rear guys weigh 9500 and the component tractors weight 9200? I think that we should encourage guys to stick with the ag rear to keep it a tractor class and not just a mod class but at the same time it may allow for some of the off brand guys to have a chance. Also, just like 1466 said I don't think we need to allow the "transgender" and "crossdressers" 
|
|
Re: Quut crying about components
|
Lp puller
|
Pretty simple to solve this. If u want to run components go run pro stock or super stock. if you want to run a green motor under a red hood they have classes for that. Pro stock super stock leave the limited pros alone if u don’t have a dog in the fight don’t force guys to spend more money because ur going to end up forcing limited pros guys to drop down to super farm hot farm and I assure u that’s not going to end well |
|
Re: Quut crying about components
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Lol they already are and for your information there are plenty in those classes who have all the best of the best stuff any other ag chassis class has. Go ahead and drop to one of them if you like and see how it works out for you. They’ve put in the time and spent the money, you’ll just be another competitor in the class |
|
Re: Quut crying about components
|
Lp puller
|
Aar and for ur information I started there many many years ago and have build and ran every class on my way up so just to fill u in I’m fully aware of who what and how to do it so “just another competitor” and “they have put in the time and spent the money” been there ...... done that....... |
|
Re: Quut crying about components
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Well then you should have learned enough to know better than to make a statement of how things will end knowing full well that it won’t change any endings |
|
Re: Quut crying about components
|
Lp puller
|
Exactly my point your pricing out the class till u end up with a second pro stock class and the guys that are struggling to buy new 10,000 dollar turbos and pumps every year to keep up are going to jump ship same things have happened to every class sense the beginning of the sport you have to have an equiizer if you open this door and allow or force components you can’t put that genie back in the bottle |
|
Re: Quut crying about components
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Well that’s just it, the genie should have never been bottled. The chassis option should have been available for the 4.1’s from the beginning and for absolute certainty the light pro should have never been allowed to start without it. Currently there is no choice but to spend money on strength and or weight reduction to handle the power output of these classes that the component chassis would more economically and safely handle. Also by your logic prostock should still be a cast rear class. However another equalizer as you call it is reducing the ability to produce power, wouldn’t require a chassis change and maybe put an end to some of those 10k turbo upgrades you mentioned. |
|
Re: Quut crying about components
|
Lp
|
Not sure if you build components or what ur specialty is don’t really care and got better things to do then argue. Bottom line spend ur money not mine chief |
|
Re: Quut crying about components
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
My specialty is Ag rears. 4.1, light pro and all the way down to farmstock.
|
|
Re: Quut crying about components
|
Puller&fan
|
Many have dug deep, we all have, on certain brands it can’t be done. No amount of money can fix that It’s too heavy. It’s not always just about the money, we all have $100k+ machines. 20-30k isnt the end of the world if it works BUT it doesn’t. There are some John Deere guys that have “dug deep” now they don’t have enough moveable weight to be competitive. How do you fix that? Some other brands it simply can’t be done. Machine more cast off the housing is the only way . Something has to give, if you want to compare us to pro stocks then please remember there was a time that components weren’t allowed there either. These classes have added 1,000 plus HP since the inception. How is that sustainable? Eventually everyone will have these problems. Then all of a sudden “1466” will feel differently. Look at the last few years how many rear end and transmissions have been wrecked, it’s idiotic to not address this problem before more tractors are parked. |
|
Component cons?
|
Originalposter
|
We can argue if we want it or don’t. I’ve seen some good pros not many cons? What are the cons? And I agree no mismatched sheet metal and motors! I can’t think of a good reason not to allow them? |
|
Re: Component cons?
|
Bud
|
How about one giant one.......COST...... Both the 4.1 and light pro classes already have great numbers, lots of hooks and not any more breakage than any other class. Going component would force the class to either spend a bunch of money on a new chassis when they already have one. Or spend money to go to a different class because the decision forced them out.
And before anyone can say "well nobody is making you build a component chassis." How well did that work for the PS or SS classes? They are all component. |
|
Re: Component cons?
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
I was just getting ready to say that same thing but I will also add TIME. I have a component now. It is USED. Yes it cost us money but it didn't cost us a lot of TIME. Go build one of these on your own and see how much TIME is invested. Or have one built NEW and see how much MONEY that is! Now with that said, I am just a lss state puller. I love the simplicity of our component though it has not been down the track yet. But I will NOT tell a limited class what I think THEY should do since I don't pull in it. That should be left up to the class competitors. LEAVE THEM ALONE! There's more I could say but I won't. |
|
Re: Component cons?
|
?
|
Clark, without sayn what you exactly gave, how much of a saving was there between a new one and a used one, also why did you go component to be more competitive or was you breaking the ag chassis. |
|
Re: Component cons?
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
About $30k between the 2. And I went component because no matter what I did to the ag chassis with all the GOOD parts inside of it. Yes I was breaking it. And I wasn't making that much hp. Just ask any one, they'll tell ya. When I broke it at Rantoul, I decided I was done with it .Now why don't you e-mail me? Supertiquer@gmail.com Also I have been up close and personal to a component that broke. Just because it's a component does NOT mean a component won't break. |
|
Re: Component cons?
|
Pull fan
|
2019 ps title fanatic, "What advantage do you think the green ones have at 680? The only advantage I see,......is in the number of green hoods,...not horsepower. " I didn't say the green gang had a hp advantage. You totally missed the analogy. The advantage they have is durability. To gain 10 cubic inches per hole in the 619 takes no way near the material removal from the block as say for example an IH 466 cubic inch block which would have to gain over 35 inches per hole. That being said the thinner block is bound to be less durable. Thats what I was saying. To add to this why stop at components? If the green gang wants components in the lighter classes why not allow billet blocks in the IHs in the prostock division? Again, I like to watch the PSs run because they are very impressive, however due to the predominantly green field of competition I do not care to watch unless there's a Massey or IH or other true to color tractor in there. Don't get me wrong, I believe in making necessary changes as required especially for safety reasons, however thus is more of a weight issue than a safety issue in my opinion. |
|
Re: Component cons?
|
Registered: 05/24/2013 Posts: 380 |
Pull fan the red pro’s all run aftermarket blocks |
|
Re: Component cons?
|
New Generation
|
This is why pulling will never grow. The same people that want a green motor in a green hooded pro stock will go cheer on John force in a Hemi powered mustang! Do you know how easy it would be to get into pulling if you could run a component chassis? Go buy a used chassis from a pro stock and drop your motor in for a super farm/ lim pro/ lite pro/ hot farm/ pro farm. Some chassis would even work in a lss or llss. It’s hard for a young person to go find a tractor that wasn’t ever produced while they’ve been alive, spend 10-15k to get it ready to hold the hp needed THEN start on the 100k power plant...I know a lot of people on this board have pulled for 30 plus years...and that’s part of the problem, pulling is going to have to change some to stay alive! |
|
Re: Component cons?
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
With that "PHILOSOPHY", I guess I should just quit. Then everyone can be with out 1 more tractor. And I don't HAVE to sell mine. |
|
Re: Component cons?
|
New Generation
|
Who quit now you’ve just updated your chassis...if ag rears
Are so good why didn’t you spend the money on another 560? Starting from the ground up it’s no more expensive to go component vs ag, And good used chassis only make it cheaper and easier to get. |
|
Re: Component cons?
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
Because I've been at it too long(30 plus years) and you said yourself that was part of the problem. |
|
Re: Component cons?
|
Fannatic of fannatic
|
Correct,......and the HD Specialities block after machine work weighs close to what the OEM 619 does.  It's odd that if Pull fan is correct in his "analogy" that the 619 is more durable,..........then why are they coming out with an aftermarket version?
|
|
Re: Component cons?
|
Registered: 09/25/2018 Posts: 78 |
So a couple of items to add here....
@New Generation...I think you are correct in your assessment that pulling needs to make some changes. Pulling HAS to make some changes or we are in trouble. I am not sure we are attracting many new fans outside of casual fans in the diesel truck class. In my opinion, those truck classes have the potential for the best growth because anyone can go down to the dealership and buy a truck and buy the bolt on upgrades and go pulling. Can't do that with any tractor classes that I can think of. The organizations seem to be rooted in the past concerning rules but they are also limited on what rules/technology they can adopt due to today's tractors being so different tech wise than those on the pulling track. I'm not sure where the compromise lies but pulling in general needs to start looking at rule progression to breathe some new life into the sport. We can't have a bunch of NASCAR cookie cutter cars on the track but let's try to progress the sport a little here. How we do that....That's a whole other discussion but as a whole we need to make some changes to try and grow the sport. It should be about putting fans in the stands so that we can start putting some better purse money up so the pullers can get some better payouts. From a business model standpoint, pullers are getting the shaft pretty hard in all of this. And you are dead on right about watching John Force in a HEMI powered Mustang. I along with many others would stay for that show. But there is a segment of the fanbase that is brand loyal. We can't forget about that. But as I've said before I have been to alot of pulls and I have not seen any brand loyal fans leave when a red or green crossdresser goes down the track. That's just how it is. People grumble occasionally but most stay for the show. That's just what I have observed. @Supertiquer...From my humble opinion, you made the right choice going component and I for one and looking very much forward to seeing how it does for you. It was time. I think your going to love it. Pulling needs veterans like you just as much as new fans and maybe even more. Some on here may not know but Clark has someone pulling with him that is fairly new to the sport and Clark has done his part to try and bring in new blood to the sport (even though you put a diesel guy on an alky tractor hahaha). As far as component vs ag rear, it's pretty simple. Timewise it's no comparison. If your building for a bigger horsepower class and starting from nothing, components are faster to build than hogging out a bunch of cast. I have a machine shop and have done some of this work so I have a reference point here. Now notice I said, ..."if your building for a bigger horsepower class". I consider Lt Pro, Limited Pro and up "bigger hp classes." Components have a higher material cost but can be done quicker whereas an ag rear has a lower material cost but take longer to build (keep in mind I am speaking about the aforementioned bigger hp classes). So cost is "pretty much" a wash as far as that goes. Ag vs. component is and should be about safety and structural integrity before anything else. We have seen driveline failures in some ag rear tractors but by in large there have not been any failures with injuries. Pulling is not about IF something will break, it's WHEN. Applies from the smallest garden tractors to the biggest pro stocks. But with the amount of horsepower the ag rear Limited and Light Pro tractors are making, components and or additional rules to "limit" these classes (that word is in there class names already) BEFORE one of these failures occurs needs to be talked about now. It is imperative that the sanctioning bodies act WITH THE INPUT OF THE CLASS COMPETITORS before this becomes an issue. All of us armchair quarterbacks (I work on them but don't drive them) have a opinion but really the class competitors need to be driving this in conjunction with the sanctioning bodies. Afterall, they are the ones in the seats sitting on these ag rears. We are talking about safety here. This should not be so complicated. The Lt Pro and Limited Pro classes are great classes as they are. But with hp increasing, pulling should be proactive rather than reactive and if not looking at components then look at additional limiting factors to maintain safety and integrity of the driveline components. You can't take the ingenuity away from pulling but I have to believe there is some middle ground here somewhere. Paul Romack |
|
Re: Component cons?
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
Paul, thanks. You make a lot of sense and yes I'll agree 200% that sanctioning bodies act with the input of the class competitors before it becomes an issue. |
|
Re: Quut crying about components
|
Bravo, Pull fan. Spot on! |
|
Re: Component Chassis
|
Maybe
|
They might wanna have there tach checked. |
Website Statistics
Global: Topics: 38,571, Posts: 229,597, Members: 3,319.
This forum: Topics: 37,057, Posts: 225,853.
Global: Topics: 38,571, Posts: 229,597, Members: 3,319.
This forum: Topics: 37,057, Posts: 225,853.
Our newest member BadHabit2
