06:01:29pm, Thursday, April 18, 2024
|
Billet Heads
|
1xTwinStateChampion
|
Well, word on the street has it that they’re finally going to allow component chassis in Light Limited Super Stock. I’m assuming everyone else has been as excited for this as long as I have been. |
|
Re: Billet Heads
|
1xTwinStateChampion
|
The question is, how long until they get start opening up billet heads? Fingers crossed |
|
Re: Billet Heads
|
LLSS. Puller
|
Where in the hell did this get started about component |
|
Re: Billet Heads
|
Festus Haggin
|
If that happens ( components in light limited super stock ) then a new class will get formed --- stupid stupid stupid !!!!! If that happens then it just goes to show how much the higher ups is paying attention -- one of the best,most color participate classes since light super went component --- THAT WOULD BE A HUGE MISTAKE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Re: Billet Heads
|
Curious
|
Has the LLSS component rule every been voted on with an association?
I personally think the component would have little effect on this class, but more curious if if at has ever came to a vote for a LLSS class any where. |
|
Re: Billet Heads
|
?
|
I don't know why all these people that want components in light limited super stock dont build for light super--- all these people wanting this should just go ahead an do a light super, if your going to spend the money for a component why in the world wouldn't you want to go ahead an put 2 more chargers on an go ahead an go 505 or 504 cubes an go run ---- LEAVE LIGHT LIMITED SUPER ALONE !!!!! I CAN'T SAY IT ENOUGH --- light limited super has great numbers -- theres a reason for that -- the class works just the way it is -- again --- LEAVE LIGHT LIMITED SUPER ALONE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Re: Billet Heads
|
Registered: 03/19/2018 Posts: 662 |
You just go ahead with that assumption.
CP |
|
Re: Billet Heads
|
1xTwinStateChampion
|
Unsure where you got the idea that it’s an assumption. You can either join 2021 or be stuck in 1971 with the antiques. |
|
Re: Billet Heads
|
Ford guy
|
If you haven't noticed --- times in 1971 were way better than they are now !!! Think about it !!! |
|
Re: Billet Heads
|
Registered: 08/02/2019 Posts: 8 |
As someone in the process of building a new LLSS I would like to know where you heard this at. |
|
Pot stirrers
|
Really
|
Some people just like putting crap out here just to see if they can get a rise out of other's. A prime example of this is of course this thread and anything that guy or gal "mgc" posts on here. Some people just like stirring the pot a d do a great job of it O might add! Just sayin |
|
Re: Billet Heads
|
Mr.MillieapolisMoline
|
I too heard about the recent rule changes to the rules. I think that the component chassis change is long overdue and a billet heads rule should be quick to follow. I think it’d be financially beneficial to all these farmers that don’t have a lot of money. |
|
Re: Billet Heads
|
mikef1964
|
all these people that dont want to switch to component would be singing a different tune if the seed companies were giving them out for free LOL |
|
Re: Billet Heads
|
Registered: 02/19/2009 Posts: 526 |
May I ask what association/ group this is? Since this looks like just hearsay. |
|
same IP address
|
Moderator Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 1,445 |
1xtwinstatechampion, mr.millapolismoline, mikef1964 same IP address
Festuse Haggin, ? and Ford guy. same IP a dress. If there really are three people in your house that have the same opinion maybe you three guys should discuss it and use one name, just sayin! Dick Morgan www.PULLOFF.com Independent Pulling News Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2021 02:21AM by Dick Morgan. |
|
Re: same IP address
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
Agreed, thank you Dick. Really said it right also in that some one just wants to stir the pot. I could stir the pot more also, but I won't. |
|
Re: same IP address
|
lewis
|
I keep up with a lot of the llss if it goes component it will be a organization ruling not the pullers although it will come to that but not in the near future |
|
Re: same IP address
|
Registered: 02/19/2009 Posts: 526 |
A lot of pullers I talk with and know in this class don't want it . The one building new would prefer components , but are building to the rules. If technology pushes our HP to the 2000 level I think it will come to that. |
|
Easy Route
|
Registered: 07/06/2017 Posts: 369 |
Never fails. Someone is always looking to take the easy route. Ruins a class everytime |
|
Re: Easy Route
|
what's the problem
|
And what exactly is wrong with taking the easy (and more economical) route when starting a new build? Why on earth wouldn't you want the path of least resistance? That just makes sense.......why penalize someone just because "that's the way it's always been"? This is how we keep people out of the sport - "oh you can't do it that way because we couldn't 30 years ago" is like saying you can't build using common sense because I didn't. Smart thinking.....real smart. |
|
Re: Easy Route
|
what's the problem
|
I should clarify I am not building for the class nor am I a "pro component every class" person.
I was thinking that the statement "Someone is always looking to take the easy route" seems like the wrong message. I'm sure there was more to the point you were making. It's just not well stated. |
|
Re: Easy Route
|
Registered: 03/19/2018 Posts: 662 |
The problem is that there is already a class for that. It takes away one of the "L"s in the name of the class.
CP Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2021 04:19AM by cpr. |
|
Re: Easy Route
|
Moderator Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,347 |
Yes and no. The LSS class has different engine and turbo limits. However, to your main point - any time a class uses the word "limited" in it's name, that class will soon divide between those who want more "limited" and those who want less "limited". |
|
Re: Easy Route
|
Registered: 03/19/2018 Posts: 662 |
It does seem to go that way. If LLSS goes component, there'll be a new class started, only I wonder what it would be called...
The Light And This Time We Really Mean It Limited Super Stock? 
CP |
|
Re: Easy Route
|
what's the problem
|
Yep....there it is....the token statement answer. What a surprise.
The point is not how much power one desires to build, it is about making sensible choices for chassis design and serviceability. What is so wrong with that? What is this age old purpose of hanging onto a 60 year old piece of cast just to say "it was this or that tractor"? There is nearly nothing left that is original. You pay a fortune to have it custom machined, add numerous aftermarket parts in the driveline, add aftermarket brakes.......list can go on and on. What is the opposition to making a sensible chassis to start with? Is it because you don't have one and you don't want anyone else to have one? There are limits on all aspects of the powerplant (ci, turbo, manifolds, pump), why is the chassis the hill you want to die on? Honestly it doesn't matter to me today because I'm not in the class (not do I want to be), but wow it sure seems like a lot of axe grinding over what seems like smart business and manufacturing choices. Sure am glad the truck classes got it together for chassis design. Build your engine and pick your body and go have fun - almost everywhere (universal rules). No whining and crying. Have fun with yet another tractor class problem guys. History book be huge before were done I'm sure. |
|
Re: Easy Route
|
Registered: 03/19/2018 Posts: 662 |
Wrong. Plenty of OEM rail, factory firewall, steel body required truck pulling classes.
CP |
|
Re: Easy Route
|
what's the problem
|
Yes I suppose the lower levels still use some OEM stuff. I sure wouldn't call having the OEM steel body or firewall much in the way of the chassis though, but I guess it's whatever you feel supports your argument.
The way some react you'd think building a component was like building a guaranteed winner. Newsflash: it takes a good powerplant and a savvy driver to get it done in most classes any night. The people that are afraid of components in the class will also be the same people who look to ban the next person who has a bottomless chequebook and whoops butt because of it. Happens in every class, sad fact of life. But penalizing someone for desiring to build smart and modern doesn't seem like the sort of thing that grows the sport. But like I said, not my class, so no worries. Just have trouble understanding the lack of practical thinking over chassis stuff sometimes. Hope the class continues to do well. |
|
Re: Easy Route
|
Registered: 03/19/2018 Posts: 662 |
Nice minimizing the part where I said rails. Also a fair number of them that don't allow open driveline either. You know, at the lower levels. Which LLSS is supposed to be. But whatever supports your argument.
CP |
|
To cpr
|
Well
|
In you two’s banter I found a statement you made to be quite interesting and pointed cpr. As you two were comparing chassis and drivelines to the llss and the argument being these things both being found at the lower levels you stated LLSS is supposed to be a lower level class. I agree with you on this point however what struck me was this:
1. LLSS is campaigning for and has seemingly been accepted as a national level class. 2. The trucks using the stock rails and stock drivelines aren’t in excess of 1500 horsepower. 3. The cast iron being used was mostly produced in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s and built to harness 30-60 horsepower. Now many people should be able to figure out that the chassis isn’t the problem here for llss or any other “limited” class. The problem lies in the power producing portion of the rule sets. Either that area needs to be addressed or component style chassis should be automatically allowed in all divisions |
|
Re: To cpr
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
I agree and so will cpr. |
|
Re: To cpr
|
Registered: 03/19/2018 Posts: 662 |
1. No. It's been accepted by an organization as a regional class, not a national one with very few hooks. Ed Shoobridge found the money and while we had a handful of epic events with more than 20 showing up, the guys won't travel if their local circuit is healthy. They're grassroots, workaday guys who can't go 9 hours from home and I don't blame them. They're awesome for doing what they do.
2. I'll concede your point on the driveline, but not the frame rails. 3.6 trucks. 3. I'll wager no one is using 40s casts, but 50s and 60s are. How often are we seeing a bull gear or a shaft break? It happens. That's competition. How often are we seeing a casting fail? It has happened, but I will never agree that it is endemic. Power-wise, LLSS is pretty close so long as actual enforcement takes place. I'm NOT accusing ANYONE, but what stops a guy doing a 470 with a cooler? A 540? It's got to be policed. If it is, class is fine. The logic leap that components automatically should be allowed though is bridge I can't cross. If you have to have a component chassis, cannot live without it, and any engine combo you can dream up, there's a class for that. Has been since day one. We call it Modified. I also do not accept the cheaper to build it argument. There are old ag chassis with the work already done for sale on this website right now that will work for LLSS. The assertion you should be allowed to build a component is like saying you should be allowed to speed because you want a Corvette. The rules say you can't have it. Get over it. Sorry guys, I have to put a stake in the ground where behind it you can't, in front of it you can, but I didn't get there first. CP |
|
Re: To cpr
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
|
|
Re: To cpr
|
Well
|
Their goal is to become a national level class and they are getting hooks at national level events
There are chassis’s using 40’s cast They are in excess of 1500 hp and with 3.4 turbo’s they will far exceed that 1500 in the very near future not to mention the torque it will produce. Again the issue in all these instances isn’t the oem chassis, it is the horsepower “limiting” rules..... |
|
Re: To cpr
|
Registered: 01/03/2019 Posts: 280 |
Pro Stock Diesel Trucks are close to 2000hp and they still use a stock chassis. |
|
Re: Easy Route
|
Moderator Registered: 01/11/2009 Posts: 1,576 |
I continue to try to wrap my head around the idea of changing a popular, growing class when the changes proposed would make the class implode and kill it.
But let me say this: In my opinion, with a blank sheet of paper about what classes should be, a single, unlimited charger, limited CI (370/470), any style ohv head, component class would be the optimal version of light super. With the component chassis the class would have zero reason to be anything but light as you should have conservatively 1000# movable at 6000# However that bell that has been rung...so its just an idea, good, bad, indifferent...this conversation also reminded me of another old saying: Beating a dead horse. Leave LLSS alone. Bryan Lively - 
    |
|
Re: Easy Route
|
Harry hog
|
This is prolly the dumbest @#$%& I’ve heard over an over a over can one of the Morgan’s delete this atrocity of a mess some idiot started about billet heads that turns into this bs it’s so old an so Un legitimate of statements from the same guy almost every single time has to cause a mess bc ether he pulls in the class and can’t win or stands on the outside looking in and for no reason says some Of the dumbest @#$%& ppl building then question everything going on bc some moron twin state champ ford guy fetus haggin ect have nothing better to do and lazy an create some Ignorant statements |
|
Re: Easy Route
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
HUH? Why don't ya register? You hog harry might have the same ip address as the posters that you have mentioned. |
|
Re: Easy Route
|
Harry hog
|
Yeah Clark like that makes a ton of since right? |
|
Re: Easy Route
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
What the heck is a ton of since? |
Website Statistics
Global: Topics: 38,573, Posts: 229,601, Members: 3,319.
This forum: Topics: 37,057, Posts: 225,855.
Global: Topics: 38,573, Posts: 229,601, Members: 3,319.
This forum: Topics: 37,057, Posts: 225,855.
Our newest member BadHabit2
