09:28:12am, Wednesday, May 15, 2024
|
The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
In the no
|
Here are the rules for the new NTPA small cubic diesel class.
540 cubic inches 8500 pounds Bosch P pump Stock head After market manifolds Any size turbo 4.1 x 4.3 Restrictor pipe non component 24.5 tires the NTPA is still deciding if it will be called Light Pro Stock or Limited Pro Stock |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
puller 1
|
any limit on the p-pump |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
lp puller
|
were did this information come from? |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
lp puller
|
Is this class taking the place of the 640 , 4.1 class or are they offering both? |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
aclover15
|
The stock head and aftermarket manifold rules seem to clash to me. Why would you need to allow better flowing manifolds if your head has to be stock?? Or do they mean it should start as the stock "cast" head, but work can be done to it? |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Registered: 03/26/2008 Posts: 214 |
finally some rules that make sense . Are these rules set for next season? |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
In the no
|
The NTPA wants to have less things to police so they will have no limit on the P pump and you can do any work you want on the OEM head. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
smokin spectator
|
Do you think they will get many hooks next year. Sounds like a great class. Tell me a little more about this restrictor tube. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Anonymous User
|
505 cui is the only thing I would like to see changed. I would like to hear some more input on this class. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
smokin spectator
|
I thought about that but then the 6030 and the 540 would have to decube |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
smokin spectator
|
540 perkins in the massey |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
I don’t think 540 would be a red only class. The Hypermax 540 did dominate back in it’s day, but since then things have changed and there are other colors that can be competitive at 540. If you look at the east coast series there are some extremely strong running Ford/New Holland tractors that can mix it up with the best of the red tractors. I also believe that REI will quickly have plenty of 540's that will rival Hypers best setup. I know there are people that are scared of it becoming a red class as 540, but times have changed and Hyper is no longer the only aftermarket parts provider.
I personally like 505/510, but 540 is still a reasonable number that will have plenty of color. 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: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Registered: 04/02/2008 Posts: 478 |
540 does not make it a "Red Only" class, believe me! The Blue tractors hold their own as do the Green tractors in the Interstate Mod Turbo class. Had the D-21 been running all season I am sure they would have been at or near the top 10 in points without a question. There are a couple Case tractors in the series as well but they run a very limited schedule with Interstate Pullers. But rest assured, others know they are there when they do hook with them. They run very well. As I stated before, you can't pick a winner in this class before it's over. Blue tractors are currently 1st and 2nd, red tractor 3rd, green in 4th and they all have at least one win this year and obviously several top 5's as do many on the circuit. I think you will find that REI and Columbus have as much or more in that class than Hyper. J R Eastern Extreme Pulling www.easternextremepulling.com EEPPULLINGVIDEOS Pro Pulling Magazine Hook Magazine |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Registered: 04/02/2008 Posts: 478 |
540 is the way to go in this class. I see it work very very well here locally (MD,PA,VA, etc) with the Interstate 8,500 Mod Turbo class (same as Limited Pro, just a different name). I see Blue, Green, and Red win. I have seen Case win and a D-21 AC come very close several times. This class fields great numbers at every hook and they spin out with authority. You can view their rules at their website: www.interstatepullers.com
I know some of you are familiar with this class of tractors as many of them attended Gordyville, Du Quoin and Cloverdale in the past and just about all of them attend the Keystone Nationals in March in Harrisburg, PA. Very competitive class and the performance they show proves the rules are good. You can not pick a winner before the class is done thats for sure! J R Eastern Extreme Pulling www.easternextremepulling.com EEPPULLINGVIDEOS Pro Pulling Magazine Hook Magazine |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
I agree with waiting for years, This is a great thread, I think NTPA needs a 540 class at 8000 to 8500 lbs in order to get new membership. And as a organization that is what we need. If you keep it 640 you will have 2 half a#@ classes, and one will have a bunch of broken tractors at the end of the season. I also feel that you could build this tractor for the same price of a new pick-up, or nice camper, boat, etc... So now people have the option to participate instead of just watching. We have a super farm tractor and I love it but it is not a entry level tractor, We have been working on a 540 IH and 3x4 charger and with little effort it turns out big numbers on the dyno trust me the rules as propossed above will make one heck of a show and be fun to drive. Thats my 2 cents see you at the Enderle... |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
LP
|
I can tell you right now that you can't build this tractor for the cost of a new pickup! You will have more in this tractor than a superfarm. When you get into a 4.1 or bigger turbo, you are gonna turn some RPMs and that cost some money to keep together. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
LP
|
I agree that these rules sound great. Interstate has a good setup already. Their problem is the A pump. Things would be a lot different with p-pumps. I would be willing to bet that there would be some different winners in interstate if they had p-pumps. |
|
fat boy read ih and happy down on bottom of post
|
red power
|
black smoke |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Stroke
|
Can we run deck plates? |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Registered: 03/01/2009 Posts: 53 |
i was told by a higher up in the ntpa that this class will be offered in regions 3 and 5 where the smoker numbers seem to be low. Also I was told that there are already enough classes in the other regions, build a tractor to fit in one. No sense in changing the rules build one to fit current rules. Numbers are strong in SF and PS in region 2 I feel we have no hope for this class in our region, let alone GN and surely not BG where there were 72 Super Farms. |
|
Better Show??
|
Orange Man
|
Take BG for an example. I would think even if half of the super farms went to light pro stock, it would be a better show for the fans. I love super farm, but 72 of them is too many. It takes 3 1/2 hours to run it, and its the luck of the draw on where you'll place. I would rather see 36 light pros, and then 36 super farms. Could just be me, but I think the 2 separate classes would be a better show. |
|
Re: Better Show??
|
Registered: 03/01/2009 Posts: 53 |
they all smoke. most of the people that care about this are pullers. Young people and the wild crowd dont even know the difference. They just know smoke and noise. position of hook is just luck of the draw same at every hook all the way across the nation. Part of tractor pulling. |
|
Re: Better Show??
|
Registered: 03/01/2009 Posts: 53 |
And using BG as an example I believe that the top ten tractors were spread out in pulling order. I dont feel that position of hook changed the outcome of the class. |
|
Re: Better Show??
|
careful!!
|
Be careful how you judge the fans in the stands ! There are more than you think that know plenty about pulling, rules, tractors,etc. Not everyone just goes to drink there face off and act like a fool. Some of us are in to it deep, but just can't afford to get involved. This class sounds like a great idea, because there are certainly not that many people that can afford to become involved in the Pro Stock class. Look at the colour we have in it today, it's getting boring and this is coming from a green fan. A class with 30 JD and 5 IH is NOT entertaining. The only thing entertaining about it is the display of horsepower. Light super is by far more entertaining and not because of the wild rides. Let some colour in and see how people support it. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Anonymous User
|
They allow aftermarket manifolds so you can mount your turbo in front of the motor or anywhere else you want, and yes you can do work to the head, you just have to use an oem head instead of aluminum. You would just have another superfarm style class with stock manifolds. It would just be whoever could find the most exotic stock manifolds off of a boat, dozer, etc, driving the price up. We use custom manifolds on LLSS with cast heads and it works great. Not to mention when you raise the hood it looks way cool!!!! Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2009 08:05PM by llssmoline. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
BulletFan
|
Sounds like a good start. The first question i have is why would they allow aftermarket manifolds? Doesn't make sense why you could run them in this 540ci class, but they are not allowed in superfarm??? Maybe the theory is it would be easier to get a big charger stuffed under the hood with aftermarket manifolds? Just an opinion, but I still think they should be OEM manifolds. I do like the lower cubic inch rule! |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
red power
|
no restrictor tubes they are a pain in the butt
just like the profarm! set a turbo limit and run with it |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Youngin
|
Don't know how they expect the 5020 and 6030's to be in this class at that weight.... Just push them out right away by doing this |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
puller 1
|
there are heavy weight classes, do not build another class around a few bbjd, that is what messed up SF and PS CI to begin with |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Red Man
|
You have the small block jd (7.6 or 8.1) to choose from. That is plenty! You don't need no stinkin big block. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Anonymous User
|
That's why there is superfarm!!!!!! |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
what about the guys out west that started last year at 600cu in and 9500lbs |
|
What about the 640inch, 10PS?
|
Anonymous User
|
Is the NTPA going to continue having the standard 640inch, 10PS? Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2009 06:58AM by Buckeye. |
|
Re: What about the 640inch, 10PS?
|
It 680cu 10 ps , I think the aftermarket manifolds are fine. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
wondering about
|
What is everyones opinion on aftermarket manifolds?? Super farm doesn't even run that and this is less cubes. Bigger charger i guess... |
|
lps class
|
fan of H.P.
|
This sounds like awsome class for true pullers in pursuit of horse power . maybe not the perfect class for cry babies in the pursuit of there opponents restrictions. If you dont like the rules maybe you should stay in the classes where crying gets you some where! No more cookies for the whining sniffling cry babies, They have been getting their way for to long as it is and a little bit of tuff $h!T, tuff love will do the hole sport some good!!! |
|
correction on turbo size
|
In the no
|
my source says 4.1 x 4.5 tube any size turbo |
|
Re: correction on turbo size
|
red power
|
restricter tube is a bad idea |
|
Re: correction on turbo size
|
Donna
|
This is an excellent set of rules. Restrictors are a excellent idea. I hope it happens. I will be in for sure!!! |
|
Re: correction on turbo size
|
red power
|
i hope you like dyno time and buying turbos to make work with restrictor tubes and haveing them inspected at the pull
when its 95 and humid |
|
Re: correction on turbo size
|
Red Idea
|
Why is it a bad idea?? |
|
great rules
|
been waiting for years
|
This makes to much sense! This should be attainable by several colors or brands as far as cubes go. 540 is big enough for 6030, it was produced with a 531 not a 619. Can see an argument for 505 for a few colors but will be plenty happy with 540. No need for 9500# already have 2 classes close to that weight i.e. s.f & p.s. I also have no problem with open manifolds because if i'm not mistaken the 4.1 will be a large base charger anyhow. In otherwords no adapter from sm. ft. to large. Don't care that s.f. uses stock manifolds leave other classes out of this. I just think it is cool to have a class besides lss that will give other brands beside the big two a fighting chance and like J.R. said won't be able to pic a winner before the class. Unsure of restrictors on turbo is anyone else doing this? Who would be left out by these rules? I am not talking models but actual brands. keep up this thread lets get it right this year, NOW, no bitching after the fact want comments from blue,red,yellow,orange and two shades of green. |
|
Re: great rules
|
Orange Man
|
Definately like the cubic inch rule! It's an improvement from the super farm ci. rules. I'm sure a class like this would draw a lot of tractors.
|
|
Re: great rules
|
OLIVERMAN
|
Like 540 but 505 maybe better with any heads any turbo no id pipe. Would make 478 Herc competitive that way since it has a bad stock head. |
|
Re: great rules
|
real green
|
yeah and you could putt a thicker sleeve in the early cat v8 if decubing is allowed |
|
Re: great rules
|
Hercules Fan
|
Heard that there is a Hercules coming to Limited Pro/Mod Turbo in PA sometime soon.....if not late this fall it will be ready for Keystone. |
|
Re: great rules
|
IH AND HAPPY
|
I think you need to come up with a good set of rules that will get everyone interested in building a tractor for this lps class
ntpa has a pro farm class that doesnt seem to be bringing in any tractors in mn, just five or six, And i dont think any other state is running it? why? To many smaller associations with that class in the 50 states? And if you did get some tractors to come pull ntpa they need slugs for the turbo. Bad idea! If ntpa drops cube limit they should drop pro farm class and make one class. Lps+profarm= one class! I think 505 cubes works for pro farm replacement and that would be the restricter everyone is talking about for the new rules for Lps. 24 tires 9000lbs any turbo (is there another assoc with 505 any charger? would be something different?) p pump after market intake and exhaust housings Just brain storming here not trying to upset anyone, lets get this figured out this could be an excellent class with alot of tractors if we can work together. |
|
Re: 8500 too light!
|
8500 too light, cost $$$ too get to that weight and be safe. why??? |
|
Re: 8500 too easy
|
air is free
|
Just about every combination of commonly pulled tractors other than an ag rear 6030 is running in a 6500 Ib or less lightclass somewhere today. In the 80's and 90's there were several big rearend tractors in 55 or even the 5 for some reason every one thinks its impossible for it to happen these days .yes theres an extra 200Ibs of rollcage to deal with, other than that its still possible!! Leaving things of the tractor you dont need is pretty cheep. air is free . yes it will take some thought and effort to make weight and have some moveable butt not as much as you think. Your wasting more effort trying to find reasons for it to be heavier than it take to make it 8500. And if everybody would starts looking at the moveable weight on the 9300 sf 6030's someday a CAN DO!! type puller will eventually putt one in this class!! |
|
Re: 8500 too easy
|
Posts: 480 |
I like everything in the rules listed above except the restrictor pipe. Sounds like the Euro pro class and I think it's a great idea. 540 isn't that much bigger than 505 and won't make much difference (it will make a little but not that much). Sounds like a fun class to watch too. |
|
Re: 8500 too easy
|
Excited Fan
|
YES this would be a great class to watch!!! 540 or 505 would be awesome! Lots of color either way! 
|
|
Re: 8500 not too light!
|
Orange Man
|
There is a heavier class...it's called super farm. The lighter weight will even up the HP advantage (or disadvantage depending on how you look at it). I like it.
|
|
Re: 8500 not too light!
|
Registered: 04/02/2008 Posts: 478 |
Thats right Orange Man. 8,500 is a good weight for this setup. They run 8,500 Lim Pro and 9,300 SF together in Western PA. Again, there is no guaranteed winner before the class is over there either. Those 8,500 540 cube Lim Pro give the heavier 640 Super Farms all they can handle and vise versa. Fun to watch them run together.
OK I am starting to chime in too much and sounding like Jake!! JK Jake  J R Eastern Extreme Pulling www.easternextremepulling.com EEPPULLINGVIDEOS Pro Pulling Magazine Hook Magazine |
|
Hey JR
|
Orange Man
|
What kind of RPM's do the lim pro's run that you talk about?? |
|
Re: Hey JR
|
LP
|
We turn a little over 5000 rpms. I would say most guys are at least 4500 rpms. |
|
Re: great rules
|
Registered: 04/02/2008 Posts: 478 |
Speaking of the "other shade of Green", I seen a Duetz 9006 compete a couple times in the Lim Pro class in Western PA and it performed well against the other colors.
As for the restrictor pipe, I say no. ITTPA Rule #6 says: Tractors allowed one turbo charger and any manifold modifications necessary to mount the turbo charger. Manifold pressure to be single stage only. No intercoolers allowed. That is means for the non O.E.M. manifold due to 4.1 turbo & mounting. They do not say anything about restricting air though. I am not for or against a Intercooler. That rule would be up in the air for me. J R Eastern Extreme Pulling www.easternextremepulling.com EEPPULLINGVIDEOS Pro Pulling Magazine Hook Magazine |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
The Problem
|
The only problem i can see is that you'd have too many tractors want to enter the class!
|
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
another problem
|
This could end up being the best class in all of pulling.
|
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
The Problem
|
LMAO!! That's funny right there... mostly because there's truth to it. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Posts: 480 |
Don't get ahead of yourselves. The LSS class will still be the best class in pulling but this one could be second. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Anonymous User
|
Fuelish Fan Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------- > Don't get ahead of yourselves. The LSS class will > still be the best class in pulling but this one > could be second. I'm with you on the LSS. This class does make me wish I had not sold my 210 White with the 505 cummins motor though! |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Anonymous User
|
The rules sound pretty good except the restrictors. They should either make it any single charger, or make it a 4.1 charger with map ring, but the compressor cover should measure 4.1" for at least .125" in front of and behind the map ring, to eliminate guys pulling air through the map ring. Also the map ring should be defined at like .125" wide or whatever most stock turbos this size are. The exhuast could be 4.4 or 4.5 or whatever a "G trim" holset wheel measures. If they use this rule, turbos should be able to stay around $3500 to $5000, and hold up very well. There are plenty of guys that could just buy the right hx82 and put an exhuast housing on it and go pulling and be competive. If they use the restrictor tubes, guys will be making 5 inch prostock turbos work on the dyno, so you might as well just allow any charger at that point and save the hassle of making sure everyone is running their tubes. I personally would like to see it be an "any single charger rule" ,but with P-pumps I know that will get out of hand, and the turbos will be as expensive as prostock, and the pumps won't be much cheaper than prostock pumps. The class will end up with many more pullers, and will be much cheaper in the end if they stick with a 4.1 rule or something similiar like I stated above. The tube rule will be trouble. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
LP
|
No map ring. Just a 4.1 turbo. That should be the rule. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
For Jake
|
I'd be interested to hear Jake's take on the class. |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
Swiss Cheese Head
|
What would get the most color on the track, 540 OEM head or 505 any head? |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
mark peissig
|
I dont know what would be best. Thats why I would like as much input on this as possible. time is winding down on this one we only have a month! I am for 504 or540. The weight cannot be over 8500 I would prefer to see 8000,let them turn the wheels an make them something you have to drive! The turbo rule I would like to see no rule. maybe a restricter pipe at the most. If we limit the turbo to what ever size whith in one year it will be a 10000$ turbo.keep up this discusion board memmbers are watching. |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
QUestioneer
|
OEM 4 valve heads?... I think it should allow it. |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
puller120000
|
Mark, my first question is what is this class for? to be a single charger light super or a class to give some SF and other non componet chassis class's (and some prostock's that are tired of fixing engines all the time) a better option,If it is the latter I sugest that 8500 is to low of a weight, most non component chassis in the big tractor class's now weight between 9000 and 8500 lbs ( with no weights and not 6030's either) this high weight means if you want at least 700 lbs of moveable weight you are looking at a fair amount of chassis work, and I am sure you remember what you had to do to get a OEM chassis to weight 7500-8000 lbs with no weights,I think 9000 is better, why make the puller spend even more money to get into a somewhat less expensive class than he has too. you know as well as I do how much a lot of moveable weight means with the widely different tracks we have to run on, why spend more to get the moveable weight when we don't have to? |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
smokin spectator
|
Mark,
Thanks for considering our input. I would like to know the purpose of this class. I would like to see a less expensive class to build. If so the weight is too light and only stock heads should be allowed. 505 would be just fine keeping the cost down more. As far as a turbo limit 505 may take care of that. Keep it simple and low cost. We already have one $150,000+ a tractor pro stock class. Also cubic inches should be randomly checked throughout the season. |
|
can't please everyone
|
Orange Man
|
540 is no less expensive than 505. 540 lets the deere 531 in the class. 540 lets the MF 540 in the class. Looks to me like if you cannot get a tractor to 8000 or 8500 you either haven't tried, or you need to start with a smaller tractor, maye not for a 6030... |
|
Re: can't please everyone
|
Registered: 03/26/2008 Posts: 214 |
all colors can get in at 8000 lb easy[maybe not any tractor], 505ci ,any turbo, p pumps ,oem heads , any manifolds. would be best class pulling But I think I would still build at 540ci but not over 8500lb. |
|
Re: can't please everyone
|
Registered: 04/02/2008 Posts: 478 |
Even at 8,500lbs. these guys here will sometimes have to play with the throttle some to get the 24.5's to hook so it really is a drivers class. All of them are good drivers. I am sure I have a couple runs on You Tube of this class. I will have to check. As for RPM's, I am unsure of an exact avg but they turn them pretty good and are very reliable at 540. I am sure Curt Forrester will chime in here soon and can answer that question. I really wouldn't put a restrictor pipe in. I have never heard any complaints from this class as far as rules or any finger pointing as to who is "Cheating". These rules work well for them. Keep it at 8,500 on 24.5's. You want 9,000lbs. Build a Super Farm. You want 505 build a Light Super (no offense Mark). J R Eastern Extreme Pulling www.easternextremepulling.com EEPPULLINGVIDEOS Pro Pulling Magazine Hook Magazine |
|
Re: can't please everyone
|
Anonymous User
|
JR no offense taken! This is a good discusion. I am learning a littel from each post. { except from jake} |
|
Re: can't please everyone
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
I’ll chime in on this class…. Personally I think the rules should be designed for the most bang (horsepower and performance) for your buck.
Personally I’m all for anything from 504 to 540. Anything over 540 and you are adding cost and losing color. I think you should be allowed to decube a larger motor, but only a block from a TWD style tractor, no need to have a 903 Cummins in this class. As for the turbo, I’m a big fan of no turbo limit in this class. I really like the idea of a restrictor tube, and any turbo you want to (or can) spin. Make the restrictor tube specs simple and easy to police for the tech officials to make their lives easier. I don’t know if you need a restrictor on the exhaust, I think an inlet restrictor is probably all you really need, and it’s also one less thing to tech. A simple “go, no-go” slug and measurement, and any turbo you want. As for the restrictor tube size… make it big enough to get high performance out of the motors. Personally I’d love to see a 4.5” inlet restrictor. Sure these tractors may only be able to spin a 4.4 now, but it will be a very good limit when the class grows and develops. With a 4.5” tube you end all the bickering about map ring vs. smooth bore, or people arguing about which spec turbo to run this year. 4.5" on the inlet will trun some RPM, but still limit how big you can go. I’d like to see the weight at 8000 lbs., 8500 is still OK, but I don’t think the class should be any heavier than that. I think the lighter weigh classes become more of a drivers class, and from a fans standpoint they put on a much more exciting show. I’ve seen a 1066 and a 4010 in the 5500 lb. Super, and they were very, very, very common in the 7500 lb. Super Stock class. They can easily make weight at 8000 lbs. and still keep the front down on a single charger tractor. I'f got a feeling that if someone wants to build a 5010 or 6030 they can figure out a way to get it down to 8000 lbs. I like the idea of a simple P-pump limit, if people want to run 12, 13, or 14 mm plungers it’s up to them. With a simple P-pump limit it will take the tech officials about 2 seconds to make sure the housing is unaltered. I also like the idea of any manifolds you want to run. If you want to build an inexpensive log or tree type header then you should be able to. If you want to buy an overpriced dozer of marine manifold you should have that option as well. Any manifold is just one less thing to police, and something that may add to performance, and may actually lower the cost. Put the turbo where you want and run whatever manifold you want or have. Last but not least, the class name… Call it Light Pro Stock. There are already 57 versions of Limited Pro all over the country. Limited Pro has got to be one of the most confusing class name in all of pulling, it means something different every 100 miles. I’d suggest Light Pro or maybe something different like Super Field Stock. 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. |
|
Regreat class
|
will be great class seen pa,s mod turbo 8500# 540 3x4 A-pump [ I think] different color winning, wheelspeed good spinning tires 100 to 150feet, superfarm could be done impressive class |
|
Re: Regreat class
|
LP
|
Pennsylvania's mod turbo/limited pro is not 3x4 turbo. it is A-pump and any turbo, but you can't run much more than a 4.1 with 540 and A-pump. |
|
Re: Regreat class
|
Anonymous User
|
LP Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------- > Pennsylvania's mod turbo/limited pro is not 3x4 > turbo. it is A-pump and any turbo, but you can't > run much more than a 4.1 with 540 and A-pump. There is a Lim Pro class, can't remember where, but you can run any turbo and an A Pump or a 3x? turbo and a P Pump. That might be the 1 in Penn, but don't know for sure. |
|
Re: Regreat class
|
Registered: 04/02/2008 Posts: 478 |
In PA they did or still have the P-pump and 3x4 charger or A-pump unl. charger. I am unsure if Interstate did that or not in the past. |
|
Re: Regreat class
|
LP
|
Interstate never had that setup as an option as far as I know. That is what the full pull productions limited pro class in western pa started as but that has gone by the way side. There are no tractors running that setup and they have to have been grandfathered in from the beginning. |
|
Re: can't please everyone
|
Registered: 03/31/2008 Posts: 762 |
4.5" Inlet restrictor? I'm guessing that's going to be about equal to limiting it to a 4.75" turbo. Remember that at the face of the wheel you have a hub & a bunch of fins taking up space plus you have a boundry layer effect on each of those surfaces. All of that goes away with a restrictor tube so you should be able to run a turbo bigger than the restrictor.
Are you going to police surface treatment of the restrictor? If this takes off anything like SF there will be someone making tubes with golf ball dimples & other surface treatments to improve the boundry layer conditions & thus flow more air. Are the 4.1 Holest & GT60 about the biggest OEM turbos availible? Once you get beyond the size of the OEM turbos the costs are going to approach the big PS turbos becasue of parts on the turbine side that only Hyper & Columbus have stepped up to make. Many are making CNC compressor wheels, but the exhaust side is a little more complicated. Anything short of a spec turbo like has been done with the GT42 Superfarm turbo will result in costs for a 4.1 based on the Holset quickly approaching SF turbo costs & anything bigger will quickly approach big PS turbo costs once the used PS turbos have been used up. Like several have posted the goals & objectives of starting this class need to be identified & agreed to becase they will direct the turbo & other rules. |
|
Re: can't please everyone
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
I think the restrictor tube should be smooth, for the simple reason that it’s easier to police a smooth restrictor tube as opposed to a dimpled or rifled tube. As for the surface of a smooth bore tube, you should be able to polish it, plate it, etc…. as long as the bore remains smooth and easy to police.
As for the size of the restrictor tube…. I really think it should be at least 4”… and probably at most 4.5”. Any logical size in that range would be fine with me. In my opinion the objective for the class should be simple, small cube, high performance, high RPM, and the most potential bang for your buck. 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: can't please everyone
|
OK heres a twist for the turbo rule. If you are considering a restrictor tube with no turbo limit, how about allowing multiple turbos? The combinations are endless, and you could use very inexpensive turbos. The restrictor tube should keep a lid on it. Just a thought for a little innovation. |
|
Re: can't please everyone
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
Tracy,
This is just my opinion, but from a fan’s standpoint, one of the best features of the single charger tractors is the sound. A single turbo has a very distinctive sound. Multiple charger act like mufflers and mute the sound to a large degree. A Diesel Super mostly just sounds like wooshing air, a Pro Stock on the other hand sounds like an engine still. I know many people say they don’t care about sound, but it’s one of our senses, and the more of our sense we can stimulate the more exciting the show “feels”. The more exciting the show feels, the more fans get “hooked”. I'd much rather watch (and listen to) a 20 year old PS than a 20 year old DSS. I also think this Light Pro Stock class should resemble a very high performance farm tractor. A Pro Stock is a farm tractor on steroids… all pumped up to some ridiculously huge size that no farmer (or fan) can really relate to! Diesel Super is similar… it’s sort of the mad scientist/mechanic builds a tractor, again, the average farmer (of fan) can’t really relate (or even understand staged turbos). If Light Pro Stock is 505 and a single charger with a stock head, and stock rear-end housing, it’s really showing off what a true high performance farm tractor can do. It’s similar to what came from the factory, but with high performance parts mixed with many “stock” parts. It’s something farmers can relate to, fans can hear roar, and people can reasonably build. It’s a class for everyone, and every brand. 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. |
|
too heavy
|
smokin spectator
|
8500 would be the lightest I would go actually 9000 would be better. It cost $$$ to put any of these tractors on a diet, aluminum wheels , front ends etc. |
|
Re: too heavy
|
Registered: 04/02/2008 Posts: 478 |
8,500 lbs. no aluminum rear wheels. Just an example. I dont recall seeing these guys ever have a real bad ride either, but I could be wrong.
J R Eastern Extreme Pulling www.easternextremepulling.com EEPPULLINGVIDEOS Pro Pulling Magazine Hook Magazine |
|
not too heavy
|
News Flash
|
There already is a heavier class - it's called super farm..Duh |
|
Re: not too heavy
|
Registered: 03/16/2009 Posts: 19 |
I have a question...why does everyone want this class to be so light??? If a tractor weighs more, it can get ahold of the track better. There are VERY few tracks that you can get ahold of at 8500. You are building a late 80's or early 90's prostock...they pulled at 12000 and 10000# all those years...why the light weight now. If anyone trys to tell me it is for color, that is BS. I know that the reason orange and blue want the light weight is because they want to use little light weight rear ends. There are larger, stronger, safer rear ends to use, but they don't want to. It would be the same as a red guy putting a 1066 motor in front of a 560 rear end. Not legal in any form of pulling and no where near strong enough to hold. Someone will make all their fuel money for the year protesting those pullers.
Just want to know why everyone has such a heartburn over the weight. Thanks. |
|
Re: not too heavy
|
Anonymous User
|
8,500 lbs is not "light" and it's not "heavy" either. Yes common sense tells us that if the tractors were heavier they would get a hold of the track better but there are already two classes of heavier single charger diesel tractors and in my opinion there doesn't need to be another, lets do something new! Yes the old pro's ran at 10 & 12 but this isn't the old pro class, this is a brand new class and if it is done correctly I think it will be a big hit. The light weight isn't for color at all, the small cubes will bring the color and why would anyone need a "little light weight rear end" in an orange tractor to make 8,500 lbs? Its a piece of cake to get a D-21 down to 7-7,500 lbs with the factory rear end in place. I can't speak for the blue tractors but I would image with a little elbow grease they would also easily make the weight. The lighter weight will make this a drivers class and that's what makes it exciting and intriguing, the highest horse tractor won't aways win. I will have to disagree on the statement that there are very few tracks that an 8,500 lb tractor can get a hold of. How can a LSS, HSS, USS, Mod, or Unlimited get a hold of the track at a lighter weight and at 2-5x the horsepower? Let's keep this class at the lighter weight and reward those that have driving skills with the top finishes.
I personally love the idea of this class and I think with a little creativity a person can build a competitive tractor without breaking the bank. I would start with a non-component 75SS or a PS rolling chassis, there are always several for sale. Good used parts are out there and many would be perfect for this class. This would be my wish list for this class: 8,000 lbs 504 cid (decubing allowed) deck plates allowed unlimited turbocharger size (fixed geometry, no trick turbos) no intercooler p-pump w/one injector per cyl OEM head any ex/int manifold ag rear/transmission and what the heck, let the gas and lp boys play too Thanks for listening to my rambling |
|
Re: not too heavy
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
Your post beat me by one minute and stole my thunder! I agree with almost everything you wrote. 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: not too heavy
|
Anonymous User
|
Fast fingers! Not really, I put a little thought into what I wrote. Also, after reading what you wrote at the bottom of this post I would have to agree with the statement you made about it being a diesel only class. Very true!
This has been an awesome thread, one of the best there has been in awhile |
|
TM
|
Registered: 01/17/2009 Posts: 207 |
Thanks for the vote on the gas & Lp |
|
Re: TM
|
Anonymous User
|
Well I kinda reneged a bit on the gas and LP after reading Jakes post down toward the bottom, he made some very valid points but I can also see the other side that these tractors are a part of our history (pretty cool too!) It does complicate the rules by letting OEM fuels in the class but now that I think about it its done in the 10 pro so that part of the rules could be duplicated? Do you know the 10 pro rules for gas and LP? I don't have a NTPA rule book.
Thanks |
|
Re: not too heavy
|
Registered: 03/31/2008 Posts: 762 |
unlimited turbocharger size (fixed geometry, no trick turbos)
Please explain. I would consider all the big PS chargers to be 'trick' because just about everything in them is custom. |
|
Re: not too heavy
|
That is in reference to variable geometry internally type chargers. A variation of whats used in new engines |
|
Re: not too heavy
|
Anonymous User
|
Yes, that is what I meant by a "trick" turbocharger. I would call a large pro turbo, or any sized turbo that has parts changed as "custom".
A little off the subject but interesting is the turbo that the new Ford Powerstroke engine is going to have on it. It will have a double-sided compressor wheel mounted on a single shaft! |
|
Re: not too heavy
|
Registered: 07/19/2008 Posts: 145 |
I agree with all your rules TM also. One thing I would like to add is let the gas and propane guys run fuel injection. Let's help keep them modern. I love the idea of this new class. Even though I brought up adding fuel injection to gas and diesel, I would like to build to run diesel. Keep the cube limit at 505 or 510!!! Have no problem with decubing and KEEP the weight down at 8000. This will be the class of the future!!!!!!!! Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2009 04:40AM by racehorses. |
|
8000 lbs. is not light, and it's not heavy... it's perfect
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
You stated that “There are VERY few tracks that you can get ahold of at 8500”. The Light Super Stock class does a great job getting a hold of the track at 6200 lbs. Infact some would argue that they get a hold of too much many times! Taking that same train of thought, what’s a more exciting class to watch from a fans perspective… Light SS or Unlimited SS? While the Unlimited SS is impressive as far as HP, they don’t rock and roll and keep fans on the edge of their seat the same way the LSS does! Anyone who watched Kevin Lynn in Bowling Green a few weeks ago knows what I mean… The lighter the better!
The Light Pro Stock will have less HP and slightly smaller tires than the Diesel SS, but at 8000 lbs. the DSS seem to hook up quite well. Infact, in past years when a PS or two jumped in the DSS (at 8000 lbs.) they really didn’t seem to struggle to get the power to the ground. The Light Pro Stock would work great at 8000 lbs. I personally think that anyone who can’t get a hold of the track at 8000 lbs. really, really, really needs to take a serious look at their setup. But here are a few off the cuff reasons to run a lighter class: A lighter tractor should be able to turn a higher gear… which means that the fans will benefit from a class with more wheel speed. The lighter the tractor the more important your setup and track reading are. It means that it will be a drivers class, and a class where you have less margin for error on your weight distribution… again, the fan will benefit by seeing a more exciting show. The lighter that class the less stress there are on the parts for the pullers… you can send 10,000 HP through a pencil if you spin it fast enough… faster gears, lighter weight, and a potential for less stress and strain on rear-end, engine, and transmission parts. By the way, 8000 lbs. is not that light, and it’s still a weight that a 6030 or a 5010 can make if they want to do a little work. Every other tractor can make 8000 lbs. pretty easy. 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: MXPULLER
|
Anonymous User
|
Actually,there is somewhere in pulling where putting a 1066 motor in a 560 rear is legal, LLSS. |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
To Mark
|
Mark,
This is the class I've been waiting for. I currently pull an Ntpa superfarm and I want you to know that if you make this Lpro class I will be 100 percent in. Also, I know of at least 6 brush pullers in my area that will be in 100 percent. 540 is the way to go. 505 will leave a few colors out. Restrictor sounds good, it's the only thing that can keep prices from going crazy. |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
KY PULLER
|
This would be an awesome class. We have been talking about getting this exact class started for next year. Quite a bit of interest. I think there would be 8 to 10 tractors atleast from KY next year. We were going to run 540, p-pump, 4.1 turbo. Hey Mark could I get your phone number would like to talk to you. |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
RED POWER
|
restrictor tubes will add money |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
Please explain how a restrictor tube will add money. If the tube is designed with a simple and straight forward spec is should be simple and cheap for anyone to build.
Sealed turbos add money and hassle. Box turbos will drive up the cost or that specific turbo as the demand rises and the class grows. Restrictor tubes allow you to run any turbo, either cheap or expensive, and still allow you to experiment when you feel like it. Jake Morgan Owner, PULLOFF.COM Independent Pulling News This page is a free service. The cost is covered out of my pocket. It takes a great deal of time and a fair amount of money to keep this website going. Donations for: photos, classified ads, forum discussion, etc... are appreciated. Side Note: We are no longer accepting PayPal donations. They have changed their terms of service and stated they would fine PayPal users for spreading "misinformation" and "hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory". PayPal did not provide definitions for some of these vague terms. Woke corporate policies regarding "misinformation" could result in an automatic fine of $2,500 which would have been removed directly from the customer’s PayPal account. PayPal did backdown from some of their policies but quietly implemented portions of them in later terms of service. A financial institute has no right to monitor social media accounts or speech. This is unacceptable and I'll no longer do business with PayPal. |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
lp puller
|
I would say either run a 4.1 turbo rule or open turbo rule. If you can spin it run it. If someone wants to try the same charger as the 10 pros so be it, he's going to get beat by a 4.1 more than likely if he can even move the sled. |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
lp puller
|
the restrictor tube is just an area for someone to try and cheat and its just one more thing for the tech guys to keep up with and check |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
LP
|
Agree. Either make it a 4.1 straight smooth turbo, or whatever you can turn. I am guessing you wouldn't be able to turn much more than a 4.4 with a P-pump. I still think the straight 4.1 is the way to go to keep costs somewhat reasonable. |
|
Re:in the know
|
cubes should be 510, needs to be small cubes, no bigger than 4.1 charger, and does P-pump mean NO SIGMAS OR BILLIT PUMPS ? costs of this class should be kept down, 510 13mm p-pump and any good turbo slotted 3x4 or bigger will make enough pwer to make sf look dead |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
Registered: 03/16/2009 Posts: 19 |
Any type of restriction will drive up costs. It will also drive you to the best turbo for that size which eventually, drives you to a single turbo supplier. In prostock, hyper turbos are much larger than columbus. If there is a limit, I would go get a columbus because it packs more in for a given size. This just took hyper out of the picture. My point here is, if there is no limit, then EVERY turbo supplier can sell and promote what ever they want. Maybe it takes a bigger version of theirs to equal a smaller version of someone else, but at least you can use it. If you use a restrictor, EVERYONE will go after the smaller, higher performance turbo.
Again, superfarm has already shown us that this will happen. Lets learn from it and try not to relive those mistakes again. Just a point to remember. |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
Dean H
|
I pulled pro farm for three year in mn and tried multiple turbos with slugs on them they do exactly what they were suppose limit the horsepower and had good luck running a turbo that costed under 2000 and the slugs are not that exspensive to build personally i would like to see the limited pro class get going at 640 cu than maybe a person could use superfarm motors and then it would maybe help get the class going personally not fussy on turbo rule 8000 or 8500lbs would be fine remember this is just my opionion i would definetly entertian this and think it would be fun around mn ia wi Dean Holicky |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
in the know
|
heard dean is going super farm? |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
puller1020
|
thats true |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
Registered: 04/07/2008 Posts: 781 |
Why did you go 466 in pro farm and now you want 640 so you can use old SF motors. Know where there is one cheap, they couldnt make run and think a bigger charger will help? |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
Registered: 03/31/2008 Posts: 762 |
So how do you figure any charger will be learing from the SF mistakes? Have you priced a Hyper or Columbus PS charger? Aren't they at least twice what any SF charger is? Can you even buy a PS charger from anyone but Hyper or Columbus? Unless another supplier really steps up an any charger rule will allow you to buy from either of 2 suppliers. SF chargers (other than the box GT42) are expensive compared to the GT42, but they are inexpensive compared to the PS chargers.
The lessons to be learned are: If you give builders room to innovate they will & then will attempt to gain financially from their innovation. Pullers, just like racers & will spend all they win + all they have & then some to win. |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
up north
|
My two cents: 540 cid, p pump, oem head, any manifolds. Maybe a compromise at 8300 lbs? There is no reason to go heavier. The heavy oem starter class (pro farm) just is not taking off at all. I will switch my superfarm to run this class IF there are hooks. I'd like to see it offered at the regional level and state level. I don't want to change if there are only going to be 3 or 4 hooks. And the cost will not be out of hand. A good turbo would not be over $5000, and what did all of us suckers in superfarm dish out for the new precision turbo this year? Very nearly that much. |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
GSK
|
We have two different 5010's in div 5 (that is 7700lbs). One has 300lbs of moveable weight and could do a few more things to drop weight. They run 18.4's but I cant see why they couldnt make 8500lbs with 24.5's and still put 500 on the nose.Whats wrong with running a box charger with any exhaust housing (?HX 82?).By the end of one year everyone will be running the same charger anyway.And as far as intercoolers please dont alow them. Again, one more cost just to level the playing field. |
|
Start this class and fix the Super Farm class
|
hoping
|
This new NTPA class sounds like a great ides, keep the weight down to 8500 and cubic inches at or below 540 and then have the Super Farms all that do not want to go with the new smaller cibic inch class switch over to the 4.1 turbo and both classes would be more exciting than what the NTPA has now. Start the new 540, 8500lb class for the SF pullers that don't want to go with the 4.1, 9300, 640 class. Watching 72 Super Farms at BG that ALL go between 295 and 305 is not exciting. |
|
Re: Start this class and fix the Super Farm class
|
Anonymous User
|
I would like to see 505 cubic inch, it allows every color to conform without any boring of blocks. I like the box turbo idea, and I like the open exhaust and intake manifolds. 8000 lb. weight class is good too. I think we need to figure out how many 505 or 540's would pre-commit to running NTPA for next season in this class. If there is enough interest in this class, this may eliminate the large number of super farm tractors. |
|
Re: Start this class and fix the Super Farm class
|
i agree fix the super farm! |
|
How many Horse Power
|
wondering
|
How many Horse Power would a good running tractor make with the ntpa setup that is being perposed. How much HP would be the differance between 505 and 540 if everything else was the same??? Do we need OEM or billet heads for the class??? |
|
Re: How many Horse Power
|
Anonymous User
|
I used to run a Lim Pro in Ohio and Ag. rear, 540, P Pump, ANY MANIFOLD(can not stress that enough),oem head, 4.1 turbo. You can make big numbers with that combo and turn the wheels very fast. 24.5 tires and for god sakes, why would anybody want to allow a $23,000+ billet head in a class that is trying to draw in new pullers. You can damn near build a Lim Pro with the rules I stated for the price of a billet head or a charger over 4.1. Guys who b!t#h about 540 being to big, if you are going to build your motor right 540 is a very small fraction of price above 505 unless you are going to run a stock 505 in which case you should just stay home. I don't know what to think about the restrictor rule Jake likes, but I do know a 4.1 can be bought without breaking the bank and 540 built right can keep it lit, and as far as policing it a 4.15 plug (very simple and effective). Also, I see so many people say if you run a stock head why would you need to run an aftermarket manifold? These are obviously keyboard pullers. A billit head runs $20k+, an oemhead can be tricked completely out for$3-$5k, cheaper ifyou do it yourself. Now, the manifolds, try even finding the good oem ones and then price them, when you can build one that flows much better for a couple hundred dollars, it resolves turbo clearance problems, and just for sh!t$ & giggles it makes under your hood look 110% better!!!!!!!
|
|
Re: How many Horse Power
|
Registered: 03/31/2008 Posts: 762 |
Who will supply a head filled with alluminum or Hardblock & ported to the max for $5k? The core is going to cost $1500... |
|
limited pro class
|
Red 540
|
This sound like a perfect class for my tractor. There is several tractors in my area Iowa/Minnesota/Wisconsin that would fit into this class that have been brush pulling the last few years cause they have no real group to pull with competively and a few more tractors being built now. I would really like to see this 540 limited pro class go through we would all be in for sure if it comes around our area, ( we already fit the rules with a few minor changes ). You would defiantly get a lot of tractors invovled in this class and a lot of different colors too. It sounds good, get it going and give it a couple years to run so guys have time to build and work out bugs before you change rules or scrap the class. Just like pro farm it takes time to get a class established but there sure is a lot of those in our area now that run good. You have our support for this 8500LBS 540 C.I. limited pro class! |
|
2 cents
|
Anonymous User
|
Hey Mark
This sounds like a great class. I like the 540 rule. It opens up the motor options more than the 505. OEM heads only, but allow 4v heads if they are a factory option. Headers and custom intake manifolds defiantly. Allows better turbo placement and you can do your own thing. P-pump only and size plunger you want to run. I like 8000 but will agree 8500 allows for a few more tractor models to be used. Should make a class with 20+ tractor at 90% of the pulls in 2yrs if we can get it sanctioned. Is NTPA willing to help promote/push this with sponsors the first couple years? No use in building a tractor if you can only play a couple times. Is nice to see NTPA taking a little input from discussion boards. |
|
Re: 2 cents
|
up north
|
Also lets call it Light Pro stock instead of limited pro stock. I don't like the idea or the perception of "limited". Already a Light Super so Light Pro fits right in. |
|
Re: 2 cents
|
red 540
|
I agree on the light pro strock name too |
|
Re:My 2 cents
|
Registered: 04/06/2008 Posts: 974 |
I have not read every post but I completely agree with the proposed rules. I am with Fat Boy and would also like to see 8000 lbs. Keep components out. I just think this will make a great class. Nice Job NTPA!!! |
|
Re: Re:My 2 cents
|
add components +++++++
|
Why would you deny new pullers the option of using a component frame?  The cost is equal if you start from scratch. Next year is 2010 not 1980 come on get with the times !
|
|
Re: thanks guys
|
Anonymous User
|
Thank you for your input! NTPA is listening! I have to leave for the fort, be back sunday. I will check back on sunday.THANKS Mark Peissig |
|
Re: thanks guys
|
Registered: 03/26/2008 Posts: 256 |
505 cubes cast head p pump ag chassis 4.1
Andy Keyes BLUE BYE U SuperFarm |
|
Re: Re:My 2 cents
|
I am in
|
540 ci
4.1 turbo.... 4.5 out oem heads any manifold stock rear ends P-pumps 1 plunger 1 injector 24.5x32 I will take my Lim-Pro 640 and decube for this class...HELL YEAH make the class. We are in if you have more than 1 hook in the area (WI,MN,IA). |
|
Re: Re:add components
|
Anonymous User
|
You been smokin the wacky backy there buddy? Not to be harsh but there is no way You can start from scratch and build a component for what you can an ag rear. You don't have to buy a tractor to build one. You can buy a salvage ag rear/tranny for $250-$600 if you shop around. If you don't believe it PM me and I will give you a # to someone who has evry brand except JD that would work great for this class. |
|
Re: Re:add components
|
tracks
|
let us have the best right the way |
|
Rulebook
|
Orange Man
|
2010 Light Pro Stock Rules (locked in for 4 years):
8000 lbs 540 Ci. OEM Cast Head - no external alterations 24.5x32 tire max - any cut P-pump maximum 1 injector per cylinder 4" restrictor on inlet side of turbo Yea or ney??? |
|
Re: Rulebook Also
|
Orange Man
|
Also would add...
No component Chassis! |
|
Re: Rulebook
|
lps puller
|
Sounds good but would like to see weight stay at 8500lbs just to have more movable weight |
|
Re: Rulebook
|
Registered: 08/02/2008 Posts: 236 |
how many plungers per cylinder? |
|
Re: Rulebook
|
rules committee member
|
1 |
|
Re: Rulebook
|
Registered: 08/02/2008 Posts: 236 |
Any limit as far as P3000, P7100, P8600, P8700, P9000? You can get up to 17mm. P3000 and P7100 are pretty limited to 14mm. |
|
Orangelss please read
|
Toby Kramer
|
I can see where you are coming from on not wanting to build a tractor for only a few hooks. But please think of the promotors stance, they also will not want to book a class with only a couple tractors. I think with the color this class will provide it should only be a short time and promotors will be requesting this class! |
|
Toby please read
|
Orange Man
|
TK - Would you continue running SF or would you go into a class like this instead? Especially since you wouldn't need to decube.
Also, you gonna be at the fort? |
|
To Orange Man
|
Toby Kramer
|
No more S.F. would pull this class. Yes I will be at Fort both nights |
|
Re: Orangelss please read
|
should be
|
component chassis should be a definite option.they wouldn't have to,they are not a clear advantage as seen in ps class,but it should be the builders choice |
|
Re: Orangelss please read
|
xxx
|
no componates! no way! |
|
Re: Orangelss please read
|
Anonymous User
|
Components don't offer a Hp advantage at the flywheel, but they do have more HP advantage at the rear wheels, because there are less gears and cogs to move through effectively getting more power to the rear wheels, also adds more movable weight. If you want to build a component build a PS,LSS,OSS,or DSS. |
|
Re: Orangelss please read
|
Anonymous User
|
Toby Kramer Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------- > I can see where you are coming from on not wanting > to build a tractor for only a few hooks. But > please think of the promotors stance, they also > will not want to book a class with only a couple > tractors. I think with the color this class will > provide it should only be a short time and > promotors will be requesting this class! Hello thats exactly what I mean. I would like to see NTPA as a organization help promote new classes. Give a break for sanctioning, get puller to comite with a smaller purse for the first couple years. As a org its great to make classes and rules but they need to support them and get them rolling. I think this is a great class with tons of potential!! As for componet chassis to be honest I like the idea, but thats as someone who is starting a shop up!! |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
Registered: 03/26/2008 Posts: 256 |
How in the @#$%& will 505 leave colors out every brand has a motor smaller than 500 or its called DECUBE |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
Interstate guy
|
Limit the class to an A-pump, and that will keep the turbo size down. As far as I know there is everything from 3.9's to 4.4's running (with most using 4.1's) and running well against each other here in the east. If you limited turbo sizes it will become another super farm class very quickly. The A-pump is still a cheaper option. As Curt Forrester said in another post the only way a P-pump would be cheaper is if they limit it to 800 CC P-pumps. Most of us are already running at least 820 cc's or more with our A-pumps. No mater what engine size you select, 70% of the class pullers in the classes will be red or green with a few token other colors mixed in. I wish people would stop trying to re-invent the wheel. Here is an awesome class, pick these rules up and go pulling. The guys in our class have no trouble spinning their tires @ 8500.........They seem to spin them well weighted to 9000 at Gordyville too. |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
Registered: 04/02/2008 Posts: 478 |
I too agree with the A pump. That will be the "Limiting" factor instead of restrictor tubes, designated turbo size, etc. Keep the teching simple. Components not needed (I am all for them in SS and PS) but with the growth of this new class over time, its a good place for the oem chassis tractors being replaced with components in the SS and PS classes. J R Eastern Extreme Pulling www.easternextremepulling.com EEPPULLINGVIDEOS Pro Pulling Magazine Hook Magazine |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
Pee Wee
|
I gotta think an A-Pump rule will be expensive. I have bad visions of "the new CDS 1000 cc A-Pump...Only $9000 and its yours." I might be all wet though. Just used to p-pumps i guess. |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
up north
|
I think the majority of the tractors in the class would be converted superfarms. Hence they already have a P pump. If you have an A pump and want to run it that would be ok, wouldn't it? |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
Anonymous User
|
I think it is Wimmer Diesel in Ohio that have a pretty awesome A Pump forabout $3000, but I'm still all for the P Pump. |
|
Re: Question for fat boy
|
LP
|
What is it with you interstate guys and the stupid A-pumps? There are A-pumps out there that cost $6500 and still aren't dependable. I think you guys are the only class in the country using them! And because of you, the guys in the western pa got stuck with them too. You are gonna end up spending just as much on an A-pump that doesn't perform as well. I have seen several guys stick those A-pumps and do other motor damage. Limit the cubes and turbo and be done with it! |
|
Re:lighter the better
|
superfarm puller
|
Great idea Mark, that's is what's so fun about light super, you really have to drive them. Most of the time the guy who drove the best and set-up the best was the winner. I like the 8000# idea the best, quite a few superfarms carry around 2000#. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
smokin spectator
|
When and where will the final determination be made for this class ?? |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Toby Kramer
|
The rules will be final after the Enderle in Urbana,Oh. when the n.t.p.a. board has their annual meeting. That is why everybody that is interested in this class should add your comments on here now. After the 9/20/09 meeting the rules will be final and will not be changed. Also it would be beneficial to send a signed letter to the ntpa or drop Richwine an e-mail off of tech page on ntpa website. Need everyones comments to try to get this class started right don't hold back agree or disagree comment now board members are monitoring this page as there is less than a month. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
smokin spectator
|
Can the public attend the meeting.? Different question ?? After attending BG a few of the super farm tractors have a bit of a horsepower edge over the rest of the pack, what do you attribute this too?? custom built turbos in the hands of a few?? etc. Are most guys running 640. |
|
The class name
|
llsser
|
8500 PRO MODS or maybe DEISEL PRO MOD TRACTOR. This will be a class packed with action and color due to the weight to horsepower ratio. just thought it would be silly to label it as a little brother class to prostock. This is going to be a class of its own. its a simple class with simple rules. [en.wikipedia.org] |
|
Re: The class name no mod
|
up north
|
you can't have mod in the name, we already have mods. way too confusing |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
new puller
|
As someone who is getting into the sport, this class excites me, as it sounds like a class that's affordable to get into. I don't want to go "brush pulling" purely because (it seems to me) in my area, that there is a lack of clarity of the rules, and therefore making them hard to enforce. Along with that, trying to build a tractor for the county fair pulls is frustrating to say the least, simply because they are all so different, and like was said before, who wants to build just to hook a few times a year? I don't like the idea of components at all, because someone with big $$ will come along with a chrome moly frame, have tons of moveable weight, and then make it a money game all over again. I like the wieght at 8500, although I'd be okay with 8000, I also like the 540 cid. I didn't see if anyone said if it's okay to decube? OEM heads and any manifold is also good, but I'm on the fence with the turbo thing, I see the good and bad of it. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
don't b afraid of components
|
What is so scarry about a component chassis ? EVERY class can be a "money game" there new puller. The sooner you understand that the happier you will be competing. You can't leglislate economy into a class with open rpm's . If you are a new puller and don't have a chassis, then do the math and you will find the dollars it takes to build a class tractor ( not some stock frame junk frontend with ratchet straps holding the weights on) are the same with a cast rear or a component. Sorry if these facts seem to scare some of you guys but it's still true. Come on if you truely want a cutting edge class then allow components . Or do you guys want a cheap class that goes fast and can potentially hook BG and NFMS some day, sorry there is no such thing as a class that is cheap and hooks those venues. |
|
No components
|
Just say no
|
The component tractors are able to get more HP to the ground, if they are built right. After a year or two the components will win out and half the class will need to start over. I say if you want to run a component build a 10,000 pro stock. Some tractors in this class will want to hook with state organizations that don't allow them. Then what? Bottom line is if you want an economical class with good numbers don't allow components. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Registered: 05/20/2008 Posts: 48 |
I Think heres where NTPA and the board members have to be careful not to complicate the rules and the class, heres my two cents on the idea,no components theres plenty of cast iron tractors out there for this,no intercoolers just adds to the money pile,no billet wheels in turbo, 4.1 with g trim exhaust max.,the idea of oem head any manifolds is also good, i like the 540 idea some tractors are there and others can get there pretty easy,8500lbs i also like most guys can get there without aluminum rear wheels,As a puller and a promoter i like this class idea, i think its the best i've heard in awhile for a afffordable class the average person could afford.thanks for your time. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
I disagree a bit
|
cast wheel 4.1's are a disaster waiting to happen just ask the outlaw guys
|
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Anonymous User
|
Pin the nut to the wheel, will save you lots of headaches. I personally don't have a problem with guys using billet wheels, but I agree with Gettinger, the 4.1 will make this class alot more affordable for many pullers. This combination of P pumps and 4.1 turbos will probably make between 1600 to 1900 horsepower, depending on dyno and etc... To me that is enough power to put on a good show at 8500 lbs and still be somewhat affordable. If you use a 4,1 restrictor tube, guys will run 5 inch chargers. There will be P-pumps that will run as good as sigmas, just less reliability, and they will be expensive, as Curt Forrestor referenced to a few weeks ago on here. I believe the limited pros in missouri had 3 inch restrictors, and guys ended up making 4.1 turbos work, so the tube is not much restriction. As soon as you get larger than 4.1 the supply of good oem turbos really goes down hill, which is what will make the turbos expensive. I seen somebody earlier complaining about almost spending $5,000 on a superfarm turbo this year, that won't touch the turbo it will take to win in this class if they use 4.1 tubes and P pumps. I don't think it would be a stretch to see the top tractor over 2000 horsepower very soon if they use a restrictor tube rule. I would like somenoe that is for the restrictor tubes, and thinks they will save money, tell me what turbo or size wheel they believe will be the biggest that will work and how much they think that turbo would cost. One way the restrictors might work is making the restrictor smaller like 3.5" on the intake, then you could run any turbo you wanted, but you would have a chance of being competive with a 4.1 turbo wheel.
For me personally I wish it was an unlimited single charger rule, but that is probably to expensive for alot of pullers that think they want to participate in this class, and not the best thing to get the biggest numbers in the class. Regardless of what the turbo rule ends up being, sounds like a class I would run in. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
smokin spectator
|
do you think with 540 someone could spin a 5 inch charger with oem cylinder head??? |
|
EUROPEAN PRO STOCK
|
PRETTY SURE
|
I am pretty sure the european pro stocks run oem heads and 510 cubes, I know of a tractor running a 4.6 for sure and they are spinning it and are not one of the top tractors. I would bet there are 5 inch turbos or very close on top tractors, and thats 510, I am sure someone in the know could say more accurately. |
|
Re: EUROPEAN PRO STOCK
|
Anonymous User
|
Most top European PS tractors are 500-510 cui and spinning 4.6-4.8 chargers... That is with billet Sigma pumps and all... Components have been allowed, and a few built, but not showing any real advantage at this point... And that's at 7700lbs... Euro PS have a HUGE variety of color as well - IH, JD, Ford, Valtra and just about every off brand has been tried as well at some point (often with quite good results).
My optimum scenario: 680 cui PS -> 580 cui PS with any head, any charger, component if you want to (basicly your current PS, just decubed for durability) 640 cui SF -> 540 cui with 3x4 charger, intercooler (doesn't cost that much), 13mm P-pump, OEM head And then the newest addition: 540 cui Light Pro Stock, OEM head, any charger, any manifold, let the compenents run because at 8000-8500lbs they won't make a difference, let them have a 13mm P-pump if you want to - But I don't think it will make much difference As I know that some Euro teams would like to go 8800 lbs competition across the pond would be possible either way - Now wouldn't that be fun :-D |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Anonymous User
|
I agree, billet wheels are a little pricey, but much more durable. |
|
Re: NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
Here’s my list of not now for this class:
No components – maybe they can be allowed in the class in the future, but the majority of the tractors that will join this class are SF tractors so make the transition easy for them to jump in the class. No billet heads – yes there will be a few people who will have more money in a “Stock” head than they could have had in a billet head, but again, people will be coming into this class from SF so they can easily make the transition with their current heads. I personally believe that fairly tight rules need to be inplace before the class ever makes it to the track because it’s always easier to open up the rules rather than enforce new rules. I know there are some people against the restrictor tube… my idea for the restrictor tube is really a way of future proofing the class. A 4”-4.5” inlet restrictor may not sound like a huge restriction, but it puts an upper limit on the class. It allows creativity while still keeping the air in check. The right restrictor tube rules will also end arguments about billet wheel vs. cast wheel, or sealed chargers, or smooth bore, or map rings, or spec chargers, or …. As for the pump… P-pump just makes more sense. The A-pump guys can still hook in the class, but a P-pump is a much more common pulling pump. As for decubing… It should definitely be allowed. If someone wants to build a 619 John Deere, or a 636 Cat, or a 585 Moline they should definitely have the option to decube to 505 or 540. As for the name… no offense to interstate, but I really, really, really dislike the name Mod Turbo. I know what the class is, I’ve seen it hook a number of times, but when I hear that name "Mod Turbo" I picture some junky single engine econo-mod with a turbo charger on it. The term "Mod" should only be in a Modified class. I still lean toward Light Pro Stock, or Light Limited 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. |
|
Call it light pro stock!
|
Orange Man
|
It seems to me there are way too many limited pro classes already with way different rules. Separate this class from the pack and call it light pro stock! |
|
Re: Call it light pro stock!
|
Anonymous User
|
I like the ring of light pro stock also, but I'm biased to the L in LSS |
|
Re: Call it light pro stock!
|
Interstate guy
|
Interstate has it all including the name: Mod Turbo, use the name and their rules. |
|
Re: Call it light pro stock!
|
Registered: 04/02/2008 Posts: 478 |
Light Limited Pro maybe? J R Eastern Extreme Pulling www.easternextremepulling.com EEPPULLINGVIDEOS Pro Pulling Magazine Hook Magazine |
|
Re: Call it light pro stock!
|
Anonymous User
|
I like the ring of Light Limited Pro Stock, But then again I'm partial to LLSS!!!!
|
|
Re: Call it light pro stock!
|
MR coon dog
|
if ntpa dont start payn up there b no pullers left what a joke 800 two win a grand national sf hook and spend 600 in fuel getn there ya make more classes but i agree 540 will bring out a lot of tractors that are sittn in sheds |
|
2 suggestions
|
Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,349 |
These are separate ideas.
#1) Here's a down-the-road idea- instead of creating a new class from scratch, just allow this combination into the current SF class. You pick either set of rules (no gray areas either... either run strictly the 9300 SF rules as they stand, or the 8500 whatever it's called rules). This would create a bit of variety, and instead of having another different class, they could pull against each other like they do in the East and may the best tractor win. In other words, this is already being done and seems to be working well. #2) Also, I think a tractor should be able to run whatever fuel it came from the factory to run on. If a tractor was made as a gasoline, LP/propane, or diesel, the rules should allow a guy to build that way. It would be nice to see a few yellow ones as well as other gas or propane types of vehicles. Builds variety and fans would love it. |
|
Re: 2 suggestions
|
llsser
|
This class needs to be a deisel only securety blanket class or it will never gett of the ground!! |
|
Re: 2 suggestions
|
Curt Forrester
|
We here in the east have been running a class just like this with the exception of an a-line pump and any turbo size. I have a few recommendations for such a class. I think the restrictor pipes in the intake and exhaust side is a mistake it will make it a dyno class and increase the price. I think a box 4.1 turbo with very specific specifications to be sent to the major turbo suppliers would be better. If you allow it to be any turbo they will be running 4.6 turbo's in a year or two which will eventually cause block failures especially in tractors that are stretched to get to that 540 limit in the first place. I think the p-pump rule is good but you have to remember that p-pump doesn't mean a $2500.00 13mm pump anymore and I have heard of as big as 15mm so that needs to be considered. We run 8500lb and some of the guys thought 9000 would be better so we tried it at a couple of pulls this summer and from what have I seen it made no noticeable difference as far as the class order just more weight to haul around. The mixing of sf and limited pro tractors together is not as sweet and rosey as some people would want you to believe If you guys run p-pumps the super farms would really be at a disdvantage they are in here against the a-line pump tractors and with the p it would even be more. I would also discourage the use of intercoolers, yes they make power but all it will do is add added expense. |
|
light pro stock
|
Registered: 05/16/2008 Posts: 91 |
suggestions sound good to me but i think the turbo rule needs to be researched further ,if spec turbo make it a claimer rule, if protested you have turbo inspected if found legal the charger goes to protester and protester charger inspected also. (of course you need a price for turbo and inspection.) either everyone will be cheating or will be legal. |
|
Re: light pro stock
|
lps puller
|
Sounds good I'd say no to components though EVERY single class already allows components except super farm it would be nice to have another ag only or real tractor class, you can easily make weight without a component chassis. I'd stick with p-pumps too there cheaper and more readily available parts/builders wise, nothing against a-pumps just a lot more p-pump tractors already set up and going. Turbo rule is up in the air though, box turbo may be a good idea ? Either way the class sounds good it's about time all these brush pullers have somewhere to go pull. |
|
Re: light pro stock
|
Interstate guy
|
Curt I am hearing all kinds of rumors about guys running 4.3's and 4.4's in mod turbo class now. Just wondering what you are seeing and hearing from the other competitors. |
|
Central Ohio Light Pro Stock
|
Check out Central Ohio Tractor Pullers Light Pro Stock Class, (coatpa.com) 8200 # 540 cid, P pump, 3.15 Turbo, 24.5 tire, Diesel only, no coolers. 8200 is big enough we have 5010s in our 7700 Classic Super Stock. At this weight these tractors run down the track like pulling tractor should not like the 9300# plow class. 540 cid is easy and lets all brands in. This turbo may be a little to small but you can buy it for $2500, and $2500 P pump. Easy rules to enforce but cid must be enforced. This is the class we tried to sell to the NTPA and the ATPA years ago, but they choose the 9300 Plow Class instead. |
|
Re: Central Ohio Light Pro Stock
|
Glen305
|
I agree the Central Ohio light pro class is a good class an it will be around for many years, but my opinion is that the weigh needs to come up some. I agree with you totally about the 9300lb plow class. I think that if the weight comes up some you will get some new tractors. When I say some....a max of 8500lbs. Then you could go to a bigger charger in a few years down the road, maybe a 3.6?
just my thoughts |
|
LPG, gas, and diesel
|
Registered: 01/17/2009 Posts: 207 |
That was a question I had. If a tractor was built with any designated fuel (no Alcohol),why not let them run in ONE cool class. People know the diesels have the advantage over the other fuels. We have PS and PF for diesel only,let`s let all colors play with no advantage on either side.
As for theP-pump limit 13mm or 14mm for costs 8500 Lbs no components lock in rules 3 yrs. |
|
Original Michael
|
Registered: 01/17/2009 Posts: 207 |
I like rule # 2 |
|
Turbo rule question
|
Too Big?
|
Just wondering if the 4.1 turbo is too big. What's the pros and cons of runner a bit smaller one. Cost, availability, etc.... |
|
Re: Turbo rule question
|
puller 1
|
stock g-trim exhaust turbin (4.5 ")
any intake, no restrictor 13mm p-pump no components or cast components, ridged only oem heads (no recast heads) 1" max deck plate (same as pro allows) any manifolds 8300-8500 lbs i- coolers ??? any 24.5 tires, except radials 540 CI pay out, average of pro and SF diesel only |
|
Re: Turbo rule question
|
Orange Man
|
No deckplate...Why do you need one if it's only 540 cubes? 4.5" is too big. How are you going to police the 13mm plunger rule? I don't want someone tearing my injector pump apart in a dark, dusty parking lot. Restict the turbo a little and you won't need to worry so much about the pump size. If i remember right the NTPA wanted this to be a class with minimal rules to enforce. |
|
Re: Turbo rule question
|
Accountant
|
The object here is have an economical class. Where is the economics in having to replace a block or rebuild an engine every winter? Sure a deck plate adds a few bucks up front, but If the a deck plate helps the engine live longer, it will be more economical in long run. I would rather over build one time than under build several times. |
|
Re: Turbo rule question
|
Confused puller
|
So, are you talking about a deck plate between the head and block or a girdle on the bottom end to hold it together??? Don't see the point in allowing or needing a deckplate.
|
|
Re: Turbo rule question
|
Anonymous User
|
A deckpate helps the engine hold together longer. It gives strength to the top end, especialy under the high rpms endured by a puling tractor. And for example say somebody wants to build their 540 out of a 466 without stroking the crank, then a deckplate is almost a necessity to stop the upper cylinder walls from dancing around. It is not like it gives a huge performance advantage, it can change the compression a little, and offers the availabiity off a very slightly longer stoke without altering the crank. It is really about reliability, and this is supposed to be an economical class. Why no need for deckplates? Doesn't make a bit of sense to me. Must be keyboard pullers speaking against them. Hell, while we are at it, no girdles, no head studs, no sfi flywheels, and lets just rebuild these things every 4 or 5 passes!!! Not trying to be harsh guys, but these damn keyboard pullers are annoying. Why shouldn't we be allowed to run a deckplate? So we have to buy a new block 40 runs before we shoud have to. |
|
Re: Turbo rule question
|
Registered: 03/31/2008 Posts: 762 |
I think the deck plate was originally to even out the differences in deck heights. (as I recall the original 5/8" rule is the diff between deere & binder OEM blocks) Now everyone runs them & those with a taller deck still have better rod ratios. If you run a binder at 540 you probably think you don't need one but if you're running a Ford you may not be able to get to 540 without one. Maybe the deck plate should be block specific with the idea of giving every block the same block + plate height. Of course it will be seen as trying to keep the binders down to those who don't understand the differences since the binder has the tallest OEM deck height. |
|
Re: Turbo rule question
|
Anonymous User
|
You should all take a little time to research the Interstate and USA East Mod-turbo/limited pro classes. They have been running the 540 A-pump any turbo rules for 15+ years. It works. The engines live, very little to tech accept cubes. The talk about $2500 p-pumps? Not going to compete with one of those anymore. The big A-pumps run well and live and no they don't make as much power as one of the big plunger P's so that helps limit the turbo size and adds to the life of the motor. NTPA doesn't have to invent a class, look at what's already there and working. |
|
?? for ARTW
|
Wondering About
|
Does interstate allow deckplates? Sounds like this class is a good one. |
|
claimer rule
|
Registered: 05/16/2008 Posts: 91 |
does anybody understand this concept(earlier post by me) or is it not worth responding to? |
|
Re: claimer rule
|
Registered: 08/02/2008 Posts: 236 |
I'm not against the theory, but if it's a box turbo, and I blow mine, or it's wore out, and I wanna go tractor pulling tommorrow or they're on backorder, does that mean I can just buy yours and be ready to go pulling? Sounds like you would be screwed then. Sounds like a good way to bump you out of the points. Unless you always wanna keep a spare in your back pocket. |
|
Re: claimer rule
|
Registered: 05/16/2008 Posts: 91 |
yes i see the point but you need to be competing to get to protest to buy charger. but thats where spec charger part comes in they would or should be readily available through many suppliers or manufacturers. |
|
Re: claimer rule
|
Anonymous User
|
hitchpin Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------- > yes i see the point but you need to be competing > to get to protest to buy charger. but thats where > spec charger part comes in they would or should be > readily available through many suppliers or > manufacturers. Problem with spec/box chargers are the price. Look at super farm $8000 3x3s are just stupid. Restrictor tube allows the use of any turbo you want. Again also less rule enforcement for the tech guys to go through. |
|
Re: claimer rule
|
You could spend $8000 grand on a turbo in a claimer class, but are you really going to do that and risk losing it for a $500 claimer rule?
Personally, I think that a box charger limit with a $500 or $1000 claimer rule would generate much more interest and competition. If you are looking to hold down costs in a class, there is nothing more effective than a claimer rule. |
|
Re: claimer rule
|
puller 1
|
claim rules are fine for farm classes, it is not something that is for a class at this level. Claim rules are for whiners that cant keep up, not for competative pullers. |
|
Re: claimer rule
|
And insults are for people who have no intellectual or factual basis for their opposition to a proposition. |
|
Re: claimer rule
|
Registered: 03/31/2008 Posts: 762 |
As I recall the box turbo is ~$1500 for journal bearings or ~$2500 for ball bearings. I'm sure someone can correct me if I'm off.
Box turbo means out of the box from Holset, Garrett etc. The part numbers are published for everyone so you should be able to get them from any shop that is a distributor for that brand of turbo. That keeps the cost down since you don't have to go to a "pulling" shop. Holset etc isn't going to jack the price because it's not a pulling only part. Enforecment shouldn't be that difficult. If the tech man has a box turbo he can swap housings from the competitors & his turbo; if they all interchange the only other thing to check is to use a ring to verify the big diameter of the compressor wheel. X by Y is always going to allow Hyper, Columbus, Precision, etc to build special wheels & charge for it. Custom billet compressor wheels can be made on a good CNC mill, custom turbine wheels & housings are a different story which is why Hyper & Columbus are the only suppliers of the big chargers. I presume the G trim Holset is about the biggest OEM turbine wheel & that is why some are proposing limiting the turbine to that size. |
|
Re: claimer rule
|
Anonymous User
|
Actually Holset made an HT100 I have not seen one in person but it's massive but I am unsure on the size of the exhaust wheel. Here is a photo of one.
HT100 |
|
Re: ?? for ARTW
|
Dave255
|
Yes, interstate allows deckplates. There are at least 2 in the class with deck plates |
|
Re: Turbo rule question
|
Registered: 08/02/2008 Posts: 236 |
There is no way to alter the stroke either direction without altering the crank. |
|
Re: Turbo rule question
|
Anonymous User
|
I don't know what it would be considered, but if you add a 5/8" deckplate between the block and head, them you woud have to use 5/8" longer rods to get the pistons to the valves. I don't exacty know as I build frames, cages, and chassis stuff, not engines but it seems like that woud be 5/8" of extra stroke, or is it just 5/8" longer rods. Please expain. |
|
Re: Turbo rule question
|
been there
|
if you dont change the the throw of the crnk you dont have a longer stroke, the end of the rod follows the crank it doesnt matter if it is 10 inches away the crank still moves the same. |
|
Re: Turbo rule question
|
deerepower
|
With the 5/8" deck-plate you either need 5/8" longer rods or the other options are 5/8" taller pistons or you have to stroke the crank 1 1/4" with the same rods and pistons in engine to make it work. |
|
Re: Turbo rule question
|
Anonymous User
|
I understand that, what I want to know is if it is not giving you a longer stroke using the longer rod then what is it doing? I understand the crank doesn't have a longer, nevermind, I just got it. That is exacty what the longer rod is doing, filling in for the missing stroke. Right? |
|
Re: Turbo rule question
|
Anonymous User
|
OK I don't get it. You don't change the stroke You're just moving the stroke up 5/8 higher in the clyinder so I guess I'll be the dumbly here and ask for a explaination to what is it doing????? Treat me to some knowledge. I guess I just open this up to----well we're see. Thanks. |
|
Re: Turbo rule question
|
reason
|
a deck plate does NOT give any more stroke or cubic inches.It is simply a top end durability item, similar to a girtle on the bottom end. the deck plate allows for a lower pin, hence more room for valve reliefs, and ring grooves on the piston.It also helps to prevent block cracking between sleeves. The deck plate takes the heat that the block would otherwise get at the top of the sleeve at the time of compression. |
|
Re: Turbo rule question
|
up nort
|
Where does it say that LPS would be a cheap entry level class? We are talking some pretty serious horsepower out of these tractors. Fully needled rear ends, billet pistons, hardened or billet rods, definately engine girdles, LOTS of headwork and aftermarket manifolds. The initial cost to build a tractor like this from scratch is just as daunting as superfarm. The majority of the tractors are going to be converted superfarms. The rule should be P pump because all the superfarms already have one. I don't like a turbo claim rule. If there is a restrictor tube it lets pullers use whatever they can get there hands on. We also need to look at it from a fan's point of view. Realistically what tractor can't get to 540? It's a big enough motor to spool the turbo and really make some power. But not too big to give any brand the edge. I'm running this class no matter what. I just hope it doesn't get screwed up. It's gotta be what's best for the NTPA and the fans, not what's best for any individual person or group or brand. |
|
Re: Turbo rule question
|
Registered: 03/31/2008 Posts: 762 |
The rod to stroke ratio slightly alters the motion of the piston (how many crank degrees that the piston is within .050" of TDC for example) and more importantly for durability how much side loading is on the piston (short rods side load the pistons more).
CID = Bore x Bore x Stroke x 0.7854 x # of cylinders. Notice that the rod, deck height, or piston compression height don't figure in the equation. I'll take a shot at how a deck plate works - if you have a 414 & put 436 pistons in it they will be 1/8" below the deck but the CID will still be 414. So if you put 414 pistons in a 436 they will stick up 1/8" above the deck; put an 1/8" deck plate in and you have proper head to piston clearance but still 436 CID. You would do the same thing using a different rod instead of chaning pistons if you wanted to improve the rod ratio or change pistons too & improve the rod ratio more. |
|
Re: Turbo rule question
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
I see no reason to not allow deck plates. The cubic inches will be limited so I see no problem in running a deck plate. If you want to deck plate your 505 and run a longer rod then your should have that option. You should be able to run whatever combination you want as long as you meet the cubic inch requirements. If you want to build a 619 Deere down to 505 and run a huge bore, very short stroke and a deck plate to run a very long rod you should be free to experiment. 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. |
|
To Dick and Jake
|
Orange Man
|
Thanks for posting the poll on the cubic inch. I'm glad you guys give us a forum to discuss these issues. I was wondering if you thought of posting a poll on the turbo size of the class. Thanks again!
|
|
Check out the POLL
|
Moderator Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 1,449 |
Thanks, I will posting a poll on not only the turbo size but also the head type and class name. If you want something else for the poll let me know. Dick Morgan www.PULLOFF.com Independent Pulling News |
|
Re: Check out the POLL
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,523 |
dick,it would be interesting to see a poll on if factory fuels would be allowed,on the gas thread it sounds like sparkplugs are a disadvantage.and on the big thread there is no mentionof it.so the diesel guys must not be to worried. |
|
Re: Patches
|
Registered: 01/17/2009 Posts: 207 |
Amen,there are 2 classes with diesel only.Should we make a class for gas and LP only, NO. We should be able to run all together in at least one class. I know the diesels have a big advantage over the other fuels, so why not let other fuels (not Alcohol) in one class...
On another note ,I like the 8500 lbs, no componet, 540 ci, oem head, any manifold, deck plate, either 4.1 turbo or restrictor tubes, 24.5 tires |
|
RULES
|
KY PULLER
|
I like the idea of keeping the rules simple. This is not a cheap class nor a starter class so we dont need to kid ourselves. My ideal rules are
8500lbs 540 cid 24.5 tires p-pump any manifolds 4.1 turbo I would hope that the cubes are at 540. NTPA does need to look at the number of pullers the class has out east and the results. Many different colors. The turbo is probably the most important rule.The restricter pipe is going to cost the pullers because we will have to experiment with so many different sizes. ex 4.1, 4.25,4.3, 4.4 or maybe even bigger to see what will work with the restricter pipe. Why not go with a 4.1 rule. Yes they will have to be teched but just the intake side, run whatever you want on the exhaust side. |
|
Re: RULES
|
puller 1
|
a true 4.1 turbo does not measure 4.1", there for needing machine work. most, if not all come with slots. so how much are you going to have in the turbo again, and how much teching needs to be done. Run with any turbo, nothing to ckeck no complaining. As far as p-pumps go, if you do not limit the plunger size, then just let any pump run, and let the cubes and head be the limit. |
|
Re: RULES
|
Lets have fun
|
I have to agree with puller 1 if this is going to be a light pro stock class dont start limiting the charger,or plunger size on the p pumps, this class is for the fans make it exciting ,stop and think about why everyone likes the llss and the lss classes,fast and always exciting. Put the limits on this class at 540ci,oem head,ag rearends,split the difference on the weight go with 8250 and every color can make the weight easy. The ones that want to run a 4.1 charger go to the limited pro class with 640ci,I know of several sf that are already planing this move for next year already. |
|
Re: RULES
|
JF
|
Is the limited Pro 640, 4.1, 9500lb class still a go or is this class that everybodies been talking about taking the place? Does anybody know what the deal is? |
|
Re: RULES
|
KY PULLER
|
I will agree with the open turbo. I just dont like the idea of a restricter tube. I think a 4.1 rule would be better than the restricter tube because everyone would know what to start with. With the restricter tube there are many different combinations. |
|
Re: RULES
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
If it’s a 4.1 class (or 3.6… or 3.9… or ) is it going to be smooth bore or map enhanced? Is there going to be an upper limit on the size (width) of the map enhancement grove? Is it going to be a sealed 4.1? Is it going to be a box 4.1? Seems like a lot of policing, and the potential for a lot of custom machining.
If it’s unlimited turbo how long is it until you need to buy a 5” custom turbo that costs $12,000? A restrictor tube is the simplest and easiest solution. It’s simple for the tech guys to police and it’s simple for the pullers to install. Pulling already has experimented with unlimited turbo size… and it’s already experimented with limiting turbo size… but it hasn’t made an attempt to limit the air with a cheap and simple restrictor tube (at least it hasn’t on this level). A restrictor at 4.000” would be a great limit to restrict air flow but still allow some serious RPM. A restrictor tube of 4.500” would be a great upper limit to really open things up. For those who prefer no turbo limit in the class… That’s why I suggested a restrictor tube as big a 4.5”. It’s essentially an open turbo class, but the restrictor tube “future proofs the class”. The restrictor tube essentially sets an upper limit for the air flow… It’s a limit that they won’t be at yet, but a limit that might some day be reached (but never exceeded). In reality a 4” restrictor would probably be a great place to set the limit, it would probably be a 4.1”-4.4” class. You could probably run either a 4.1 or 4.4 with some pretty similar results. The fact that there are different combination is what makes the restrictor tube such an interesting idea. With a restrictor there might be combinations that are very very close in power, but very very different in price. It means you won’t necessarily need the most money to win the class. I personally think this class needs as few rules as possible, but the rules need to be well thought out. A simple restrictor tube will eliminate 4 paragraphs of illogical and expensive turbo charger rules. 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: RULES
|
someone will build a $12000.00 turbo like no other that will work with a restrictor tube . i think very very hard too keep cost down without a box turbo . |
|
Re: RULES
|
LP
|
Jake,
Not insulting you, but I would have a little more respect for your opinion if you had some experience. A restricter tube is gonna cost guys more money developing and destroying turbos than it is gonna save. And you are gonna have some outrageously priced turbos by the time somebody develops the best alternative to work with a restricter tube. This isn't a naturally aspirated stock car we are talking about here. I don't see any problem with a 4.1 smooth bore turbo. Pretty simple to tech. No map width and make sure the slug doesn't fit in it. Where is this so hard to understand? |
|
Can a 540 Ford hold together with a 5" charger
|
Registered: 03/31/2008 Posts: 762 |
Another mega $ class? Might as well just lower the cubes in PS, I don't think there are enough deep pockets to support another high dollar class. IMHO one reason the PS numbers have dropped & SF taken off is the cost & maintenance. I have no delusions of this class being inexpensive, but if it's going to be "superfarm done right" like I think many want it to be the cost & reliability need to be similar to SF. In my opinion Sigma pumps & chargers over 4.1 would take the cost of this class way beyond SF & open chargers will kill the reliability after a couple of years of R&D.
I'd like to hear Forrester's opinon on the turbo rule. I know the Ford is pretty thin at 540, so does it have a chance of holding together if this starts getting crazy on turbo size & RPM's? If the ford doesn't hold together the color decreases significantly. |
|
Re: Can a 540 Ford hold together with a 5" charger
|
Registered: 01/27/2009 Posts: 48 |
Why is it my fault that Deere and IH were smart back in the day and put bigger cube motors in than some other brands. Lets just keep 640 cubes 4.1 charger. And why can't the blue guys run a 8.3 cummins in a 9000 frame and then use TG285 sheet metal, that would slove the blue guys cube problem. |
|
Re: Can a 540 Ford hold together with a 5" charger
|
Curt Forrester
|
Yeah they hold together with a 4.1 charger and over in Europe they run with sigmas and 4.6 chargers. I guess thought the Ih and small block used to stay together at 680 also, not so much anymore. We hook 40 plus hooks a year and we have very few failures of any type, We aren't running deck plates and Papa smurf doesn't even have a girdle on it. So I feel confident at 540 for todays technology who knows about 3-4 years from now. |
|
Re: Patches
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,523 |
i am not sure of a diesel advantage,how can a 5liter sb ford with a 80mm turbo be approaching 1500hp.i know they are using heads with very good port and chamber design,but wouldnt a 540 gas tractor motor with a 4.1 and heads with good ports and a average chamber surpass the 5 liter.i am assuming some sort of injection(port) will be used on the gas motor. |
|
Re: Patches
|
Registered: 01/17/2009 Posts: 207 |
Aluminum heads will help keep the detonation down.I'd rather stick with cast though
|
|
Re: Check out the POLL
|
Registered: 04/02/2008 Posts: 478 |
Polls are fine if it will only let you vote once and thats it. So keep that in mind. J R Eastern Extreme Pulling www.easternextremepulling.com EEPPULLINGVIDEOS Pro Pulling Magazine Hook Magazine |
|
Crowds like diesel smoke
|
FraidSo
|
Hate to say it, but I think you guys are kidding yourselves discussing the LP, and gas situation. The class was originally stated to have easy to enforce rules. Just thinking that "diesel only" is a lot easier to enforce than adding a whole other section of rules about spark plugs and ignition systems and octane levels. I also think that the spectators want to see smoke and lots of it when they go to a tractor pull. Personally, I'm not saying one way is better than the other on the discussion of gas and LP versus diesel only, but i just don't think it would ever happen, and I understand why. Just an opinion... |
|
Re: Crowds like diesel smoke
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
I’ve got to agree with the previous post. While interesting in concept, the class is going to be a diesel only class.
From a historical standpoint, I understand that “gas” tractors were a very popular choice for small farms at one time, but it was mainly on the small farm. Yes, I know that LPG tractors were available, but they were in the vast minority. The perfect place for a “gas” tractor is the LSS and the LLSS. Both of those classes are great classes where different fuels can mix together. Now from a non-historical standpoint, how many “gas” tractors can you buy today? Even the smallest compact tractors are diesel tractors. For the most part, gas tractors are a thing of the past… While I love to watch Fools Gold and Propain run, I’m about 99.9999% sure that the Light Pro Stock class is going to be a diesel only class. It’s also not a question of “scared”, and it’s not because people “don’t understand” gas tractors, it’s merely a question of simplicity. Diesel only, and simple/logical rules are the recipe for success for the Light Pro Stock. 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: Crowds like diesel smoke
|
Registered: 01/17/2009 Posts: 207 |
LSS and the LLSS, these are classes again that I can`t afford to play in, and if i were in these classes I`d run alcohol... |
|
think about this
|
the old pro stock class had one big flaw BIG CUBIC ENGINES . my vote is 505 or 540 not less than 8500 lbs and the turbo if you dont go with a box turbo the cost of this class will be beyond your dreams . |
|
Noy yo change subject but!
|
If this class ever gets up and running will we be able to run the regular Pro Stock class at pulls like the super farms do. Or even the super stock class where numbers are down. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Anonymous User
|
I just gonna say it you all need to come to or ECMTPA pull and watch are class 9500lp they are the best 10 tractors to watch in the country and even NO MERCY AND RUNNING ON RED puts a 4.1 on can win the class so why not go with rules we have and a super farm tractor that wants to go faster all you haft to do is put a 4.1 on turn the full and water up and pull not build a whole new motor and also probably run out of power at 540 cubes at the end of there run. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Anonymous User
|
I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE A 7500 OR 7800 LB. CLASS |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Lets have fun
|
When is the members of ntpa going to make a decision on the rules? We need to start making some plans on new motor for next year. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
green
|
our light PS is 7500 and the 466 can run with the 540 |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Registered: 04/07/2008 Posts: 781 |
Our pro Farm is 640 and a 466 competes, 540 makes more sense,more reliable,different than SF or PRO. If you dont put limits on turbo the cost will get out of hand, box or bounty. a restricter tube will just make suppliers charge more for research to get bigger more expensive to work with restrictions.Weight needs to be 8500 or more a 6030 at any less is to costly Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2009 11:25AM by Mark. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
it is awsome to see all the interest in this class! i like the 8500 pound limit, p pump. i would like to see it become a 505 class because there are already big cube classes and all that does is drive the cost up to build motors. this would mostly make guys build motors using standard parts IH,JD,AC,ford ect. not hypermax, riverside and others it would make it so you had to know how to get power out of your tractor and actually be pulling brand vs, brand not engine builder vs. engine builder |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Future Light Pro
|
Just my oppinion::
Light Pro Stock 8500# Ag rear 24.5 540 CI OEM Cast Head Any manifolds Deck plates and decube allowed P-pump (one plunger per cylinder) 4" restrictor tube (for ease of teching) |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Anonymous User
|
Gee with that logic.........bet a 410 could whip'm all |
|
For Lazy K
|
Orange Man
|
Hey Toby, with all the discussion from excited pullers on this thread, whats Richwine and others saying about the interest and prospects for this class? BTW good run at the Fort. Nice job! (still like the color of that KW!)
|
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Registered: 03/01/2009 Posts: 53 |
I was told by a higher up with the ntpa that this class will be offered in regions 3 and 5. and that there are already enough smoker classes in the other regions build a tractor to fit. The numbers are high in our region 2 of smokers already in SF and PS. I dont feel we need another smoker class build one to fit instead on making new rules for another class or eliminate one and replace it with another. When numbers are really strong every hook its hard to gamble on a new class with unknown numbers. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
whatever
|
How 'bout you crawl back into your hole and be quiet, this is for constructive discussion. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
red power
|
looks like everyone has about said what they wanted to in the posted messages
i hope the ntpa makes a good set of rules. lets go pulling |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
buster
|
Did anyone see the lim pro/sf at canfield? The tractor that won is a 8500 mod turbo, 540 cu in., A pump, unlimited turbo,,,,great class,,,great set of rules |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
just for the record
|
For the record the tractors placing 1 thru 8 tractors in that class were all tractors that fit the 8500 Mod-Turbo Rules. 9th thru 22nd were super farms with the exception of Unforgiven (12th) and Patience of Jobe (13th) which also fit the mod turbo rules. The Full Pull Productions Limited Pro class is a combination of Mod Turbos weighing 8700 pounds against the super farms 9300. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
....
|
640,4.1,9,500lbs,and OEM head |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
There are currently a 640 and a 680 single turbocharger class. There are also two 650 multi-turbocharger classes. I personally believe the big cubic inch classes are already very (very, very) well covered in the NTPA.
The NTPA has one, (1) single, solitary class that has a lower cubic inch limit. Ironically 95% of the large tractors manufactured came in the 426-504 range. Let me reiterate… almost all the big Twd tractors used in the fields across America came with roughly a 500 cubic inch engine. So the NTPA has roughly 5 “tractor” classes, and only one of them actually represents the majority! Maybe it’s because I’m a fan of logic, maybe it’s because of I’m a fan of rules that are fair for all colors, but maybe, just maybe it’s time that the majority is represented (this is America after all… land of the majority, well not in pulling anyway). Don’t get me wrong, I think the 640 4.1 class has got some great potential as a Limited Pro class in the NTPA someday, but I think the Light Pro Stock should be developed first. I think the Light Pro Stock has the potential to be an excellent class if the cubic inches are kept at 505/510 (at most 540). I think the Light Pro Stock should be the next class that the NTPA sanctions. I think the organization should put its weight behind the class, and I think they need to develop the class with their state and national schedules in mind. I think a 500 cubic inch high performance diesel class would be a premier class in only a few short years. One quick look at the European Pro Stock, and you can quickly see how exciting the class could be. A heavy (9500) 640 with a 4.1 is fun to watch, but it wouldn’t hold a candle to watching a class at 505 cubic inches at 8000 lbs. with a big charger. 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: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
we don't need another class
|
and that is just what you told twister a few months ago. |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
I honestly don’t think we need another class… For years I’ve lobbied that we fix the current class offerings to logical rules, rules that make sense for all brands, rules that closely resemble the majority of tractors produced. Unfortunately there is no leadership in the sport (in any organization), and although there is constantly talk of changing rules and reigning in classes… it never happens.
Since we can’t seem to make changes to the current classes without some puller crying like school girls, the next logical solution it to create new classes, with the hope of getting the rules right before the tractors are built. With the hope of classes that will take the sport into a new direction, a future direction. The Light Pro Stock is part of that equation… look at the European Pro Stock, smaller cubes and high horsepower. While you’re at it take a look at most of the major motorsports… are they increasing cubic inches? No… most almost all motorsports are decreasing cubic inches. Almost all motorsports are creating classes that resemble modern technology. The other part of the equation for the NTPA is membership. Since the organization is a membership funded organization, one of the goals is to increase membership. If they create a new class that is just like their other classes they will get pullers to change, but they won’t actually gain any new members. If they create a new offering, one which fills a void they have a greater potential to gain new members, as well as new fans. IT’s time for the NTPA to offer something new… something fresh. It’s time for the NTPA to take another step towards the future. As a fan I still think we should get the classes right instead of creating new, but it’s not going to happen. However if we are going to create new classes let's get them correct from the start. 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: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
tracks
|
im glad some one is thinking right |
|
Re: The rules for the NEW NTPA LPS class
|
Ken Witt
|
Allow my component chassis and sign me up for all the region 3/5 hooks.
Licensed NTPA tractor ready to hook this class! Fits us perfectly (just allow components or handy cap us!...weight) Mr. YUK JD 7520 lightsuper |
Website Statistics
Global: Topics: 38,758, Posts: 229,918, Members: 3,336.
This forum: Topics: 37,093, Posts: 226,017.
Global: Topics: 38,758, Posts: 229,918, Members: 3,336.
This forum: Topics: 37,093, Posts: 226,017.
Our newest member DANNY.WAINSCOTT@YAHOO.COM
