02:37:37pm, Thursday, May 02, 2024
|
Deadweight pulling with a different objective
|
Registered: 08/27/2019 Posts: 212 |
I don't think I've ever seen pulling conducted this way, but has anyone ever seen deadweight pulling where there was a set weight on the sled, (not a weight transfer style), and a set distance, of say 100' or more where the objective was to cover that distance the fastest ?
Obviously, this would be relegated to "stock" tractors, and although speed and time is the object, it would be different than weight transfer type pulling where the weight pulled would be the same, heavy from the starting line the whole way down the track. I've found a couple examples , of sorts, of this in another country, although it seems kind of unorganized to say the least, with who knows what kind of rules. I think they call it Fast / Speed pulling. Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2022 10:03AM by JDpowershift. |
|
Re: Deadweight pulling with a different objective
|
Pull Fan
|
SE Ohio has several "Dead Weight" pulls at their county fairs. Usually the full pull is between 10 to 20 feet, no time limit. 2 attempts typically and keep adding more weight at end of each round until nobody can make a full pull, then the best distance is the winner. You must get a full pull to advance to the next round. No time limit because some of the old putt putts have a slow 1st gear |
|
Re: Deadweight pulling with a different objective
|
Registered: 08/27/2019 Posts: 212 |
I'm aware of how deadweight pulling is done these days, as I've been to a good many deadweight pulls over the years, along with many other pulls like pro and super stock and antiques using weight transfer type sleds I'm talking about a different kind or style of pulling that combines parts of both current styles, (thinking outside the box, so to speak), Deadweight pulling where the farthest distance doesn't win, but rather the fastest time down the track wins with a deadweight sled. It's been discussed here many times, how the sport of pulling ,(pro and super stock for example, but including anything high performance), has changed over the years, from a sport where the "tractors" were not as powerful but much heavier, to growing in HP and reducing the weight of the tractors and in reality, pulling less weight per HP. It just takes more weight to "stop" them, as it's become a HP. race which translates into more speed, (and money involved), and being referred to in some circles as "drag racing" Todays "high performance" pulling is more "entertaining" to the majority that attend today, (myself included), for sure, due to the smoke, wheel speed and everything else that comes with it, It has also become much more costly to get into, which I think we all can agree on , hurts the sport, especially when it comes to new people wanting to get into the sport.in some fashion or another. On the other hand, deadweight pulling as we know it today has kept "true pulling" in the sport, IMHO, in that deadweight pullers are pulling much more weight per HP. that any pro, super or modified puller is actually pulling. .Downside is, deadweight pulling just doesn't have the fan appeal, and the largest classes normally seen are under 10,000 lbs.. It seems we are always talking about the same old issue or problem of trying to put "pulling" back into the sport, while at the same time, trying to grow it by getting new and younger pullers involved and still keeping it somewhat affordable and still have some appreciable fan appeal. I could probably afford to get into the sport with a superfarm or prostock on the state level at this point in my life, but I'd also like to retire before I'm 80, so as much as I love the sport from a spectators point of view, retirement wins out. So.......back to the issue of putting "pulling" back into pulling, at least as far as farm tractors are concerned, and making it more affordable at the same time........ This may be thinking outside the box, but....... Consider a class for "stock" tractors pulling a fixed weight on a deadweight sled, a set distance of somewhere between 100' to 300' and the fastest time wins . The tractors would be held to their advertised rated PTO HP with an allowance of possibly 30% to 35% over, checked on a dyno, (many tractors came with that much over rated power). Turning that pump up a bit wont help because you will just have to pull more The weight on the sled for each individual tractor would be determined by the HP on each individual tractors PTO, which means a smaller tractor should be able to compete against a much larger HP tractor because the larger tractor will have to pull more, and again, the winner will be determined by the fastest time down the track . There would also be no maximum tractor weight. The driver will be allowed to decide what he / she wants their tractor to weigh, depending on how much weight they have to pull. The classes could be divided up according to the age of the tractors, such as a 1960 to '69 class, a 1970 to '79 class, a 1980 to'89 class, and so forth with a FWD class in each age group starting with the '80's class, as there weren't enough fwd's really being made before that. Not having a maximum tractor weight shouldn't matter, as we would be dealing with tractors that are policed and held to, or close to, original HP ranges, and the HP to weight ratio they would have to pull on the sled would keep the speed to within a safe range no matter how much the tractor weighs. Speed would still be a factor and play a part in this type of pulling because the fastest time will decide the winner, 2nd place, and so on, but not in the same way it determines who wins in pulling today. The policing of PTO HP keeps the HP race out of it, which should help to keep the cost's to compete down. The biggest cost would be buying the tractor model one wants to pull with . There would need to be other rules like drawbar height , tire size, minimum HP to compete and other rules hammered out , but my question remains, would a class like the type or style of class that I described above be doable......could something like this work. Would it be a good beginning class. Again, I'm not talking about trying to change weight transfer type pulling or deadweight pulling as it's done now, I'm talking about another all together style of pulling. Sort of like trying to reinvent the wheel here. All I'm wanting to know is everyone's opinions on something like this. Thanks. Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2022 01:28AM by JDpowershift. |
|
Re: Deadweight pulling with a different objective
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,522 |
I think this was done in the late 60s very early 70s in bg |
|
Re: Deadweight pulling with a different objective
|
Registered: 08/27/2019 Posts: 212 |
I'm not aware of anything like that, and it would of been a bit before my time. I started going to pulls in the very early '80's. Would you have any info on that ? |
|
Re: Deadweight pulling with a different objective
|
Registered: 08/27/2019 Posts: 212 |
Patches, would you mind if I called you some evening ?
I see you have a ph# listed in your profile. Thanks Darrel |
|
Re: Deadweight pulling with a different objective
|
Patches, they actually had drag races one year. Whoever pulled a loaded sled pan 300 the fastest. Ran elimination style rounds. And I believe they ran a couple different weight classes. |
|
Re: Deadweight pulling with a different objective
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,522 |
1969 or 70.id have to look for sure Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2022 01:17AM by Jake Morgan. |
|
Re: Deadweight pulling with a different objective
|
Registered: 08/27/2019 Posts: 212 |
Would be interesting if there were any video's of those out there ! |
|
Re: Deadweight pulling with a different objective
|
EFV
|
Wyoming County Fair,Pike NY. The Speed pull is Saturday before fair officially starts. Haven't gone to see this pull
in a few years,believe it's still held. Participation was limited to Wyoming County residents and contiguous county residents. |
|
Re: Deadweight pulling with a different objective
|
dubious
|
JD Powershift, you stated "Sort of like trying to reinvent the wheel here." Yeah, you certainly are. No doubt. Way too many legalistic logistics to deal with. Whew!!!
And where you going to find enough volunteers to administer this logistical nightmare? Especially in this day of trying to find volunteers in most any event, is about like finding teeth in a hen. But, good luck to you trying to get your dream, up and pulling. |
|
Re: Deadweight pulling with a different objective
|
Just curious
|
If everyone is pulling the same distance, what is the purpose a weighted sled? Why not just do tractor bracket drag racing? Because essentially this is what you are trying to accomplish. Whoever has the fastest 300' time is the winner. Do time trials and hp or weight really doesn't matter because the slower lower hp tractor will have a head start before the guy with a higher horsepower unit. This eliminates a need for dyno or scales. Again if everyone is making a full pull nit much sense in have a weighted sled in my opinion. Just have a tractor race!! It would be kind of neat concept, however I don't see it being a big hit because most runs would be well below 30 mph more likely between 6 to 20. Just sayin. Let us know if you get something along this idea setup. Be interesting to see how it turns out. |
|
Re: Deadweight pulling with a different objective
|
Registered: 08/27/2019 Posts: 212 |
[www.youtube.com]
This is what i have in mind, using a deadweight type sled instead, (stock tractors of course, running at stock HP ratings or a limited % over). Racing tractors down a track with no weight is just racing, not pulling. I want to see them WORK to get down the track. The track doesn't need to be 300', preferably 100 to 150' at the most. Dealing with lower powered stock tractors , there's not going to be wild speeds of 20 or 30 mph, ,(probably no more that 10mph), so no need to run them any farther than 150'. |
Website Statistics
Global: Topics: 38,674, Posts: 229,773, Members: 3,327.
This forum: Topics: 37,077, Posts: 225,946.
Global: Topics: 38,674, Posts: 229,773, Members: 3,327.
This forum: Topics: 37,077, Posts: 225,946.
Our newest member Jason
