11:15:57pm, Thursday, May 02, 2024
|
Risk management
|
.
|
Risk management has been a hot topic on this board as of late and at the urging of this boards owner I am starting a new topic about it. I have been accused of being vague so this post is an attempt to clarify my position. That position is this: I believe that no oem cast iron components should be used in any classes above 2000 horsepower. The reason I chose this threshold is over the years above this level is where the majority of oem components started to see higher failure rates.
Implementation: Step one, allow the use of purpose built components in all classes above 2000 hp. This means aftermarket blocks and full component chassis being legal entries. Step two, continue to allow oem components in these classes with additional safety features to include a hoop system and additional shielding mounted to hoop system to the sides and above to contain and deflect flying components to the ground in conjunction with the newly installed cable rules. Recast/billet block tractors can retain cable only rule. All tie bar style frame systems should be eliminated in favor of full length chassis designs to include bracing systems for axle housings and wheel tether systems for ag chassis entries. Tether system for component entries as well. A compressor wheel bird cage should be added as well and probably should be added to all classes specifying the use of non oem turbo’s. Economics: A competitive turnkey professionally built light pro is in excess of $200k and that number is most likely not going down from there. So in my eyes arguing affordability isn’t really realistic. However the above plan should allow some flexibility to those unwilling or unable to upgrade to stronger platform and should allow implementation to be done immediately. Cons: Parts availability is an issue, partly due to Covid but mostly due to the technology advances that has rendered most home ingenuity builders far behind. We are now down to a handful of power, drivetrain and chassis providers capable of harnessing the power currently being generated. They are simply overloaded, so the above plan will allow some time for transition. I think this pretty much eliminates the cons. A final note: Their really isn’t a middle ground here at this level, the only options are to limit/reduce power or allow stronger platforms. |
|
Re: Risk management
|
Registered: 02/19/2009 Posts: 526 |
You based this off of what ? Do you own a tractor? Do you own a business to help with input of building pulling tractor's? What's you experience involved in tractor pulling ? And to be taken seriously a name would benefit you greatly. |
|
risk management
|
Registered: 08/14/2013 Posts: 203 |
Well said David. thanks. |
|
Re: risk management
|
Moderator Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 1,446 |
I don't believe that you have to own a tractor or truck or own a business to have an opinion. Pullers see it one way, builders another and to diminish someone's ideas is rather shortsighted. And because they don't use their names is their choice. Dick Morgan www.PULLOFF.com Independent Pulling News |
|
Re: risk management
|
lutefisk and lefsa
|
Fair Board member's, are looking to fill 3 hours and get the crowd back to the rides and food stands.
The City council is not looking forward to all the noise complaints. and may or may not approve the beer license, depending on the last year. The promoter, is looking to cover expenses and have some seed money for the next event. The Fire/ EMS crews, are not looking to having a mass casualty response, in a grandstand. The sponsor, is hoping to get a little visibility for their product or service NONE of them (including the sled), want to get named in a lawsuit. Risk Management affects, far more than the puller. |
|
Re: risk management
|
Registered: 10/30/2018 Posts: 749 |
Well said Dick the answer to a lot of classes could be better made by people that is Bias .pullers are there worst enemy always thinking of self first The guy with no Name is definitely smart and made some pretty sharp comments weather any body else likes them or not Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2022 01:05PM by Lewis Conner. |
|
Re: risk management
|
Registered: 01/07/2022 Posts: 103 |
I agree with his sentiments. We either accept the fact this is a motorsport that has progressed past the point of what 50-60 year old cast can handle or we stay stuck in one place with our heads buried in the sand. I would argue that components need to be allowed in all classes. This is your foundation for your tractor and maybe today I can afford a 370 ci motor but not a 505 billet aluminum head 3 charger alky motor. So I start at 370 alky, run Llss, get driving experience and in time build to 505, but my foundational piece is there. There was also this idea with the industrial revolution called interchangeable parts. Parts are much easier to come by for a component then all the machine work that has to go in for preparing 50-60 year old cast. The amount of torque being placed on cast parts that it was never engineered for is astronomical. From my perspective it’s a backwards mindset and guys in the OEM classes are far worse cross dressers than the component guys. Let’s take an Oliver rear, with a 5.9 Cummins, and put Massey sheet metal over it, or take a 570 rearend with a 5.9 and Oliver 88 sheet metal. Or an 806 rear with a 466 and mx sheet metal. I challenge how pure the purists really are when you really get down to where the rubber meets the road. Point is there is far less cross dressing with the components than there are with the cast guys. Most of the cross dressing component guys are pro-stocks. Again this is an extremely high performance motorsport and parts need to be more readily available and durable. Or we can just keep letting tires bounce down the track and engines dangerously explode because the torque doesn’t have as many places to release as it would in a component chassis. Time to bring pulling into the 21st century and out of the 70’s and 80’s. |
|
Re: Risk management
|
Ok then
|
Sure let’s go recast. Cause that’s what you think we need to do. But first in the name of safety and fairness. We should only have buy f from a certified better block supplier. Not just recast but a certified tested block. Of course in the name of safety and fairness. The supplier has to make a block for all brands and must be priced relatively even. I’m all for it sign me up. You just hit the easy button for every other brand. Thanks. |
|
Risk Management Chapter 2 : A walk down memory lane
|
.
|
History is an interesting thing, it teaches us lessons and it leaves behind examples for us to refer to when we see trends occurring in the present that we have seen once or multiple times in the past. The other interesting point of history is the attempt to cancel it out and pretend that it didn't happen. Tractor pulling is a constant reminder of history repeating itself, that trend is what has brought us to the challenges we are facing today.
In the glory days of the superstocks and modifieds lumbering down the track a starter class was born and it became very popular. As the years went on rules became defined to allow large cubic inches along with no pump or turbo limitations. As to be expected this class continued to grow in both numbers and horsepower until one day component failure became the norm. It was then decided with much resistance that the component chassis would be allowed, due greatly in part to the debut of a pair of pros that built an "oem" component chassis. In a very short period of time the chassis was accepted as the normal standard and they've never looked back. But that didn't stop the horsepower gains as machining and design technology continued to push the envelope resulting in the need for aftermarket blocks. Had the aftermarket blocks not came into play the prostock class would for sure have nothing but bbjd entries. The prostocks cost became a driving force in the need for a new starter class. This class when implemented grew like wildfire sometimes totalling 70+ entries at select events. Oh the beating it took on here and social media, firestone, firestone, firestone was repeated over and over but it powered on and soon that starter class grew to be somewhat cost prohibitive as well. As always there was a need for a little more power but less than the pros so 4.1 limited prostock emerged on the scene and a good deal of the superfarm class made the move to it. But soon it came to light that recast heads were necessary to continue growth and now they predominately use recast blocks as well. But hey they've added 1000 hp (the torque # is really impressive) to their original starting figure so something had to be done to continue forward right? Now we need some color because 600+ isn't feasible for color so lets use the successful mold of the mod turbo class and juice it a bit shall we? As most new classes start as a restart from a class that exceeded it's intended boundaries (right Lewis) a fun engaging ruleset is put in place with the mindset that with these rules they will never be able to turn that turbo, make that much power etc. Meanwhile over and over and over the fuel and air guys along with the engine guys go HOLD MY BEER and watch this! They even one upped themselves in the light prostock class where they had no turbo limit and unbelievably(insert sarcasm) they quickly exceeded all expectations by promptly hitting the 3000 hp mark. Well that got out of hand so we have to back them off so we'll shut them down by implementing a 4.5 turbine rule and low and behold in approximately 3 seasons they are back to 5" compressors and 3000 horsepower. I'd be kinda surprised if they quit there wouldn't you or am I giving the builders to much credit? What got us here was not paying attention to history. Spawning new classes and rules with no foresight into where it is gonna go when the horse is turned loose. I will be the first to admit that some of the gains were pretty hard to fathom or foresee but some were not. So when things go arry in a ruleset should we spawn another class? Allow it to continue to grow with updated components? Do nothing and let it go where it may? Neuter it back to its intended power area? One thing about it the old saying history repeats itself is sure true. Stay tuned for the next chapter forthcoming of Risk Management. Thanks for reading |
|
Re: Risk Management Chapter 2 : A walk down memory lane
|
IH 1066 Puller
|
First of all I want to start out by saying that you are one of the first people to make me seriously think about the component chassis debate.
With that being said, I don't think that a chassis is necessarily the biggest problem. I may be wrong be from my personal experience, there have not been that many times when a well built ag chassis has had serious problems. Understandably there have been some cases, but that is tractor pulling... things break. The breakage often happens when something isn't built right or when something fails... if something isnt built right in a component it will also fail just like an ag chassis Personally, I think that the best thing that can be done for tractor pulling is to make super high horsepower less important for getting down the track. What do I mean by that? I think that the classes should be made into more driving classes by lightening up the classes. This is what light pro did by making the weight 8500 and because of this, the winners of the class are not always the ones with the most power but often the people who set the tractor up the best(weights, tire pressure, etc) and the driver who is able to drive the best. Because of this, you can be VERY competitive with a 2500hp light pro against guys who are making 500 more horsepower than you. I think that this theory would discourage pullers from pushing the hp limits because there are simply no reason to. Sure there will be some guys that push their luck but they would soon find out that it isnt doing them any good and they will just spend more weekends broke and an unhappy accountant. Personally, I think this would be the best class weights IN MY OPINION Super farm- 8500 hot farm-8500 light pro-8000 4.1-8500 |
|
Re: Risk Management Chapter 2 : A walk down memory lane
|
Bud
|
LOL. That's funny |
|
Re: Risk Management Chapter 2 : A walk down memory lane
|
ih1066 puller
|
BUD, can I ask what makes you think that this is such a bad idea? Im open to learning but laughing at something doesn't do any good. I think that the light pro class has shown very clearly that my idea would work but I would like to hear your thoughts. |
|
Re: Risk Management Chapter 2 : A walk down memory lane
|
Registered: 10/30/2018 Posts: 749 |
U are dead on again SS was to exspence so we made LLSS now just as u said that class is well on its way to pricing itself out |
|
Re: Risk management
|
pulling fan
|
History.. if reviewed, does hold alot of info. I think its easy to see that its time to implement engineered parts for performance. I think . got it correct by allowing components and recast blocks and heads in 2000hp and above classes. I would hate to be looking at history and see where the sport died because of an injury, when it could have been avoided. These events can buy insurance now because there hasn't been a claim for loss of life. I'm afraid that after a loss of life no insurance company will want the risk to cover this sport. This sport is very unbalanced. The cost to build/pull compared to winnings/revenue is probably the most unbalanced of any sport and wouldn't take much to trip it up. |
|
Re: Risk management
|
Registered: 02/19/2009 Posts: 526 |
I find this post interesting from a pullers view. Just because something breaks , everyone yells component. First off a lot higher HP tractors all ready have custom parts made out of billet with built-in added support for extra HP. When something happens I want to find the root cause , did a lifter break causing the valves to close , with all that boost not able to exit , something going to give , wether it's OEM or Billet, or component. Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2022 12:21AM by David Runkle(earls dream). |
|
Re: Risk management
|
lutefisk and lefsa
|
component vs non component classes
component -Unlimited mods,7500 modified, light unlimited, Mini modified, light super stock ,Diesel Super Stock, Unlimited Super Stock, and Pro Stock, plus 4 or 5 truck classes, that are components, in there own way. vs Super Farm, 540 light Pro and the 4,1's plus open rpm Hot farm/Pro Farm and last but not least, Light Limited Super Stock. So can you have a pull, with just component classes? You be the Judge |
|
Re: Risk management
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,522 |
I'd pick the non component pull to attend matter of fact I'd drive past the component pull to get to the non component pull |
|
Risk Management Chapter 3: Economics, timelines, common sense and such
|
.
|
Good morning! How do economics, common sense and timelines all tie together? Lets dig in and find out. In the previous chapter we discussed the road travelled to get us to the classes and rulesets we have today so lets expand it further into why it's a problem now. In a couple classes we know we are at or near the limits of some of the components that are mandated by the rulesets in place. So at this point due to these structural restrictions we are only left with the choice of continuing to machine and modify these components to install components inside them to handle our horsepower(basically build a component within oe cast). That's fine and well and it is being found to be installed regularly into tractors at the 1000 hp level. I added that bit in to show that from a value standpoint at resale a 4.1 chassis is in most cases equal to a 466 chassis. Here is where i struggle with the economics and common sense end, I'll explain it and leave it up to you to decide. If competitor A spends the same dollar figure on an ag chassis as competitor B spends on a component chassis to compete in a class where the hp and torque levels historically were proven to see failures of the ag components would it not be prudent to possibly add in the ability to run the better chassis? Isn't spending more money to end up with a less durable product not a red flag?
Ok ok I know what you are thinking because many have thought about going component and they have called Mike or Bob or Tim only to find out their is a waiting list to get these chassis or even ag chassis done. This brings us into the timeline issues we face. We have a handful of businesses providing the bulk of the parts to the entirety of tractor pulling. 3 major turbo providers, 4ish pump providers, 5ish engine part manufacturers, 3-4 chassis guys, 3 driveline parts providers. These guys are trying to meet the needs of an entire sport and they simply can't keep up with demand. They are now facing shortages of materials and increased costs to aquire them right down to simple wear parts. So this naturally extends timelines and increases costs. Why does this matter? Wouldn't it be more prudent to not waste time and money and materials on components to get another season or two out of the increase in power or concentrate on providing the components we already know to be proven to do the job? Yeah I hear you, there is no recast block option for anything but red or green. Simply put no one put forth the money to establish it. It won't cost any more to do an "off brand" block than it did a red or green one. The difference lies in the potential sales to offset the production costs, kind of a two way street in my opinion and I'll use the ford as an example. If someone invests the money to do a ford style recast or billet block who will buy it? Will I have an enormously expensive one off? It's a legitimate question. So I believe that there are several blue diehard guys around the country that have the desire to compete at this high of a level. I believe that Smith's performance at Ship was the first real proof that the Ford platform had the potential to be a winner at that level. So if ever an aftermarket block program was to be successful for the Ford team it is right now. In reality with today's rules allowing recast and or billet heads the only real hangup to being able to be a contender is durablility, I mean what would a billet 7 main block moline with solid jugs and good heads be like in a prostock based off the 585 platform? If anything the recast block programs would allow the durability issues that killed off off brand competitors to be corrected. In closing this chapter I believe we all know that attempting to get new people into the sport is important to its sustainability, so maybe platform choice would'nt be such a bad thing to consider? Again thanks for reading, I do have at least one more chapter yet to come. |
|
Re: Risk Management Chapter 3: Economics, timelines, common sense and such
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,522 |
Theres never ever gonna be a recast,or bullet mm,case,Hercule,perkins,detroit,deitz waukesha,block available..end of story..this ship has sailed..you can wish all ya want,theres simply no market for financial gain |
|
Re: Risk Management Chapter 3: Economics, timelines, common sense and such
|
Moderator Registered: 03/19/2018 Posts: 664 |
Just throwing it out there that there is a run of 10 aftermarket Ford blocks out there for the classes they are legal in.
CP |
|
Re: Risk Management Chapter 3: Economics, timelines, common sense and such
|
.
|
That’s great news! Thanks for sharing |
|
Re: Risk Management Chapter 3: Economics, timelines, common sense and such
|
Registered: 10/30/2018 Posts: 749 |
wRONG PLACE Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2022 01:06PM by Lewis Conner. |
|
Re: Risk Management Chapter 3: Economics, timelines, common sense and such
|
Registered: 08/27/2019 Posts: 212 |
Well.....can't argue that ! Only way that everyone uses a billet block is if everyone uses the same generic cid block design. That smells to much like NASCAR to me. |
|
Re: Risk Management Chapter 3: Economics, timelines, common sense and such
|
Fuel Test
|
Heres my thoughts ( probably not worth much ) put limits on classes all the way up ladder, AND TECH AND ENFORCE THEM " NO EXCEPTION" -- then build for the class you intend to run- oem is fine up to a point ( that point has already been reached ) if someone wants to run oem there should be classes for them an not antiques either, if someone wants to run aftermarket components non oem theres classes for that also ---- so TECH, GO BY THE RULES, ENFORCE THE RULES, then go pulling !!! |
|
Re: Risk management
|
Registered: 02/19/2009 Posts: 526 |
Go and add up what it would cost the promoters to go all component classes compared to non? Will the promoters risk high cost of a pull and make money putting on the pull. This whole post is about safety and components = high cost to build and keep pulling. So the root cause still is did everyone follow safety guidelines ? If they did then this is cause for this discussion about components. But I would research the safety issues first and were they followed , or we all heard fix it for next time , sometimes we are our own worst enemy. |
|
David Runkle(earls dream)
|
lutefisk and lefsa
|
I know to the dime, what the cost is to the promotor. My point is, more class are than are not component, must be a reason.
This post is about risk management, I have over 25 years in the emergency services, we do risk management for a living, how about you. |
|
Re: David Runkle(earls dream)
|
Registered: 02/19/2009 Posts: 526 |
Been a small dairy farmer for 40 years. So I know what the risks are every year. With unexpected price changes to meet financial obligations. And there are factors you can't control. So you do what you can to minimize expenditures to off set the unexpected |
|
Re: David Runkle(earls dream)
|
lutefisk and lefsa
|
That is were we differ, to me risk management is keeping people from getting killed, to you it is saving a buck.
Sad |
|
Re: David Runkle(earls dream)
|
Registered: 02/19/2009 Posts: 526 |
So you think not saving a animals when there sick isn't a risk or working around machinery. We're not so different. Because safety in tractor pulling, in which I do come first, |
|
Re: Risk management
|
.
|
David, I'm curious of your assessment that an all component show would be more expensive than any show mix, can you explain that a little further? From a promoters standpoint a reduction in risk would seem to be worth a bit more prize money if that's what you mean? Also are you basing this off of 2000 plus hp classes or if every class went component? What would increase the cost to the promoter? The promoter is purchasing entertainment value plus weighing reasonable risk. |
|
Re: Risk management
|
Registered: 02/19/2009 Posts: 526 |
I have followed your post on other topics before you started this one. So it's based off your assessment of component in 2000hp and over. First your asking everyone to spend more money , which they all have spent, now if component were allowed right of way there wouldn't be problem with your opinions. Second for the promoters to go to a all component show , cost of the show would greatly increase because of prices of classes and would only be able to choose a few and would eliminate small venues who couldn't afford it. There's a place for everyone Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2022 06:05AM by David Runkle(earls dream). |
|
Re: Risk management
|
.
|
David you’re right the chassis should have been allowed from the get go. I’m just one of a long line of folks asking the puller to spend money. The turbo guy builds a new turbo for your class and you sell your previous turbo at a fraction of the cost and buy the new one without batting an eye, same goes for the pump guy, the engine guy, and even the tire guy. So when someone recognizes that limits are far surpassed and says you need to upgrade it’s an issue? No money left to attempt to ensure the safety and future of the sport? It’s only ok to spend money that compounds this issue further? I’m not sure you can grip the expense incurred trying to keep oem components viable at this level of competition |
|
Re: Risk management
|
pulling fan
|
I have yet to understand how the cost to a promoter is higher if it where component. The pullers don't set the price. I'm thinking they may be able to add more $$ to the purse at the end of the day. Light tractors could put more weight up front vrs oem and put on a better show. |
|
Re: Risk management
|
Lite puller 2
|
I for one will not put another one together. I built to the class and spent my money. You wonder why class doesn’t grow more? Scared to build today and rebuild tomorrow. Not sure if you are or are not. But most of the people screaming about components are the Mid Pack Pro Stockers that would like to drop. Or the JD guys that keep smashing the 4010 rears. 4020 work just fine and you make weight easily.
As far as this whole mess. I first want to say that I feel really bad for that team. For no more reason than it’s sucks that it happened a lot of time and energy junked itself. With that being said, I think we can all say maybe safety equipment was a bit on the slack side. I’m not blaming anyone owner or tech, just saying. Maybe we should go over and enforce the rules we have instead of making more. Kinda reminds me of how government works. Does anybody know what actually caused it? That thing was running hard all week. Was it set on kill? Timing, lean, hot, or others. Something also maybe consider. Seen a camshaft laying there with no gear on it. That could of happened anytime, but if those engines go out of time. It won’t make half a Rev without Connect Rod smashing cam. Which shoves it out side of block. Not saying that happened or not, but not even a recast would of held when half the block didn’t hold no more. Seen the first pieces went side ways. What did that? |
|
Re: Risk management
|
.
|
Why do you suppose there is uncertainty? How much more power is the class capable of achieving?
Add to your list of people talking: Sanctioning bodies, builders, and fellow pullers who know they are on the edge. Yeah government is bad about making laws without much acknowledgement to future repercussions. I'm blaming the original rulemakers Set on kill? I'd venture to guess that whoever wasn't saving it for Louisville was in it to win it. Genetics most likely led to the bulk of the violence factor. Not much meat inside those blocks once the parent bore is altered. A stronger block likely would have resulted in a hole in the side as the rod would become the weakest link. |
|
Re: Risk management
|
Registered: 08/10/2015 Posts: 37 |
Part of the issue has been allowing big cubic inches in the classes with inline six's, lot of structural integrity in these blocks has been sacrificed to gain more cubic inches.
Either dial em back and decube, or the transistion must be made toward the original poster's recommendations with safety equipment for oem equipment and billet/recast blocks. Having engine blocks launching 20 ft out on the track and pistons and camshafts flying toward the crowd is totally unacceptable. |
|
Re: Risk management
|
Registered: 03/17/2019 Posts: 65 |
Never let a good crisis
go to waste knee jerk reactions are what politicians do not sensible men |
|
Re: Risk management
|
dependent
|
I agree with Lewis that "." or as he calls himself, "the point" is smart. And obviously, has been around a long time, too. Knows, his history.
I agree with that sentence, but not your proposal. As is typical for you IH guys, you do everything you can to get the BBJD out of pulling. And you do that, now pulling is even more predominant 'red'. The only way to (easily) start limiting all this excess engine power, is to implement a speed limit in every class. Yes, that means all the so called Unlimited classes, too. Dick Morgan proposed that class speed differential idea again recently with a thread he started, "When will this madness end?" Hey, I even po-poeed his suggestion. However, the 2 Shipshe accidents has gotten me to thinking further. Reasoanble speed = limits horsepower needed. And thus the cost, too. So as "the point" stated, we need to learn from history. Pulling originally started with a speed limit. And I am not suggesting by any means that we go back to that slow of a speed. So let's say we limit the big Unlimited Mods and Super Semis to, oh, 26 mph. Got a big speed board at end of track and a pair of working loud horns on the sled. Now we are also back to making this sport more of a vehicle setup and especially a real driver's tactical sport. So now each lower horsepower class has a slower set speed. Let us get back to tractor / truck pulling instead of this expen$ive drag race pulling $tuff. |
|
Re: Risk management
|
Paull
|
I agree completely, but many will laugh at such a common sense approach. However, slower pulling is still PULLING, if the insurance stuff limits or stops us, no pulling is much worse. |
|
Re: Risk management
|
Registered: 08/10/2015 Posts: 37 |
Any diesel with a turbo will strongly disagree |
|
Re: Risk management
|
Registered: 08/27/2019 Posts: 212 |
Backing speeds down to 26 mph is still "drag racing,", IMHO Never going to get away from the "drag racing" element of the sport..... went to far down that path to turn back now. HP needs to be reigned in without sacrificing speed because the "newer fan base" is used to it now, (speed that is). If speeds can be maintained as they are now via the sled , while greatly reducing the HP , I think that's the best form of "risk management", which is what this thread is about. As long as more HP is the goal of the puller / builder, I don't see safety being brought or kept under control much. More HP doesn't equate to more pulling, in how we "pull" today, I don't care what anyone says. |
Website Statistics
Global: Topics: 38,678, Posts: 229,780, Members: 3,328.
This forum: Topics: 37,078, Posts: 225,950.
Global: Topics: 38,678, Posts: 229,780, Members: 3,328.
This forum: Topics: 37,078, Posts: 225,950.
Our newest member Jason
