03:06:47pm, Sunday, April 28, 2024
|
Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Moderator Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,347 |
Just a couple, a mod and SS
Bruce Hutcherson. In 1980 or so when the 4-rodeck Makin Bacon Special came out, he was able to run all 4 classes. I remember being surprised he could run the 7 with 4 big block blown engines. Puller Magazine posted a quote from him after the NTPA banquet saying something like it's ironic to be given the sport's highest awards and also told you're hurting the sport. Dave Stangle/Conner Bros - I admit I was young to get the full impact of how tough Solid Junk was, but I have to believe a number of SS pullers had similar complaints in the 70s that diesel guys had about Bad Medicine in the '90s. If Stangle was Richard Petty, Conner wss Dale Earnhardt. Perry and Stangle pioneered alcohol SS, Conner perfected it. Who are some other controversial tractors from the sport's history? |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
The Beaudry's Crazy Canuck CIH Steiger STX 500 with It's Cummins 903 V8 engine. |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Kenny W
|
Bauer’s 3 engine light unlimited. |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Registered: 03/27/2008 Posts: 1,145 |
haha - yeah - I remember the discussion over on Fonda's message board with Larry Richwine, telling him the triple V8s and twin V12 run at 5500 lbs here and he basically told me, it's not possible and they'll make it 6000 lbs in the US and it will be twin-engine V8 tractors. Floating Finish - the German Tractor Pulling Web Show and EU Live Streams: [www.youtube.com] |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Moderator Registered: 01/11/2009 Posts: 1,579 |
Solid Junk was a cool tractor but not a controversial tractor. It offered a glimpse of what could happen when the stars aligned and an alcohol tractor ran to its potential. The Conner John Deere was pulling 5-7-9 I believe and that was far more worrisome; the Bad Medicine 2-180 was the tipping point where pseudo-component driveline of a Oliver/White platform was utilized and consistent laps started to be made with an alcohol tractor.
If dominant = controversial, then Leroy Mason and the 766 were that in the nineties. Correct me if Im wrong but wasnt there a stir in Pro Stock about late model drivelines in a pair of tractors pre-conponents? Ive had a nap or two since then. Bryan Lively - 
    |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Moderator Registered: 03/19/2018 Posts: 664 |
Sure was. I won't say who because my memory may be foggy and I not only don't want to falsely implicate anyone, I am further uncertain any wrong-doing was proven. It was quite a while ago.
CP |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 772 |
I know who it was. And no wrong doing was proven. The tractor that was built was a stock "composite" tractor and it was not allowed to compete after the component rule came into play because the motor was farther forward than the component rule allowed. But it was NOT a component tractor. |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Wileman’s Die Hard Deeres…. They were different because the stock model in stock form had an engine divorced from the transmission thus placing it way forward of everyone else’s BUT within the rules at the time, rules which did not allow traditional components in PS at the time. They had a tremendous advantage within the rules. |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
EFV
|
It would a lot more accurate to say the Connor brothers were the Elliot brothers. Dale Sr. wasn't a wrench
turner or an innovative fabricator. The Elliot brothers certainly were. |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
OG
|
The Conners put a Long alcohol fuel system on a V-8 and ran it against diesel I-6's. If that wasn't enough of an advantage they were allowed to run a component chasis when the rest of the class was required to run cast. They had a tractor making 1000 HP more than anyone else and put it to work with a chasis no one else was allowed to have. |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Registered: 05/22/2008 Posts: 225 |
When Fred Hildenbrand from Ruffsdale, PA ('Slow Walkin' John') and Stanley Auen from Saltsburg, PA ('Froggy') showed up with very similar John Deere Super Stock tractors that stretched the rules a bit while utilizing overhead cams ... many of the associations in the eastern US banned them for a while. The two tractors ran with USA-EAST in the famous "Smoker Series" for a number of years. |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Buckshot
|
Fred and Stanley were the best so they had to make rules against them because they were unbeatable! |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
Bad Medicine definitely should be at or near the top of this conversation.... but it was NOT a component chassis. It still had a cast tractor rear-end housing.
Speaking of that... the Barnyard beast was so controversial that it wasn't allowed to hook in Tomah the season the 8000 series hood debuted. It was built to the absolute limit of the rules and nobody really knew what to do about it. I believe it ran the rest of the season in that configuration after they really couldn't find anything the was illegal that Doug Roberts did. It was also NOT a component tractor but it was the most cutting edge you could get with a cast rear-end. Sticking with John Deere, the Diehard tractors of Kraig and Kurt Wileman with the extended wheel base were pretty controversial. The tractors were 100% legal when built and the Wilemans just exploited a spot in the rule book that nobody else had and were allowed to run a longer wheelbase for a season. They were at the top of their game and they had an awesome season... they would have dominated no matter where the front axle was but because they were different they were forced to move the front axles back. Those tractors were also NOT component but pushed the limits. I 100% agree about Pierre and Patrice Beaudry and Adam Bauer... they found holes in rules and should definitely be on any list of controversial tractors/innovators. Side note, Bruce Hutcherson's comment the Originals Michael shared is pretty awesome... 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: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Team one
|
In regards to the Conner bros, I remember seeing not that long ago pictures that had finally surfaced of the rear end set up on Bad Medicine, if I recall they had a truck ring pinion center section and most of the housing stuffed inside the factory cast housing utilizing the factory or factory appearing planataries, making it essentially a component tractor maybe that’s a gray area maybe it was illegal at the time I don’t know but I have seen photos of it . |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
HP
|
The Rockwell guts in a stock rear end HOUSING met the rules. The rules stated transmission and rear end HOUSING. Didn't address the guts of the Trans or rear end. Lots of non stock gear packages in transmissions before Conners did it. Conners weren't the first to put truck rear end parts in a rear HOUSING either. Since Bad Medicine still had "stock" cast HOUSINGS, it was legal, AND not a component. Some Oliver, MM, and White tractors had external planetaries stock. Not sure what guts were used in the housings. But that could have been the first planetary "conversion". Like Ernie Conner taught us tech guys, if the rule book doesn't say I CAN'T do it, then I can. I hated that lesson. |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 630 |
HP,
Don Dean ran a set of 2255 Oliver planetary's for years and to my knowledge never broke any. He did change them last year because they were heavy and he wanted more front weight. I think the 2-180 planetary's were pretty much the same except they were inboard. S'no Farmer |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Registered: 06/16/2017 Posts: 66 |
I'm pretty sure that Conners built a 2255 tractor, but put the White 2-180 metal on it. |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 630 |
I think you are correct about that it seems I remember it having outboard planetary's.
S'no Farmer |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Registered: 06/16/2017 Posts: 241 |
Are sure about the frame being longer being the issue? As I recall it was the engine sitting a head farther being it was in a 7000 series chassis which utilized a drive shaft between the engine and transmission. Referring to the Diehard tractors. Not sure why it was illegal but some thought it to be |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
I think you're right about the engine being a little further forward. Even though the tractor was not a component they were forced to move the engine back to the same place component tractor have their engines (60"). I thought the front axle had to be moved back as well but I could be wrong. 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: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Registered: 12/26/2019 Posts: 43 |
Meese, and the Squealer back when the over head cam rule was in place. |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
EFV
|
What about Ken Smith's Deere Harvester ? Wasn't that tractor OHC ? |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 630 |
EFV,
I used to be a spectator back in the days of the Deere Harvester. If I remember correctly it didn't have an over head cam but it did have an IH head on a Deere block, hence the name Deere Harvester. S'no Farmer |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,522 |
It did have an ohc.i have a few pics somewhere..also a article in the puller and/or pulling power was done on the ohc in it |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 630 |
Patches,
I heard a lot about them putting the IH head on because it flowed better but never heard anyone say that it was an overhead cam. But then I was just a kid spectator in those days. S'no Farmer |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,522 |
Dave schriers Green power special 4320 also used a ih head during that time |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Moderator Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,347 |
Didn't Brent Long and Cokerhams also have a similar setup? I thought the issue with Meece was Tom McConnell allowed him to be grandfathered when nobody else could have an ohc. |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,522 |
On the conner chassis issue.
Couldn't all the other pullers switched to a oliver/mm/white chassis ?? |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Registered: 03/31/2008 Posts: 762 |
Brent had an OHC, but it was on a 312 block so he probably wasn’t near 504. He also only ran 1 turbo and stayed mostly near MO so he didn’t make as many waves as Meese. He also had a 4 valve head on it before they were outlawed. I believe his big tractor wasn’t built until after the OHC was outlawed.
I’m pretty sure Brent built the engine in Masons Down and Dirty. Small engine like his 686, but multiple turbos. I never heard that Cockerham had an OHC, but anything is possible. Another MM puller put the cam in a box on the side of the block until it was outlawed. Possibly Chuck Lewis, but I don’t remember for sure. |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
What I Heard
|
I have always heard that Brent ran a DT360 block taken up to 407 CI...Its currently in a light Mod tractor and will run with any Hemi. |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
L. Ford
|
down & dirty was Korths after Blackbourns |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Been around
|
Deere Harvester did have an IH head with OHC and a bad copy if a left-handed 3 charger setup. They gave up on that and had a billet aluminum head for '83, but got it too hot too many times and made a cast iron version for '84.
Linder's Pro Stock had an OHC for a long time too. Meese's Squealer made a mess of a good class. Talk about bringing a gun to a knife fight. A bunch of the guys were willing to build OHC hemi's, but McConnell wouldn't let anyone else have one. Down N Dirty had always been built by Blackbourn, until it went to NY. Dennis Johnson stirred the pot when he built his 9670 version of Shagnasty. The whole thing was done in secret with a 750 cubic inch Deutz. Bryan Conner was drinking one night and called a buddy in Eighty-Four, PA bragging about how bad it was gonna be. Shortly after that NTPA implemented cubic inch limits that kept the Bullet legal, but Dennis had to rebuild before he could to run his. Sid Broughton did about the same thing when he built a 600c.i. pushrod motor to run on the state level. Mark Hootman was already doing very well being around 500. That just didn't go over well. Conner's White used a 2255 rearend that had planetaries stock. They did alot of work to make that chassis work, but it wasn't all that made it work. The biggest thing most people miss is that the motor was 200 cubic inches bigger than almost all of the diesels of that time and ran at least 2000 rpm faster. When you combine that with how much bigger their top turbos were than any of the diesels, it wasn't going to be a competition. It was just whether or not they could keep it together. |
|
Re: Controversial tractors in pulling history
|
Moderator Registered: 03/19/2018 Posts: 664 |
I think the last PS with OHC was The Dover Center Boys and the Showtime 88 Series from Ontario. I'm told the head still exists on a shelf there.
CP |
|
Don Nolan??
|
Moderator Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,347 |
Was Nolan's G-1000 controversial in the PS class in the early and mid '80s? |
|
Re: Don Nolan??
|
Registered: 08/16/2021 Posts: 306 |
2019 Steve Boyd ran huge screw blowers at BG, and pulled over 380 foot if I remember correctly. Boyds had a mod named Green Streak Unlimited at the time. (Not the one Steve pulled 380')
NTPA created a limit on the screw blowers. Next year that tractor came back named Green Streak Limited. Made me chuckle. Rule #19 truck has a similar story. |
|
Re: Don Nolan??
|
Thunder97
|
Wonder what the Rule 19 truck story is lol. |
|
Re: Don Nolan??
|
Moderator Registered: 02/21/2012 Posts: 797 |
Rule 19: No Goofy Stuff John Murray Two-time Pedal Pull World Champion Let's Go Pulling, covering the sport of pulling in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama. Watch LGP on YouTube Like LGP on Facebook 
|
|
Re: Don Nolan??
|
Yes It Was
|
Yes,Nolan's PS MM was controversial and at one time Cespede's MM probably was too..Of course Cespedes mostly stayed in Ohio where he was grandfathered in...Has he ever won a hook in modern times?I admire his determination when he gives up so much horsepower.. |
|
Re: Don Nolan??
|
Registered: 07/31/2018 Posts: 61 |
https://youtu.be/bbShnRPNn2A
Here's a video of Cespedes winning a hook in 2018. |
|
Re: Don Nolan??
|
Georgee
|
I thought Pro Stock had to be diesel fuel only. |
|
Re: Don Nolan??
|
Registered: 06/16/2017 Posts: 90 |
It is Diesel only today because of this tractor. When the rule for Diesel only was put into place, Fool's Gold was making some Hp gains with a limited but smart dollar spend. I think the NTPA was afraid that somebody with unlimited funds would come up with a dominate gasoline tractor and they wanted to avoid the whole Diesel vs Alcohol Super Stock mess. Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2023 12:21AM by mh49. |
|
Re: Don Nolan??
|
Moderator Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,347 |
All single charger classes should allow tractors to run the fuel the make/model was built for when it left the factory. You want the word "stock" in the class name, then allow the gas and propane tractors to run that fuel. Colberg was successful in SF and won quite a few, but didn't dominate. Don Nolan was successful in PS but didn't dominate. Domination is winning every hook in your class except one the way Eder did last summer. |
|
Re: Don Nolan??
|
Registered: 12/26/2019 Posts: 43 |
I have no idea if this is a fact or a rumor, just a story I heard, but supposably Colberg was being accused of having something besides LP gas in his tank.
He hooked a gas grill to the tractor and started cooking hot dogs at some pull. |
|
Re: Don Nolan??
|
Registered: 08/16/2021 Posts: 306 |
That has to be the worst pro stock class I've ever seen. |
|
Re: Don Nolan??
|
Yes It Was
|
They were all way too heavy on the front...Cespedes figured it out and took advantage..NTPA must have had a pull close by because lots of the big name Ohio PS tractors weren't there. |
|
Re: Don Nolan??
|
Registered: 08/16/2021 Posts: 306 |
That has to be the worst class of pro stocks I've ever seen |
|
Controversial AC's
|
Moderator Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,347 |
With the passing of Norm Green, back when they put 4 chargers on his AC, that may have been controversial, though many were adding 4 soon after. |
|
Re: Controversial AC's
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,522 |
Was 4 a limit before or after he did that ? |
|
Re: Controversial AC's
|
Moderator Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,347 |
I don't believe there was a rule limiting to 4 prior to that. |
|
Re: Controversial AC's
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,522 |
Did anyone try more than 4 ?? |
|
Re: Controversial AC's
|
Registered: 09/10/2018 Posts: 126 |
Yes!, Thomas Brothers tried 5 |
|
Re: Controversial AC's
|
Thats great
|
Key word, TRIED 5!! I'm sure the block wanted nothing to do with especially when 4 did a good job of splitting blocks and such!! |
|
Re: Controversial AC's
|
It was 5 turbos and 2 injection pumps on a 5020 if I remember the story right. |
|
Re: Controversial AC's
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,522 |
Gotta be some pics of it somewhere ?? |
Website Statistics
Global: Topics: 38,639, Posts: 229,705, Members: 3,325.
This forum: Topics: 37,067, Posts: 225,903.
Global: Topics: 38,639, Posts: 229,705, Members: 3,325.
This forum: Topics: 37,067, Posts: 225,903.
Our newest member JD_8520
