10:14:25am, Monday, October 14, 2024
|
WPI. over stepping their boundaries again
|
Registered: 05/03/2015 Posts: 17 |
Seams they have made executive decisions again about tires on minis this time that now limits to one mfg. So did they lock a price in for at least a year at the pullers best interest? |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again (Pro Stocks)
|
Moderator Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,420 |
1. GN Light Modified division weight limit is now 6200 lbs. for 2023 season.
2. Super Farm, Light Pro Stock, and Limited Pro Stock divisions cannot enter the new RN Heavy Pro Stock 5.0 class. Entering of stated vehicles in divisions other than RN Heavy Pro Stock 5.0 as permitted by 2023 NTPA Pulling rules is still allowed. 3. The WPI Executive Board moved to limit Mini division at all levels to current 18.4x16.1 – 6 ply tire already in competition and manufactured by CM Tire. No changes to construction or dimensions of this tire by manufacturer will be allowed. Limiting Mini division to this tire will maintain current vehicle dimensions and weight limit while keeping competition at an already high level. The above is from the NTPA Tech page. So...... the have a 5.0 PS class that is in it's first year. The class may have small fields this year. When it's run, if a Limited Pro, Light Pro, or Super Farm is on the grounds and wants to fill the class, they are banned. (Ironically, if two Limited Pros from Minnesota come to Bowling Green, the are allowed to run the Friday Night PS session with their Limited Pros, but that's another topic). |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again (Pro Stocks)
|
Midwestern JD
|
The big part of that rule is bc the 5.0 is a box turbo. Unless you run that EXACT turbo your not legal. |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again (Pro Stocks)
|
Long time ntpa puller
|
Wpi is at it again first they got rid of Larry then tires how long before people wake up and do something about it there are other organizations and we don’t need NTPA being run like it is |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again (Pro Stocks)
|
Registered: 12/01/2018 Posts: 111 |
This. |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again (Pro Stocks)
|
Back on Topic
|
So getting back on topic (first post was about tires)....
From CM Pulling Tires FB page, their tire has been approved from NTPA Tech. To the best of my knowledge, these tires have yet to make a pass down a track (my data is as of Louisville). If I am incorrect, please let me know... I believe the Nichols tires have made multiple passes at several events to show their safety and performance. Adding a spacer to a mold is probably easy, but I'm told that requires a complete revamp of the internals to the tire. I would like to see some technical performance data before I would approve.... |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again (Pro Stocks)
|
Well
|
The rule is for the old Mayhill tire not the new wide version.
Two sets of Nichols tires at Louisville were the new version. One set was the set ran at a few pulls last year. |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again
|
Registered: 05/03/2015 Posts: 17 |
Also people are forgetting that last year mid summer you couldn’t get any 18.4x16.1. Now WPI wants pullers to put all their eggs in one basket so to speak and now the manufacturer can’t change anything on that tire per the new rule. Also no one will be able to run a pioneer Or cepek per their rule. So if CM wanted to try and make it better they can’t according to WPI. |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again
|
Team one
|
Almost everyone complains about the cost of pulling until someone does something to try to curb some costs and now they are the bad guys …. |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again
|
Long time ntpa puller
|
What makes the deference a SF and LP have 640 one with a 3by3. And the other a 4.1 so what makes the deference there pulling against a class that is 680 with a 5 in.are you trying to cut back on numbers |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again
|
Midwestern JD
|
The only way it works is box turbo only. Allowing someone with anything smaller only opens the door. Next you'll see a new fancy intake wheel at 4.98 you have to buy all the time. |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,546 |
The problem is the rule doesn't allow pullers the option of even switching turbos. If a 4.1 puller or a Light Pro puller wanted to quickly swap to the box charger and run in the class they still can't. To me that's complete and utter garbage. 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: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again
|
roadkill
|
It appears that this is the new "Ready, SHOOT, Aim, Fire" mentality of the new Tech regime. We will see 2 or 3 "updates" as the new MANDATE was put in place by the board. Out of all the classes, the MINI's are the ones that need a new tire. I have seen mini's completely tear up a set of tires in 1 run. Either due to delamination of the tread (tread leaving tread) or TLC (tread leaving carcass) which is due to poor cord adhesion. There has to be alot more to this story which hopefully will come out over time...... 1. Was this presented to the MINI competitors as a group and voted on ? (I believe they always have a meeting at BG or Enderle to discuss the status of the class as a collective group - kudos for that). Vories did this a few years ago in the Unlimited class and the COMPETITORS voted... 2. Does somebody on one of the boards have a deep connection to CM Pulling Tires? Everyone knows this answer... 3. Are we going to be able to place bets on how many passes a MINI competitor gets on their tires before they come apart? Gonna take some thought on who is behind this one. 3a. Having fun now.. Can we have an over/under bet on how many revisions there will be to this rule ? I take 3...This betting thing is gonna be 'uge!! 4. In reference to 3 above, will they be able to get a new set of tires immediately (as previously noted, couldn't get tires last year)... 5. Perhaps CM Pulling tires should provide a guarantee on how many passes one can make on their tires as there are issues.. 6. How many potential new sponsors have been just eliminated (I believe the European company started t work on them.. NTPA already pretty much decided they didn't want MITAS around with the 24.5 shenanigans) I believe all of the above were part of the discussion and not 1 technical reason listed. As with the government, follow the money.... Once again, the sport is being limited from moving ahead..... |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again
|
Fitz
|
Read the second post, item #2. Lt PS, SF, 4.1 can not pull in the 5 inch PS class. |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,564 |
Looks like wpi doesn't want nichols tires in the minis
Hhhhhmmmmm,wonder why, Sounds fishy |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again
|
FansOnly
|
It does not say that Nichols cannot have a Mini Rod tire. It just states that any manufacturer has to meet the current specs that the Mayhill tires currently are. If the new Nichols "wide" tires were allowed on a Mini Rod. Everyone would need to shed weight on the tractor to make up for the extra rubber, and somehow safely add wheel spacers. Not as easy of a task as Minis are getting built narrower and not wider over the years. |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 646 |
FansOnly, I'm not sure what you read but on the NTPA tech page it clearly says CM tires only.
S'no Farmer |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again
|
FansOnly
|
Sno Farmer,
I see your point. But I do not see WPI saying that you cannot run an older Cepek or Pioneer as stated above in another comment. I feel as if this will need some clarification. |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again
|
Moderator Registered: 03/19/2018 Posts: 676 |
and manufactured by CM Tire.
Direct quote. Pretty specific to me. CP |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again
|
Just Sayin’
|
I guess from the outside looking in, this sure seems directed at the people trying to innovate the tire industry. How this not any different than the newest turbo, head, block, fuel system, supercharger, etc. Maybe this all started with the Mitas rule?? I’m in agreement with patches, this seems fishy. |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again
|
Twd puller
|
A couple reason. If it was for Mayhill rushing a tire into production you would of had just a few people having this tire which is a huge advantage. A new Turbo or supercharger has never added 20 to 30 feet to a run everytime. This tire does that and only the few chosen can have it. Plus in a year or two after everybody spends a ton of money narrowing rearends, cutting bodies and losing more driveline parts we are right back at the same spot. Only maybe the sled has a extra block in the box or a faster gear. So in the long run it doesn't do anything expect cases a bunch of money to be spent. The biggest difference is that with new engine parts are they are typically available to the mass and thier are typically a few people making a competitive part that you can go with that does the same thing. |
|
What's so special?
|
Registered: 07/06/2017 Posts: 385 |
My question is......why are the TWD & Mini guys anymore special than the tractor guys? For years, the tractor guys have been plagued with yearly tire & turbo upgrades that are just as hard or harder on driveline components & WAYYYYY more expensive, but nobody seems to have given a damn how much it has costed them. This tire deal really shines a spotlight on where the influence in NTPA comes from. I say suck it up & get your wallet out like all the rest of has had too!! Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2023 07:48AM by Cody. |
|
Re: What's so special?
|
"limit" is key
|
I keep reading all the thread complaints and go back and study rule 2 & 3 again, which they like so many NTPA rules are very subject to personal interpretation and are thus known as a "grey area".
Jake, where does it say a puller cannot do as you suggest? MINI Tires: Rule 3 says: "limit"....." tire already in competition and manufactured by CM Tire". Which means no one can introduce a tire better than that. However, a MINI puller can still use their tires that are not up to the new CM spec. No different than if a MINI puller wants to use a supercharger smaller than the 14-71, which is what the class is limited to for the maximum. Same thing occurs in the diesel classes, where the turbo size is limited to a certain size but if a puller wants to use a turbo smaller than that, they can. |
|
Re: What's so special?
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,546 |
This is the quote I was referring to:
When I said "quickly" in my previous post I meant at the same event... It would seem to me that if they run in those other classes then they can't run the 5.0 class even if they change to the box charger because they are also registered for those other classes with NTPA. I know of guys that ran SF at an event and then later at the same event they would quickly swap to a bigger turbo and then go play in the Pro Stock or Super Stock classes. This rule makes that option illegal. It's funny, there was a thread earlier this week that complained about people staying in the same class forever. Allowing guys to dip their toes in the water is the best way to get people to jump up to the next class. The NTPA doesn't seem to want that for the 5.0 class. I don't want it to seem like I think the NTPA does everything wrong when it comes to rules lately... it's really only 90% of the time. 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: What's so special?
|
Twd puller
|
The reason many of us are in the TWD class is we don't want to deal with the cost and headaches of a mod class. It's pretty easy for to sit back and just say spend more money. But that's what has been nice about this class and the reason we run it. The rules have pretty much stayed the same for hears and you can run for one end of the country to the other and have the same rules. Not like the mod and tractor classes which sometimes you can't even run in the county next door.
Plus unlike most of the new items you can get the parts within a reasonable time. When manufacturering A says they won't be available for a year or so because they are "testing them" and only a certain elected few can have them that's a issue. But then magically when a competitor manufacturer B says they are going to start making them magically the first manufacturer A can have them available also in the same time frame. Why was manufacturer A unable to produce those tires any faster until the second manufacturer B was going to have thiers to market? So in a year or so all this will do is run people away from a class that had a good following and the people who are left will be right back in the same spot just thousands of dollars less for no real good reason. All that will happen is the sled will have a little bit more weight thrown on. One of the biggest draws of this class is rules and parts haven't changed very much over the years. When the class is on a level playing field it's a drivers class that a good chunk of the class can win in any class. On the mini side this is going to have major safety issues because the Mini's are already on the edge of not enough weight again and will be right back to crashing them every other pass. You will also be back to having driveline issues which is a huge safety concern for the mini class. |
|
Re: What's so special?
|
plb
|
We are spl. You turbo guys have a class for every turbo ever made!!! |
|
Re: What's so special?
|
"limit" is key
|
When I said "quickly" in my previous post I meant at the same event... It would seem to me that if they run in those other classes then they can't run the 5.0 class even if they change to the box charger because they are also registered for those other classes with NTPA. I know of guys that ran SF at an event and then later at the same event they would quickly swap to a bigger turbo and then go play in the Pro Stock or Super Stock classes. This rule makes that option illegal. Jake, I understand your interpretation. What I am saying is the rule is very vague, thus a "gray area" and thus a, let's say a 4.1 puller, who is registered and pulls as such, can go to the pits after his pull, and change off the 4.1 turbo and install the 5.0 and come pull also as a registered 5.0 tractor. As roadkill said: "There has to be alot more to this story which hopefully will come out over time......" |
|
Re: What's so special?
|
Moderator Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 1,540 |
I'm not sure what part of the NTPA 5. PS is vague. The rules clearly state the Lt. Ps, SF and 4.1 can not enter the 5 PS class. Dick Morgan www.PULLOFF.com Independent Pulling News |
|
Schoolhouse rock for pulling
|
Moderator Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,420 |
For people around in the 1970s, do you remember the cartoon psa's like Conjunction Junction and Interplanet Janet? They had one about how a bill becomes a law.
I wish there was something like that for NTPA.I thought proposals went up through divisional committees, or were discussed and voted on during the meeting Enderle weekend (subject to Executive Board approval). It seems like lots of rules are announced out of the blue, or rules do get passed but later rescinded or changed. Regarding the mini tire and 5.0 PS rules just announced, what process was used to enact these rules? |
|
Re: Schoolhouse rock for pulling
|
Just Sayin’
|
There wasn’t any. The powers that be made a ruling or “decision” in THEIR best interests. Period. Good luck trying to get an honest explanation.
Completely ridiculous. |
|
Re: Schoolhouse rock for pulling
|
Registered: 07/06/2017 Posts: 385 |
Conjunction Junction….what’s your function. Lol |
|
Has the NTPA gone '' woke'' ?
|
Moderator Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 1,540 |
Lately it seems like every time the NTPA make a new rule it takes more and more options away from the pullers. Every rule decision is to make the sport more " fair". The sport already suffers from a cookie cutter image and all this is doing is reinforcing that perception. It looks like the NTPA made a class called 5 inch, box turbo Pro Stock and then set rules to kill the class before it even begins. To not allow pullers in 4.1, SF or Lt PS to bolt on a legal turbo and hook in the class defies logic.
The rule making process has become a dictator approach. The timing of their rule making has always been bad and now it's just plain terrible. To pretend the class committee's and pullers input is valued is rather hypocritical. |
|
Re: Has the NTPA gone '' woke'' ?
|
Peter T.
|
Just spit balling here but maybe they have put extensive thought into these new rules behind closed doors and implemented the new rules kind of how Doug Roberts would have handle it with the Outlaws. Just saying, don't really know. Just because they didn't ask a certain amount of pullers their thoughts doesn't mean they didn't ask for input from some pullers. Only time will tell if it works out, I'm sure they will still get their thousands of memberships this year. |
|
Re: Has the NTPA gone '' woke'' ?
|
What About?
|
I mean if you want to get technical Mears has done the same thing with the Component Light Pro. Just come up with rule and throw it in without a vote? So if you want to pick on one organization pick on them both. |
|
Re: Has the NTPA gone '' woke'' ?
|
Moderator Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 1,540 |
While I will agree at some level the difference is the Lt. PS component chassis is optional. You do not have to run one. The class is 8300 lbs component and 8500 lbs cast OEM. You are comparing apples to lemons. Dick Morgan www.PULLOFF.com Independent Pulling News Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2023 01:08PM by Dick Morgan. |
|
Re: Has the NTPA gone '' woke'' ?
|
constitutional republic...democracy...
|
PPL has never been a "voting" on rules organization. They usually get input from the competitors,... but they decide what action to take. |
|
Re: Has the NTPA gone '' woke'' ?
|
constitutional republic...democracy...
|
PPL has never been a "voting" on rules organization. They usually get input from the competitors,... but they decide what action to take. |
|
Re: Has the NTPA gone '' woke'' ?
|
Team one
|
For starters NTPA didn’t create the 5.0 box turbo class,it was as we all know first implemented in the Outlaw organization, secondly I think the reason or reasons we are seeing more of a dictatorship and less voting is because the pullers can’t even decide what they want, they want one thing until someone has something better and then it’s on to bigger and better and of course more expensive but make sure they complain about expense along the way, not to mention the already excessive amount of “pro stock” classes and turbo options already available when really it’s not to difficult to figure out , pick a class you can afford put your ego aside and run what you can feasibly. |
|
Re: Schoolhouse rock for pulling
|
OG
|
The NTPA only exists as a brand. The WPI owns the NTPA brand and calls all the shots. The WPI can do whatever they want, it doesn't need to be voted on. |
|
Follow the $$$$
|
New Can of Worms
|
If WPI can do whatever they want, it would be nice to understand who the latest shareholders of WPI are and how they may influence these decisions. I know there is a WPI Board of Directors, but that doesn't encompass all of the players.
Who are all of the shareholders?? Would like to follow the money.... |
|
Re: Follow the $$$$
|
OG
|
I bet if you look at the Board of Directors you can figure out which one has the most money. |
|
Re: Follow the $$$$
|
Moderator Registered: 03/19/2018 Posts: 676 |
That's the thing about closely held corporations and LLCs, they are not required to disclose that to anyone like a publicly traded company. We'll likely never know the investors in WPI or PPL without an internal leak.
CP |
|
Re: Follow the $$$$
|
Registered: 09/10/2018 Posts: 127 |
You mean to tell me that for the last few months everybody was worried who bought ppl and now we don't know who owns wpi/ ntpa??? Holy crap what a shocking revaluation!!!! LOL |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again
|
Bob Barbee
|
I understand your intent, but with a very volatile marketplace, there is no way to lock in a price for a year on any product.
BB |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 646 |
Seeing as how my wife use to work at P&G we had stock and she could vote for board members to the extent she owned stock or she could send in a proxy and let so eone else vote her shares. When the original shares in NTPA were offered each buyer was limited to I think one or two shares. The way David P. got control of NTPA was by gaining proxy voting rights for many share holders. Perfectly legal and a very common practice. Who owns P&G...millions of stock holders...who owns NTPA dozens of stock holders. I don't understand how it all works but I believe that is the very basics. So figure out who owns the stock, buy a share then convince the majority of shareholders to give you their proxy you then essentially have control! There is a gentleman that was putting forth an effort several years ago to do just that but fell short of having enough proxy votes to gain control.
S'no Farmer |
|
Re: WPI. over stepping their boundaries again
|
Board of Director
|
Is it really "buying a share" when you have to be approved before you can "buy a share"....? 
|
|
Re: Mini Tire Issues
|
The NTPA mini division being limited to a "spec" tire is more of the good ol' boys club non-sense.
Nothing against Chad, but the current mini tire is not great and very few would argue that it is. Any mini owner out can show you the tread will completely delaminate from the cords. This has been a issue for at lease a decade, if a different vendor can introduce the technology to produce a more durable tire, it will absolutely benefit the class. With Hoosier producing the Nichols tire, their experience producing World of Outlaw tires should have tremendous value. |
|
Re: Mini Tire Issues
|
Registered: 03/26/2008 Posts: 510 |
It's not so much someone producing a "new" tire, but what are the true recognized specifications for an18.4x16.1 tire. Look at a Firestone 18.4 and then Cepek 18.4 and then Pioneer 18.4 and then Mayhill 18.4 and explain to me how they went from the "original" size specified for the class (front wheel steer tire on FWD combines) to the Cepek. How was the Cepek even comparable to the Firestone except for 18.4 x 16.1 molded in the sidewall. That is the issue. I am sure there will be another company that will have an 18.4 x 16.1 available in the future. At least it will have a specified dimension. Probably not in 23 but certainly in 24. |
|
Re: Mini Tire Issues
|
Just Sayin’
|
To me it just seems like organizations are just putting their foot on the neck of people innovating, investing their time and money and them being told - well, too bad.
Seems like this sport, as with any other Motorsport, you innovate to gain that competitive advantage. When did become such a problem? I refer back to the “woke” comments listed above. And to those who agree with these decisions, it’s pretty the fact you agree because it doesn’t effect you directly and rather than try to continue to make gains, you’d rather be able to sit and do nothing |
|
Re: Mini Tire Issues
|
Moderator Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,420 |
It's a double-edged sword. My example- Double Nutted |
|
Re: Mini Tire Issues
|
Just Sayin’
|
I don’t disagree. It just has an appearance that there’s some funny business going on behind the scenes at WPI. And why be transparent if you don’t have to be? It’s not like it was their time and money. Big shocker, right? |
|
Re: Mini Tire Issues - NTPA Tech page Update
|
"limit" is key
|
At start of this thread:
3. The WPI Executive Board moved to limit Mini division at all levels to current 18.4x16.1 – 6 ply tire already in competition and manufactured by CM Tire. No changes to construction or dimensions of this tire by manufacturer will be allowed. Limiting Mini division to this tire will maintain current vehicle dimensions and weight limit while keeping competition at an already high level. Below is what I discovered earlier this week on NTPA Tech page. Notice the difference in the middle of the statement how it now reads. 3. The WPI Executive Board moved to limit Mini division at all levels to any current 18.4x16.1 – 6 ply tires already in competition from 2022 season (Pioneer, Cepek, Mayhill). No changes to construction or dimensions of these tires will be allowed for the 2023 season. Limiting Mini division to these tires will maintain current vehicle dimensions and weight limit while keeping competition at an already high level. Perhaps you can thank this threads discussion for a bit more clarity in the new rule. That now means Mini tire dimensions/quality for 2024 may be a new ballgame of improvement. |
|
Re: Mini Tire Issues - NTPA Tech page Update
|
Joe B.
|
Never a good look when you have to go back in less than a week and reword your release. Doesn't anybody think before they post? |
|
Re: Mini Tire Issues - NTPA Tech page Update
|
Registered: 02/18/2018 Posts: 247 |
You must not read this forum often 
|
|
Re: Mini Tire Issues - NTPA Tech page Update
|
LegalEze
|
So dissection of the language would lead us to the fact that only tires that were in competition in 2022 (from 2022) are allowed. It does not say In competition and forward of the 2022 season.. No 2021 tires? 2020? etc. Only 2022. So how long until we have no supply of these tires?
Want to ensure the rules are clear as the legality could become an issue.... I expect v3.0 of this rule soon.... |
|
Re: Mini Tire Issues - NTPA Tech page Update to;legal eze
|
HP
|
Anyone with more than a miniscule amount of COMMON SENSE, would know the rule means ANY tire used in the 2022 season, would be legal.
Common sense obviously excludes lawyers, engineers, and crap stirrers. |
|
Re: Mini Tire Issues - NTPA Tech page Update to;legal eze
|
Moderator Registered: 03/19/2018 Posts: 676 |
Cool. Define "used" in 2022...
Because that'll be what hats get hung on to challenge this. CP |
|
Re: Mini Tire Issues - NTPA Tech page Update to;legal eze
|
HP
|
Someone bought a parked mini with 1997 Cepecks, and ran it in 2022.
In other words, ANY tarz built/used before/during 2022. But then, that makes WAY too much sense, ,, |
|
Re: Mini Tire Issues - NTPA Tech page Update to;legal eze
|
Moderator Registered: 03/19/2018 Posts: 676 |
"Ran it" in 2022? Sanctioned pull? Brush pull? Flipped them 30 times at a crossfit gym?
CP |
|
Re: Mini Tire Issues - NTPA Tech page Update to;legal eze
|
Registered: 03/26/2008 Posts: 510 |
Well, I am going to show up at our first event with tires I bought in 2019, so I guess the "wording" will get tested! lol I also have a relatively good set I might use if I can find another set of used wheels that are at least 5 years old. Common sense tells me that a tire that was legal in 2022, meaning Firestone, Mayhill, Pioneer, Cepek and yes, even BF Goodrich would be legal to be in competition in 2023. smh! JW |
|
Re: Mini Tire Issues - NTPA Tech page Update
|
pulling fan
|
Why don't they just come out and say we only want this tire and manufacturer? They basically did this with the prostock class. Mitas have to be 1/2" less than Pro Puller tires. |
Website Statistics
Global: Topics: 38,534, Posts: 231,407, Members: 3,465.
This forum: Topics: 37,425, Posts: 228,001.
Global: Topics: 38,534, Posts: 231,407, Members: 3,465.
This forum: Topics: 37,425, Posts: 228,001.
Our newest member case of addiction
