Quote
Dick Morgan
For me and I realize that there is a lot of support for this rule, however I'm not one of them. The worst rule was the " any sheet metal, any engine ". I believe that the rule killed the one thing that pulling had going for it, brand loyalty. Not many true fans really believe that most cross dressers are anything but either BBJD or SBJD.

Quote
Dick Morgan
I have to agree with localpuller. No hooded tractor class should ever been greater than 550 cubic inches.

Quote
Dick Morgan
Why did the rule for SF have to start out at 640 cubic inches? What was the reason to not start out at 550 or so?

Quote
Dumb rules
Allowing cubic inch limits of 640 to 680 have actually killed the sport.
Someone tell me what ridged frame tractor every had a stock 680 cid engine.
The cost to build to that and hold together has put many people out.

Quote
cpr
In 1981, IH 88 Series 2wd tractors had 466s in them.

CP

Quote
cpr
Correct Clark. Thank you.

CP

Quote
a lil' history
I know for a fact that Shramek's Young Blood multiple NTPA GN champion was an AC 426 that was tied and strapped together with innovation in order to keep that engine together. And despite that, it still occasionally came unglued.

Stock Cubic Inches = Cat 3208 V-8 at 636 used in Oliver and White, Perkins 640 V-8 used in Massey's.

The reason for 680 PS cubes is that NTPA was way too late when they finally stated engine cubes for each pulling class. The largest PS engine at that point was 680. (Not hard to make 680 when the stock block is already 619.)

The only 466 stock tractor engine when PS became a NTPA sanctioned class (1981?) was the just debuted JD 466 in their '40' series rear wheel drive tractors.

Which brings up the controversial "cross dressing" rule.
Morgan's love to harp upon the rule but let us back up to when cross dressing really began, which ended up promoting cross dressing to more liberalization, which is the rule we've had now for many years.
Many on this board think that as long as the engine make and sheet metal align, that is stock. No it is not.
Sounds like you need therapy from getting your ass kicked by IH’s your whole life!

The cross dressing really originated with the perpetual complaining and cheating IH pullers because they have a real disdain hatred for a green JD and even more so if the green is winning. Deere 466 is a much improved engine over their previous stalwart 404.
The IH guys are all of sudden not happy with their already stout IH 414 and 436 engines. But they think Deere's extra 30 cubes is a big advantage (6.9% more cubes).
So they lobby for the IH 466 truck block and NTPA rule makers caves again, just like they did when allowing a 706 reared to be mated to the IH 361, 407, 414, 436 engine and now the 466 truck engine.
The first 4 engines came stock in rear wheel drive tractors. A 466 never did. A 706 diesel came with a 282 and in 1966 came with a 310.
And yet before we flipped the calendar to 1980, the IH guys were mating a 706 rear end (for weight reduction, perhaps to get into a lighter class) to the 414 and preferably the 436 engine. You want to get technical, there is your cross dressing.
And Binderlite started when Dibble mated the 1468 only DV-550 diesel converted to alky to a 706, in the 5500 SS. Cross dressing? In my view, it is.
But the IH guys were never happy, as usual. And they kept pushing - oh, my, we can't have JD have any upper hand! In any class!!
Forward a few years and we get "the king" on strike not pulling GN as he lobbies his father in law (the WPI chief) for the HyperMax aftermarket block, which eventually becomes approved. But when some JD guys try to get a likewise after market block, oh no you cannot have that.

Which comes to "Stormy" comment, of which he is totally correct.
However, let's take it even further. Why are the modern day electronic Diesel engines not allowed in big horsepower sanctioned pulling?
Shramek had a 7 cylinder electronic diesel sitting in Simpson's shop for a few years awaiting development backwards to mechanical fuel injection to fit NTPA rules. Brian decided that spending at least a quarter million was not feasible and thus never pursued that engine.

And yet the popular buzz phrase is "taking pulling to the next level". Really, just what is the definition? Perhaps, that is just what cross dressing is about.
After all, we are trying to reach people to become spectators, most who do not hale from a farm and they come for the pure enjoyment - socially - and most actually do like the diesel smoke columns and do not care whether the tractor engine block and sheet metal coincide or not. As long as the tractor looks pretty and performs well and the spectator has a good time being entertained, that's where they get their bang for the bucks spent. And hopefully leaving with a favorable memory and looking forward to another pulling event.

And Bryan concluded it well: "The sport isn't dead, it just isn't what it was in 1985." Yeah, a lot has changed in those ensuing 38 years!!!! Better or worse?

Quote
a lil' history
I know for a fact that Shramek's Young Blood multiple NTPA GN champion was an AC 426 that was tied and strapped together with innovation in order to keep that engine together. And despite that, it still occasionally came unglued.

Stock Cubic Inches = Cat 3208 V-8 at 636 used in Oliver and White, Perkins 640 V-8 used in Massey's.

The reason for 680 PS cubes is that NTPA was way too late when they finally stated engine cubes for each pulling class. The largest PS engine at that point was 680. (Not hard to make 680 when the stock block is already 619.)

The only 466 stock tractor engine when PS became a NTPA sanctioned class (1981?) was the just debuted JD 466 in their '40' series rear wheel drive tractors.

Which brings up the controversial "cross dressing" rule.
Morgan's love to harp upon the rule but let us back up to when cross dressing really began, which ended up promoting cross dressing to more liberalization, which is the rule we've had now for many years.
Many on this board think that as long as the engine make and sheet metal align, that is stock. No it is not.

The cross dressing really originated with the perpetual complaining and cheating IH pullers because they have a real disdain hatred for a green JD and even more so if the green is winning. Deere 466 is a much improved engine over their previous stalwart 404.
The IH guys are all of sudden not happy with their already stout IH 414 and 436 engines. But they think Deere's extra 30 cubes is a big advantage (6.9% more cubes).
So they lobby for the IH 466 truck block and NTPA rule makers caves again, just like they did when allowing a 706 reared to be mated to the IH 361, 407, 414, 436 engine and now the 466 truck engine.
The first 4 engines came stock in rear wheel drive tractors. A 466 never did. A 706 diesel came with a 282 and in 1966 came with a 310.
And yet before we flipped the calendar to 1980, the IH guys were mating a 706 rear end (for weight reduction, perhaps to get into a lighter class) to the 414 and preferably the 436 engine. You want to get technical, there is your cross dressing.
And Binderlite started when Dibble mated the 1468 only DV-550 diesel converted to alky to a 706, in the 5500 SS. Cross dressing? In my view, it is.
But the IH guys were never happy, as usual. And they kept pushing - oh, my, we can't have JD have any upper hand! In any class!!
Forward a few years and we get "the king" on strike not pulling GN as he lobbies his father in law (the WPI chief) for the HyperMax aftermarket block, which eventually becomes approved. But when some JD guys try to get a likewise after market block, oh no you cannot have that.

Which comes to "Stormy" comment, of which he is totally correct.
However, let's take it even further. Why are the modern day electronic Diesel engines not allowed in big horsepower sanctioned pulling?
Shramek had a 7 cylinder electronic diesel sitting in Simpson's shop for a few years awaiting development backwards to mechanical fuel injection to fit NTPA rules. Brian decided that spending at least a quarter million was not feasible and thus never pursued that engine.

And yet the popular buzz phrase is "taking pulling to the next level". Really, just what is the definition? Perhaps, that is just what cross dressing is about.
After all, we are trying to reach people to become spectators, most who do not hale from a farm and they come for the pure enjoyment - socially - and most actually do like the diesel smoke columns and do not care whether the tractor engine block and sheet metal coincide or not. As long as the tractor looks pretty and performs well and the spectator has a good time being entertained, that's where they get their bang for the bucks spent. And hopefully leaving with a favorable memory and looking forward to another pulling event.

And Bryan concluded it well: "The sport isn't dead, it just isn't what it was in 1985." Yeah, a lot has changed in those ensuing 38 years!!!! Better or worse?

Quote
cpr
Except there are Allisons in Europe with Roots superchargers and home-made centrifugal superchargers.

CP

Quote
Stormy
Why cant Head Bolts and Cam centerlines be moved to help performance and durability for Competitors?

BB

Quote
Tires?
Are there any unintended consequences from tire rules?

Quote
tugger
With that, I disagree. Outlaw uses that rule with the turbo. Everybody gets the same turbo, same price...Last turbo is now good for 8 years. Durable, and solid. Never lost a turbo due to a wheel blowing off. (great job to the turbo manufacture) Don't have to change turbos every 8 weeks. And you get the best turbo same as everyone else. NTPA and PPL turbo is ever changing and you may not be able to purchase the best turbo because you do not have all your eggs in the basket of the best turbo at the time, so you will not be able to purchase the best turbo....really rings true if you are invited to NFMS and you can't get the best turbo and have to run a second place turbo...Just saying...(Super Farm)