What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 15, 2023 06:59AM
Go as far back in pulling history as ypu wish. What are some of the worst unintended consequences blunders of rule changes throughout pulling history?

** Unintended consequences meaning a rule was implemented to address one issue, but as a result the rule caused other problems, maybe even bigger problems than the rule intended to fix. **

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 15, 2023 07:10AM
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.



Dick Morgan

www.PULLOFF.com
Independent Pulling News

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 15, 2023 12:46PM
Plenty of cross dressers have a 466 Binder engine too, especially in the SS classes.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 15, 2023 01:19PM
I am not starting any crap here! When schrameks dominated the heavy ssd class was that an agco engine or a deere or ih etc etc

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 15, 2023 01:28PM
I believe that was an AC 426 with a lot of bandaids applied with the help and advice of Max Simpson.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 16, 2023 01:55AM
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.
There’s by for more crossed dressed tractors with IH engines than any JD engine!

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 18, 2023 02:46PM
If you want to talk about guys using “factory” big cube kits, like

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 15, 2023 01:57PM
680 cubes in pro stock…that might ruffle some feathers but too big, took a lot of color away over the years



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2023 01:57PM by localpuller.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 16, 2023 02:23AM
I have to agree with localpuller. No hooded tractor class should ever been greater than 550 cubic inches.



Dick Morgan

www.PULLOFF.com
Independent Pulling News

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 16, 2023 03:41AM
Quote
Dick Morgan
I have to agree with localpuller. No hooded tractor class should ever been greater than 550 cubic inches.

What's wrong with Super Farm at 640? ANYBODY is dominant on any given day in super farm at 640. All colors can compete: IH, JD, NH, AC, AGCO, MM, Oliver, Ford, etc. I've seen all colors that I just named win. I think it goes wrong with the turbo size. Them JD's who have the block out of a 6030 with the turbo size they are using are able to run away from the IH's cause they can move way more air. But at 640 in the super farm's, even with the JD's still allowed to use the Big Block, the turbo size really limits them, and makes the class a lot tougher. I think many people on here would agree with me that Super Farm is one of the toughest and most competitive classes in pulling.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 16, 2023 04:41AM
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?



Dick Morgan

www.PULLOFF.com
Independent Pulling News

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 16, 2023 05:11AM
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?

Honestly that would be a question for guys like Tony Seitsema, Justin Wagler, etc etc. We run the class and just have never questioned it.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 15, 2023 02:41PM
Any rule that led to starting a new single charger class beyond super farm and pro stock. The sport has just been diluted and made worse ever since. You could argue that supper farm could have evolved into lt pro or 4.1 or whatever but there never should have been so many single charger diesel classes ever invented period.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 16, 2023 01:49AM
I agree with obvious. Too many classes that are so close to each other. Going to an event now you see everything from hot farm to pro stock in one night and you really can't tell the difference in all of them unless you are a die hard.

I don't get the crossdressing complaint. When it comes up it is always about the pro stock class and used against Deere. What about every other class dominated by IH. What other class is dominated by Deere? Just skimming the NTPA points this year Deere won pro stock and super farm but if you look at super farm the next 3 are IH and the points between 1 and 2 are really close. Deere won superstock open but if I remember Ruttin Deere uses a Blackburn IH motor.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 16, 2023 02:37AM
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.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 16, 2023 02:50AM
Agreed, the 640 perkins and Cat 3208 are the two biggest I’m aware of that came in a tractor

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 16, 2023 02:51AM
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.

We're 43+ years in now with a 680 limit in Pro Stock. It was a bad rule if your largest OEM engine was a 466 or smaller, or the engine architecture couldn't support being built to 680 to today's power levels. That's precisely why we now have the improved blocks. More correctly, it was the death of a variety of tractors that had the engine matching sheet metal. The sport isn't dead, it just isn't what it was in 1985.

Status Quo November 16, 2023 04:35AM
The Antique mindset that we have to stay with all the factory stock dimensions inside of the 6 cylinder blocks in SS and Pro Stock Classes. Why cant Head Bolts and Cam centerlines be moved to help performance and durability for Competitors? IMO it has limited how many Competitors enter and stay in the classes.

BB



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2023 05:50AM by Stormy.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 17, 2023 02:51PM
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?

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 17, 2023 03:41PM
One of the most informative responses i have ever read on here!

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 17, 2023 09:46PM
Cool story Bro !

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 18, 2023 01:32AM
All the IH cross dressing you talk about are things that could be and were done by lots of people and still used on the farm. I personally know of hundreds of ih tractors that instead of being overhauled got a bigger used motor and sent back out to the field to do actual work not tractor pulling. Saying this is the same as running a big block john deere with a ih or agco hood is complete crazy. The cross dressing rule is stupid period If you want to run a big block john deere great. But pick from one of the hundreds of john deere models to use as the sheetmetal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/19/2023 07:27AM by cpr.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 18, 2023 02:36AM
the 5288 and 5488 are rear wheel drive tractors with the 466

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 19, 2023 06:04AM
But to you, "Opinion" and everyone one else reading this thread, can we agree upon the definition of STOCK to mean the vehicle as built by the manufacturer?
And if you agree, then the examples I wrote about in my above post does not fit the definition Stock.
Here is my own quote: "Many on this board think that as long as the engine make and sheet metal align, that is stock. No it is not."
And that is my whole opposition against the tractor and truck pulling vehicle cross dressing that is obviously a hot button topic.
So, "Opinion", there I am defending "Stock" and somehow you interpret that I am some type of transgender or whatever. You are definitely weird.

Thanks to 2 guys for pointing out that IH 52/5488 tractors came with 466 engine. That was 3 years after JD debuted theirs.
Please start naming pullers/their tractor name that actually used that rather heavy planetary rearend in high performance tractor pulling. I'm suspicious that not (m)any did.
Just because those 2 IH tractors had the 466 should not qualify that engine or the DT466 truck engine (whatever their differences are) should be allowed in a 706 rearend.

An early employer of mine one day made a statement to me when I questioned him about something, which I do not remember what it was but certainly related to 'tradition'.
His reply was "just because someone has done it that way for forty years, does not necessarily make it right."
My brother lead a very successful mainline farm equipment dealership for many years. He was involved for awhile with my pulling tractor. But he stated about 20 years ago that most pulling tractors are frauds. They really are not representing the brand properly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/19/2023 07:28AM by cpr.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 19, 2023 07:29AM
I edited both of your posts. Keep it on topic and stop with the irrelevant, hateful remarks.

CP

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 19, 2023 11:38AM
Hey cpr Charles, why is it that Original can make a hateful untruthful remark to me???? Why did you ( or any other moderator) not edit that out when it first appeared, especially since you cpr had posted 1.25 hours after his. Yeah, that says a whole lot right there that you considered his remark absolutely fine. But oh, how wrongful of me to make a respectful reply today (pure sarcasm).
I found his hateful statement last night prior to going to bed, following a long day of work and I said I'm not dealing with it now.
My reply to him was for less insulting than his and actually polite compared to his about me. Apparently, you expected me to accept his insulting wrongful labelling of myself. Unfortunately, that happens too often to too many people on this chat board.
And I have been "on topic". Original was the one that started the 'off topic insults'! But I do appreciate that you finally removed his uncalled for very spitefu untruthfull labelling remark.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 19, 2023 11:38AM
You talk about IH guys using “factory” big cube kits(using 466 parts out of trucks in tractors that never had a 466 variant, but was an easy swap since it was the same engine I.E. taking a 1066 that came factory with a 414 and putting a 466 crank and rods in it.)

Correct me if I’m wrong…but the 619BBJD never came factory in a 2nd tractor, right? I was always told that the 619 was factory in their early 4wd articulated tractors, but it was the same block as the 531, so guys got the 619 parts and converted their 531’s. That’s not legal either as the rule always was the motor had to be available in a factor 2wd tractor.

Whether you think it’s right or wrong, those 2 examples are the same concept. So either condone it all or let it go.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 18, 2023 02:45AM
In 1981, IH 88 Series 2wd tractors had 466s in them.

CP

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 19, 2023 01:56PM
Quote
cpr
In 1981, IH 88 Series 2wd tractors had 466s in them.

CP

Not all of them did. The 3488, 5288, and the 5488 did. The 3688 and the 5088 had the 436. The 3088 and the 3288 had the 358 German diesel in them. My superstock component tractor that has not ran worth a fecal matter for the last 3 years has an IH D360 in it.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 20, 2023 12:39AM
In 1981 both the 30 and 50 series IH row crop 2WD tractors had models made
with a 466 engine as standard equipment. FIFY, there is no 88 series IH tractor.
All three series of 2+2s, 50,30 and 70 series articulated 4WD models all have
88 in their model number. We now return you to your regular programming.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 20, 2023 01:03AM
Correct Clark. Thank you.

CP

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 20, 2023 12:49PM
Quote
cpr
Correct Clark. Thank you.

CP
Charles, are you say "Correct Clark" in reference to his tractor not running worth a fecal matter? Or in reference to the first part if what he said or both? Lol
Just try to bring a little humor into the mix!
Best Regards, Bozo

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 18, 2023 02:58AM
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?

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 26, 2023 02:25PM
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?

Your opinion on cross dressing is not cross dressing, taking a 706 and putting a 300-400 series in them is merely an upgrade/update. The cross dressing @Dick Morgan is referring to is the usage of deere engines in any other color of tractor but deere (unless it came from factory like that), same goes for the IH engines.

The complaint against the IH dt466 is baseless because the IH dt466 was in their truck/industrial division which was still IH, sure it wasn’t in a 2wd tractor till the 80’s but what does it matter if you install a 466 crank and pistons in a 414 or 436……it’s nothing different than what deere had done and in fact at least IH used what THEY made stock for their own stock applications. In that type of pulling theres no replacement for displacement, 30 cubes is 30 cubes that can help, smh!!

If it wasn’t for IH and cummins, jd wouldn’t have had 466, back in the 70’s cajan queen was built using cummins sleeves and IH pistons and then deere copied that and built their own 466 to complete with the IH 466. People like you can complain all you want but like MG1206 said, your a sore loser apparently with a chip on your shoulder, says a lot. Last I checked IH didn’t have to use parts from anywhere else or their competitors to develop the 466 or anything else IH made, can’t say the same for deere.

Unlimiteds November 27, 2023 12:28AM
This is part rule change, part rule silence (I think). The unlimited class in the early 2000s had two triple allison tractors, several triple turbines, and occassionally Gardner Stone. The change (screw blowers) and silence (18-71s) made it that much harder for aircraft engines to compete. I don't believe this was the intent, just a result of allowing these power boosters for hemis that aircraft engines do not have.

Re: Unlimiteds November 27, 2023 01:56AM
Except there are Allisons in Europe with Roots superchargers and home-made centrifugal superchargers.

CP

Re: Unlimiteds November 27, 2023 09:55AM
Quote
cpr
Except there are Allisons in Europe with Roots superchargers and home-made centrifugal superchargers.

CP

Do those European tractors run against screw blowers and 18-71s?

Re: Status Quo November 20, 2023 12:51AM
Quote
Stormy
Why cant Head Bolts and Cam centerlines be moved to help performance and durability for Competitors?

BB


Who says they haven't been already?

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 18, 2023 03:22AM
Judging by a lot of the comments on this, a lot of people do not understand your question. The question is about the worst unintended consequences. This isn't supposed to be yet another thread about the rules people do not like. It's actually a fantastic topic. I would bet that entire classes or even some smaller pulling organization went down due to this.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 18, 2023 08:29AM
Q:Number 1 worst unintended consequence of a rule change ? A: Aftermarket cylinder heads
The introduction of non OEM cylinder heads especially when used to convert diesel engines to
spark plugs(alcohol) has got to be a top contender. These heads combined with "peace dividend"
magnetos changed Super Stock pulling in a way no one imagined. Horsepower levels exceeded
block strength quickly, pulling sled technology changed to compensate. 'Race" sleds are now
the norm not the exception. Diesel SS would hold their own much better on an old school sled.
Billet heads,blocks,pumps to make the power to make the speed and safety equipment($$$$$)
to keep from getting hurt. All the one turbo diesel classes that came later because Super Stock
tractors of both types of fuel are too expensive to build/maintain.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 18, 2023 09:51AM
The ones that are intended to maintain economy within a class.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 18, 2023 03:15PM
Are there any unintended consequences from tire rules?

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 21, 2023 11:01AM
Quote
Tires?
Are there any unintended consequences from tire rules?

Absolutely! New tires have been brought in which follow the rules but then are not allowed to be used. After the fact, new rules are made after much money and development time has been spent.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 20, 2023 12:39AM
This is a very easy question IMO. Allowing Hypermax to cast his own blocks. It was the death of the Super Stock class. Started a spiral of allowing him (and others) to cross little lines that had always defined what the limits of each class actually were. The number of participants started to shrink and then the alcohol mixing finished it off.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 20, 2023 03:38AM
Any rule that restricts any pulling component to one manufacturer is a bad rule, with the consequence of spiraling costs.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 21, 2023 02:14AM
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)

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 21, 2023 10:34AM
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)
Yall getting too caught up in the whole "Best Turbo" bs. I've seen guys not running the latest turbo and hold their own and even win their fair share. Just sayin if you are getting beat by 150 every time out, you might have some other issues.

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 26, 2023 09:51AM
Question for Tugger or other Outlaw superfarms:

Seems to me that the box turbo rule (or whatever you call it now) was a good rule change. What, if any, unintended consequences (even minor ones) occurred because of it?

Re: What are worst unintended consequences of rule changes? November 27, 2023 12:47AM
It makes it real hard to go to a NTPA pull and hook. The engines need to be tuned to the turbo. Gear ratio is off and we can't get the power because of cam, intake, piston and pump design. Outlaw turbo makes more power and you have to detune, also getting the right turbo is all but impossible, let alone the right fuel and water that is out there for the NTPA/ppl people. Outlaw also has a spec fuel and water rule that is in place to take the doctoring of fuel/water out of the picture.

Author:

Your Email:


Subject:


Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically. If the code is hard to read, then just try to guess it right. If you enter the wrong code, a new image is created and you get another chance to enter it right.
Message:
Website Statistics
Global: Topics: 38,584, Posts: 229,618, Members: 3,320.
This forum: Topics: 37,058, Posts: 225,862.

Our newest member Fechtner Racing