05:41:47pm, Tuesday, April 29, 2025
|
LLSS Component
|
LLSS Fan
|
Rumor has it BOB voted to allow components in the limited light. Anyone got any details? |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
LW.
|
I hope not, but hey, lets ruin the class! |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
Registered: 02/19/2009 Posts: 542 |
So if this is coming , what is the exact rules ? Say engine placement? Because stock engine placement is not the same in every brand. And what's next remanufactured heads or billet ?. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
pullinfan4255
|
PPL western series has allowed recast heads from the beginning. They may even allow billet as there's nothing printed in the rule book saying its illegal. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
Registered: 02/19/2009 Posts: 542 |
That's interesting, in December talked with Hayden Otto said they didn't. I have been asked for a set of printed rules for over a year , I guess that's maybe why. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
Registered: 03/31/2008 Posts: 793 |
Rules are on the PPL website. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
Registered: 02/19/2009 Posts: 542 |
Deere Puller - There are 6 Rules in the PPL rule book for the LLSS Western Series. Nothing on head rules for that class Most of the LLSS rules that I have read state that most run OEM factory heads |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
elaborate
|
Lol no it won't ruin the class, but please elaborate on why you think it will. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
lewis c
|
I believe this country is to far gone Woke what Mother would name there child elaborate historian and such your real names would be more meaningful to your post make a fool out of yourself like i do sometimes WE DO HAVE TRUMP NOW DAVID IS THE ONLY NAME ON HEAR HES A GOOD GUY TALK TO HIM BEFOR |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
Banana Split
|
Just another move that will further split the class from some sort of unified rules for several years. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
llss
|
You are 100 percent correct .But some people cant see the forest for looking at the trees |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
ky fan
|
In the start on components 25 yrs ago the ag chassis it replaced moved down to another class,or most did,in time they all ended up in a less powerful class that had some common things.since the llss is kinda looked at as the least powerful class of the 'big time/travel' classes,where will these chassis go to,antiques ?.i really hate to say this BUT let the llss class go component and whatever they decide to do power wise is fine.then make a llps or llsf for the ag chassis,maybe back the turbo down slightly to where the guys think the chassis can live.thered be plenty to go around,and could double book dates at different fairs.seems like what started all this was when the 466 deere/ih came into the class,which securing that would make the heads better ,more flow per cubic inch,over the 300 series motors. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
Moderator Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 1,660 |
Lewis..
Your post is almost impossible to read. Please stay on topic and leave the political commentary to the " off topic " forum page. Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2025 11:29AM by Dick Morgan. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
lewis c
|
SEEMED PRETTY SIMPLE USE YOUR NAME |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
Moderator Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 1,660 |
Lewis, I'm not sure what you mean by " USE YOUR NAME" . |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
560
|
$ |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
pro component
|
Many on here state that $ and more $$ continue to fuel every pulling class, including LLSS, to improve/upgrade/build new. All true.
Look at the $$$ spent on new LLSS tractors and how professional they look. Is that really bad? Not really, in my view. But when you look at those tractors, how close are they to what the founding father(s?) of the class intended? Today's new LLS have custom built chassis, custom built sheet metal, improved drive train components built by specialists. Are those bad? No. At least not in terms of safety. And custom modified ag tractor rearends, many being of a so called 'newer' tractor model. Bad? Not necessarily. The engine is also usually from a 'newer' model tractor than what the sheet metal aftermarket covering is. Yep, the tractor qualifies for "Super" in its definition. Rules supposedly constrain it aspects of "Limited". Is that bad? Not necessarily. And it is light weight, compared to other tractor classes. That's fine. So these 'new' LLSS's appearance seldom use anything from the original tractor they are trying to represent. To help prove my point, go to the For Sale page and look at current LLSS turnkey tractors for sale. A prime example is the gorgeous looking 1206. A stock 1206 likely would never make 6000 lbs, even on severe diet. An original 1206 had the first series heavy duty 360 engine, not a 466 block as featured in the 'for sale' tractor, which has a IH 584 reared, which in original form was mated to a 4 cylinder 204 cubic inch engine. Please do Not take me wrong here because I applaud the builders/owners for crafting a beautiful updated tractor! Thus, these are already (highly) modified LLSS tractors. So let's finish the job and allow a component rearend/drive train in the LLSS. And the same should be allowed for the other current sanctioned tractor classes, from at least SF and higher power that are still relegated by rules to ag chassis. If a puller still wants to run their ag chassis reared, that's fine. I'm just saying to open up the rules. Component rearends have proved their worth in other pulling classes. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
bravo!!
|
Very well stated.
The purists are blinded by the fact that the HP number (not the piddly 500 pound debate) is the reason for driveline failure on the 40-75 HP OE chassis they are using. Therefore they spend huge amounts of money to make the OE rear/trans live (for a while) so they can justify no component. Completely flawed thought process. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
Historian
|
It's all very simple --- build for the class that you want to run, there's a light class for components and there's a light class for Ag Chassis ( real tractors ). You know the rules when you decide to build ( it's really that simple ) ---- always someone wanting to change the rules to fit their wants ! |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
Registered: 07/06/2017 Posts: 410 |
|
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 783 |
Cody, I agree also |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
L Ford
|
kinda proves you dont need 400+ ci for a 6000# tractor |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
Registered: 08/02/2008 Posts: 237 |
Speaking as someone that has built many rear ends for the class, it sounds like a great idea. Dealing with all the crap to make a reliable, light ag rear end is a pain in the butt and takes more time than it's worth.
I'm not the only one that has that opinion. I also have no desire to be a component chassis builder, so selling those isn't a factor in my opinion. Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2025 01:38PM by sfd823. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
thumbs up
|
Glad to hear someone who is actually in the know reply with probably the most sensible statement yet. Appreciate your honesty. Maybe someday all the old schoolers will figure it out, but I doubt it. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
lewis c
|
I have built two Cockshutt 570 rear ends, two 1800 oliver rear ends, and two 560 ih rear ends. All are still rolling down the track with atlas parts and no troubles.
They are now in TN, KY, N, MS and IL. The only things have been changed is faster gears. Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2025 12:14PM by Dick Morgan. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 52 |
Have you ever noticed that the guys wanting components in LLSS, are guys that have light supers that arn't competitive, or can't afford to keep up in light super stock class. Or think that it will give them the competitive edge they need to win in LLSS. Maybe the class was miss named from the start. Light Limited Pro Stock or Light Limited Super Farm may have been a closer representation. Also no one talks about the fact that the power is too much for chassis. Or that maybe smaller tires would ease chassis stress. Only that the chassis won't take the power. Pull them back a little, Or common guys, do the chassis work. Start in the rear and work your way forward. Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2025 12:19PM by jeremyroff. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
.
|
Have you ever noticed that a class starts with a decent ruleset and then a rule or two gets tweaked and then the whole intent of the class gets blown out of the water because it’s now wildly exceeding the power limits that the class started with? Have you noticed that leads to hearing the words recast, billet, bigger pumps, bigger turbos, air ride creeping into conversations and rules meetings, maybe throw in add weight. Then we start hearing about how certain makes can’t get weight forward due to factory design.
I guess it’s like this, if you want to keep pushing the horsepower limits that’s fine, just allow the use of a chassis that’s designed to do so. If you want to limit it to an ag chassis then limit the power and take it back to the confines the class was designed for |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
Registered: 02/19/2009 Posts: 542 |
One of my fellow pullers were discussing this topic and Box Charger was mentioned for this limited class which I kinda was an interesting take. Since everyone worried about breaking rears. Would be spending for updated chargers every Two year at 6-7000 a pop. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
light classes
|
Agreed with last 3 posts 110%. The thread on "OSTPA new classes" had many of the same points as above. For those that want change, a few thoughts;
- As a group, come together and pitch a new class with what ever rules that make sense. Leave this one alone, and even back it down a little as per what several people have pointed out. - Why are all of you that want to change so against those of us that want it to be what it was intended, a “reasonable” to get into class (back it down some). The class doesn’t need components or for that matter 40k ag rearend as claimed on other threads. - When talking about adding component chassis to the class, people keep stating “you can still run your ag chassis” & “it doesn’t make any more power”. These of course are true, but let’s be honest with each other. It provides an advantage in weight distribution and associated application of power to the track. Of course different brands more so than others and the 250lb chassis break will prove meaningless once this gets going (LSS tried this for a time as well). |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
Historian
|
Light classes --- I agree 100% with what you stated !!! |
|
What I would like to see...
|
Moderator Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,501 |
Not getting into rules talk, but I would love to see an Oliver 88 be competitive in the class. Can that happen now? |
|
Re: What I would like to see...
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,642 |
No |
|
Re: What I would like to see...
|
lewis c
|
Yes if you use a 1800 rear end a 88 hood a cummins or perkins engine or willing to build a 12 thousand dollar crank for the Wakashaw |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
Registered: 03/31/2008 Posts: 793 |
Every class with a turbo limit should have a box charger or a restrictor. Rules should ensure that you can run the same turbo for 5 years. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
noticer
|
I don't know any light super guys pushing for components in LLSS but that doesn't mean there aren't any. All the guys I know pushing for it are currently in the class and tired of working on their current rear ends. Depending on the rear end I know some have spent over $30k on it and it's far from bulletproof. A component rear can be built for less than that, but people somehow think it will ruin the class. Due to the weight limit of the class it forces some to use a light series rear end that regardless of how much is spent on it it can't handle the power the class makes now. Power is only going up as that's just what happens and you basically never see a class stuff toothpaste back in the tube and take power away from itself. One builder told me a top of the line LLSS build is $150k+. Ultimately that is the part that makes the class unsustainable. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
LW.
|
Hey noticer, ever notice that the majority of you guys just want to buy your stuff rather than build it now days anyway? It doesn't take 30k to keep a rearend together if you can just be somewhat self sufficient. But, the attitude of built not bought doesn't register with most anymore. If i could take one thing away from the class, it would be to limit the tires. I think 30.5's are fine, but lets not allow the new series of pulling tires (pro pullers, Mitas, etc.) into this class! A box turbo isn't a bad idea either. Just my 2.5 cents. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
Whoa Nelly
|
How dare you bring common sense into this discussion! LMAO. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,642 |
Again it's proven that updating parts to the top of the line in a budget minded class was a bad idea.the mites tires are better at moving the load farther,so more resistance on the rear and trans,now parts break..your not going to change that.if firestone puller tires were the box tire the rearend and trans problems would be reduced.then a box charger would limit the torque applied to the other end.which will still creep upward due to r and d.the class should be 6000 at the very most |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
Yep
|
Patches you are exactly right, you are dead on !!!! It's been preached forever but very few get it !!! |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
lewis c
|
I dont think noicer can name one person thats already pulling the class that wants to change the agg rear end rule |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
noticer
|
I can name more than one but out of respect of keeping them from getting harassed (as one did who posted it on Facebook last summer) I won't do that on here. Ask around the mid south LLSS class and you'll find a few. And LW that's what some pullers have spent not keeping it together but just what it cost to get the rear end built. When you have to start with a light rear end to start with and have to upgrade every single piece and do a ton of work in there and pay someone else to do it it gets expensive. People can down those who buy it instead of build it but some people just don't have the knowledge and/or time to do so. You do away with them and you lose a lot of pullers. Like it or not pulling needs them too. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
lewis c
|
I think the little Cockshutt won midsouth points i know about what it cost your way off i know what the 18oo oliver rears cost and the 560s and 66s u dont have to use such a light rear its not a light class anymore 62 and 65 is not light |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
noticer
|
I'll stand by that number because I know for a fact certain rear ends cost that much for the works. Call atlas and ask. While I agree it's not as light as it used to be everyone is still looking for every pound of movable weight they can get and that's what brings us here. As far as limiting tires and turbos like discussed above I don't disagree at all. I doubt you'd get pullers to agree to that but it would help the class I think. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
Registered: 01/13/2015 Posts: 65 |
I would like to know who the few are around the mid south LLSS group |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
LW.
|
Ever hear the quote, "poor planning on your behalf does not constitute an emergency on mine",? This is one of those situations. If you can't build your own stuff or figure out how to get it done without spending premium dollars, that's not my problem. That is the tradeoff, I myself am a low budget puller, so I'm going to do everything myself that I can or figure out how to make it work. for those who can't do what I can, then they will have to pay through the nose if they choose for someone else to do it, that is just how it is. And if those guys are really so upset about spending 30K on building their rearends, then maybe they should get more involved and put a stop to the things that break the rearends, such as the new tires, the crazy turbos, etc. Wouldn't that be the ultimate answer? As far as I'm concerned, if you don't mind dropping 15k or so on the new pulling tires, you don't get to bitch about your rearend/chassis costs. Just my 3.5 cents. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
Registered: 04/03/2016 Posts: 783 |
Jeremy, I have a light superstock that is not competitive. I still pull with it. I have NEVER once said that the llss class should change their rules to let my tractor in their class. I only know of one person that may feel that way. |
|
Re: LLSS Component
|
Not for component but I would be for a box charger rule I think you would see some old tractors come back out of the barns. New 7 and 8 thousand dollar turbos every year has ruined the class. |
|
The first thing to decide...
|
Moderator Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,501 |
If the class is going to have a sustainable future, it should be agreed whether the class is going to be a 6500, 6250/6200, or a 6000 class.
Sadly, even this basic thing cannot really be agreed to among different groups. Once one weight is agreed upon everything else can arise from that. Waiting for some group to come out with a "new" LLSS class with a 5500-5700 weight. Most other classes have splinters, at some point the LLSS class will also. The "open up the rules" crowd basically wants a LSS with a smaller turbo and 40 less cubes. Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2025 01:36AM by The Original Michael. |
Website Statistics
Global: Topics: 39,006, Posts: 234,115, Members: 3,484.
This forum: Topics: 37,792, Posts: 230,504.
Global: Topics: 39,006, Posts: 234,115, Members: 3,484.
This forum: Topics: 37,792, Posts: 230,504.
Website Daily and Monthy Hits: http://pulloff.com/webalizer
Our newest member Smokedout
