Llss clasd

It depends how much of a "true Allis guy" you are. Tell me a Cummins or DT466 is cheaper to build for this class and I will prove you wrong. They might be easier to find off the shelf go fast parts for - but not less expensive.

I have read the proposed national rules. I think it's a good idea and in general they are on the right track. With that said (the most important performance rule of all)the turbocharger rules for the diesels are confusing at best. In this case I am not a fan of slotted turbos from the aspect of having a tech person sharp enough to be able to police the rule effectively. If left as is the 470 cube engine with a 3.4 smooth bore inlet would be my choice. Long story short, any of the diesel engine options should have the same(ambient)turbo period. That's the only way it will give each competitor the same opportunity.

I am not apposed to a component chassis for some of the reasons you mentioned, but from what the rules say it has to be an ag chassis. With that said I have heard one of the Top alky burners at Gordy has a hollowed out driveline with a truck axle in it. Where does that fit in?? Again, another thing that should be cleared up.

Edited by O.P.S. Heads - 12 Jan 2017 at 8:56pm

You may be right, but the engine / chassis combinations is also a bit fuzzy. I always got below average scores on my Iowa State basic skills test in "reading comprehension" so maybe its just me. Below is a copy and past from the actual rules sheet:





Weight 

Tractor weight will be 6200lbs. 50lb variance will be given at the scales

Engine 

Engine crankcase, block, and cylinder head must be of same manufacturer, or factory replacement and can be used in any agricultural transmission and rear end that used that brand of engine, or through its company mergers used that brand of engine.

Example:

CNH=                   Agco
Case                   Oliver
Farmall               Moline
International          White
Case IH               Massey Ferguson
Ford                   AC
New Holland            Deutz


Must be OEM engine block, no Billet steel or aluminum blocks. Engine must match brand of tractor. Rear of engine must be in stock location for make and model of rear end and transmission housing, with a maximum tolerance of a 1” adapter plate. A 1% tolerance will be given on cubic inch limitations to allow for normal engine wear.

No V-8 Engines permitted.
No Overhead cams allowed.





So on one hand they say you can run another engine (ie. Cummins or whatever) in another chassis and on the other they say it must match the brand of the driveline or be a factory replacement. I have never had anyone "in the know" be able to explain to me that a Cummins (for example) is a factory replacement for a 301 Allis. I doubt you can go to your local Agco dealer and buy a kit and a IH 436 that is a direct fit for a model 190. Same goes for what appears to be an endless combination of engines and chassis that could be constructed. So then the questions becomes what is a factory replacement? Another thing missing is rule that sates there can be no decubing of an engine I.E. getting a 414 IH to 410 inches. That in my mind is a big deal that should be mentioned.

I would think by the rules written that a 426 would be just as acceptable as a 5.9 Cummins in a 180 or 190, but who knows.

I have seen this a million times when rules are written. The authors whos intentions are good are not specific enough to say exactly what's legal and what isn't. That would take a lot of time and thinking of ALL possibilities that could be. It would also eliminate bickering down the road. Each model tractor should be listed with what engine combos are legal for said model / chassis.

I am not opposed to a component chassis for some of the reasons you mentioned. The rules say it has to be an ag chassis so I don't think components would be allowed. I heard that one of the top alky burners at Gordy has a hollowed out driveline with a truck axle installed. Where does that fit in? Again, something that should be clarified.

Edited by O.P.S. Heads - 12 Jan 2017 at 8:59pm

I think a less confusing method would be to list all of the engines and turbo / intercooler combinations that are acceptable in this class no matter the chassis. Lets face it, that's where this is heading.

ORRRR, go back to the old NTPA rule that says the block and crankshaft have to match the driveline it was made to fit into. One or the other. That is a good rule that was forgotten long ago. It will never happen.   

It's been my experience that rules must be well thought out prior to being clearly written particularly in the areas of performance like the engine and especially (in this case)turbo combinations. Poorly written rules are the start of a failing effort to do something good.

Edited by O.P.S. Heads - 12 Jan 2017 at 9:50pm

I think a D21 with a lot of lightweight work done with 470 inches and a 3.4 inlet turbo would be tough as hell if done right. The driveline would be (almost) indestructible. Getting one down to 6200 lbs. and making it go down the track right would be no small feat.

Badger State will be running with some good alky burners starting this summer. That will be a very insightful experience. Badger State and ECI have some of the best running LLSS diesels in the country in my opinion.    

The current proposed rules allow you to make a 301 to 360 cubes and run twins with no intercooler.

I would too. A good intercooler is equivalent about 60 cubic inches in this class. 315 twin cooled, 360 twin no cooler, 410 single cooled or 470 without a cooler would all run very close with the same turbo if equally tuned.

Edited by O.P.S. Heads - 13 Jan 2017 at 9:23am

You are absolutely correct. Their overall idea is fine but they needed to talk with some LLSS pullers from Wisconsin and Iowa and other places where the diesels run hard. Maybe they were invited to the party but didn't respond - not sure.

The issue as you probably know is that the diesels from down south couldn't compete with the alky burners so they gave them as much as a 3.4 inch turbo inlet advantage. That is a massive advantage. If the same advantage was given to really good diesel LLSS tractors the alkys would be behind and then they would want more. Where does it end?

Time will tell but the good diesels and good alkys need to run together at several different pulls over the course of 2 - 3 years together a good handle on it. Badger State is an excellent place to try this. I would say leave everything at a 3 inch smooth bore compressor for year one at least. If the diesels can't compete then change the inlet to a 3.150" smooth bore and try that or give a weight advantage. Much easier to give it as needed than try to take it away after its given. Cost less money too.

If Gordyville told us anything it would suggest that a good 3 inch smooth bore diesels will compete with the best alky burners.

Edited by PaulB - 14 Jan 2017 at 11:26am

The rules that they came up with are very close to what we run in western new york. other than the 3.4 turbo we had just 3 inch till now, they said it will b looked at after this year and reevaluate. The rules work very well you can send a ton of $$$ if you want or do your homework and make what ever you have work.

Larry do agree 3.4 bit much but at least at this pt the exhaust is restricted now on these turbos and intake down go 3.4 from 3.6 with no forward facing slots anymore either . Do believe most are not going to this 3.4 rule . Believe it will be 3.0 straight across board when dust all clears after this year. Are we going to see you in new York again this year?

Edited by PaulB - 21 Jan 2017 at 10:33am

The national proposed LLSS rules don't allow component chassis so no need discussing that any further.

I doubt $15 - 25,000 will build a competitive LLSS tractor in todays world. The top alky and diesel tractors at Gordville this year were $15,000 X 10 in money spent on each rig. Not saying you have to spend that much to compete, but to be at that level it takes more than a $25,000 investment.

Paul has a point. The LLSS class is to me should be what the light super class was 30 or so years ago from the standpoint of what sized tractor that competes in the class. Most of the 5000 lb. super tractors from years gone by were all factory rated at less than 80 HP. It was intended to be a “different class” with smaller tractors – something different to watch. It was not intended to have D 21’s, 1066’s, or tractors of that size that were factory rated at 100 plus HP. If you like a lot of different brands / color in the class, the lightweight class always provided that. I think the LLSS class also does a good job at that so far. In the light super class the weight kept going up and a 505 cube limit was adopted. With the current set of rules used in the NTPA light super class there is no sense in bringing a “small” tractor to the dance. The newer rules eliminated many from being able to compete. Now there are only a handful of top quality light super tractors across the country. You can almost guess who will win before the class gets started. The NTPA did this to itself.

That is one of the reasons why I don’t care for the 470 cube rule in the newly proposed national LLSS class. 410 might be too much also. Not so much from a performance standpoint – but as the chance to allow bigger tractors (and engines) to compete in a class that it my mind is made for smaller tractors. If people really work hard at the 470 diesels, it could possibly be a repeat of what happened to the light super stock class although the 3 inch turbo inlet is a great equalizer. Time will tell. The other reason is that there is a ton of 466 sized classes around the country. What could be the need for another one?

The decubing rule is a bad idea in my mind as well and I have always been against it for the same reasons stated above in the allowance of bigger tractors (or engines) in a small tractor class. With that said, the engine in a John Deere 4010 with a factory block and cylinder head is much larger in physical size than most of the rest of the tractors in that factory HP bracket. (I would guess the same length or longer than a 400 series IH or a 426 Allis) So the Deere’s do have an advantage over most of the others. Decubing a 414 or 426 from that aspect is really no different than using a 404 Deere engine. But we all pick our poison as far as what brand we choose to compete with. I still will never think decubing is a good plan or rule to allow. When a 414 IH or 404 Deere engine or a 426 Allis can be made to 370 in size on alky there will be a problem.





Edited by O.P.S. Heads - 22 Jan 2017 at 9:22am