Rule Changes for 2014?

Sancrest said:
I just don't understand why they can't address the real issue. Dana 80's and 11.5 can't take the abuse that we are giving them. Pro street gas trucks with half the power can have solid rear suspension and Rockwells. 2.6 trucks are not street trucks.
Click to expand...

Knock the power back with simpler turbo restrictions and forget bigger rear ends, that's totally the wrong direction IMO.
 
I understand that and have no issue with what you're saying either. Fact is that the true problem still wasn't addressed.
 
I think the true problem here is PPL and Harts/Hasiley. The rules continue to change yearly with pullers not having a say in the matter. Sounds like harts decided they didnt have the money to run two pulling tractors next summer so the rules where changed so they can build a whole bunch of new turbos. The diesel trucks continue to be the joke of the pulling world.
 
kjpcummins said:
I think the true problem here is PPL and Harts/Hasiley. The rules continue to change yearly with pullers not having a say in the matter. Sounds like harts decided they didnt have the money to run two pulling tractors next summer so the rules where changed so they can build a whole bunch of new turbos. The diesel trucks continue to be the joke of the pulling world.
Click to expand...

Read the whole thread.

BluegrassDiesel said:
Current harts and columbus covers should be legal. It was brought up at the meeting. Basically the mwe groove needs to be back at the wheel, not 12" in front of the wheel.
Click to expand...

Somewhere someone has taken what was legal and found a way to twist the wording into something that was not intended. So the way I see it is the old messed up interpretation of a MAP grove is legal. The trouble is that one person thinks that they wrote the rule clearly while others see it is a totally different way. A good example is the “Dual rear wheels only permitted” instead of dual tires not allowed on the front axle “clarification”.
 
WI Huck said:
Read the whole thread.



Somewhere someone has taken what was legal and found a way to twist the wording into something that was not intended. So the way I see it is the old messed up interpretation of a MAP grove is legal. The trouble is that one person thinks that they wrote the rule clearly while others see it is a totally different way. A good example is the “Dual rear wheels only permitted” instead of dual tires not allowed on the front axle “clarification”.
Click to expand...


Sounds like you havent read the whole thread because i posted earlier. The rule changes are clearly not what people in the meeting decided on as a few have posted here. The changes clearly do not benefit the pullers in anyway but do benefit the people selling the parts.
 
zstroken said:
It all depends on what is inside the neck area.

I can see the interpretation that Josh mentioned(not saying I agree with it).

Evidently the neck area is: a line behind(towards the turbo)a perpendicular line where the 2.6 bore is measured.

That being the interpretation it does prevent an MWE from being in front of the 2.6 ring. Doesn't say it has to be on the same diameter though which would allow the current PPL chargers to remain legal.
Click to expand...

So the new map width rule is basically saying that "the map width groove must be 0.200" or smaller as measured at some point behind the front face of the compressor wheel."

It appears like you mentioned Dan to prevent a cover from being made that places the 0.200" map width groove way out at the front of the cover possibly on a 5" circle for example and then leaving a full compressor wheel exposed outside of a separate 2.6 diameter floating ring for protrusion purposes.
 
kjpcummins said:
I think the true problem here is PPL and Harts/Hasiley. The rules continue to change yearly with pullers not having a say in the matter. Sounds like harts decided they didnt have the money to run two pulling tractors next summer so the rules where changed so they can build a whole bunch of new turbos. The diesel trucks continue to be the joke of the pulling world.
Click to expand...

Or, someone got a concession on a tractor rule but had to throw the pickup guys under the bus to do it.

Knock Gene and NADM all you want, at least they were able to write rules in plain english and kept them steady for a long time.

I think people ought to see pretty clearly here that PPL isn't out for the truck puller, except for his wallet. This isn't leadership....it's a circus and we are the dancing monkey sideshow.
 
The COTPC rule wording if kept would have prevented this, if the groove were moved back behind the clipped portion of the wheel again, we would not be having this discussion.
 
I was informed that the rule change wasn't going to affect the harts charger. But its still not adding up to me.
 
Smokem said:
The COTPC rule wording if kept would have prevented this, if the groove were moved back behind the clipped portion of the wheel again, we would not be having this discussion.
Click to expand...


X2

The sad thing is the pullers and ppl reps decided @ the 2012 rules meeting to adopt COTPC turbo rules for 2013, but guess what somebody f@(ked up the wording. It's sad a big organization like the ppl can't write clear rules and ENFORCE them!!!
 
this is COTPC rules on turbo for 2014

Turbocharger:

The vehicle is limited to a 2.6 inducer bore single turbocharger. The compressor wheel must protrude into into a 2.6” bore for 1/8”. The inlet will be measured using a 2.605” inch plug; the plug must not be able to enter the inducer bore. A stock map width enhancement (MWE) groove is allowed. No MWE groove will be allowed that has a width greater than .200”. All provisions allowing air into the wheel other than via bore and the MWE groove are prohibited. The vehicle driver will be responsible for making compressor wheel accessible for tech personnel to measure bore and able to inspect compressor wheel.
 
nwpadmax said:
I think people ought to see pretty clearly here that PPL isn't out for the truck puller, except for his wallet. This isn't leadership....it's a circus and we are the dancing monkey sideshow.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I would go that far. Although payouts aren't stellar, they are a lot better than most places, and they give us a platform to compete regionally/nationally with more chance of television and magazine exposure. The 3.0 class is really thriving with PPL. Most of the serious pullers I know prefer to pull with PPL over all other organizations.
 
I assume the wheelbase of 158" will be enforced now since it wasn't changed for the third year in a row? If not, could we get a list from PPL of all of the rules which are typos?
 
GOT-Torque said:
I assume the wheelbase of 158" will be enforced now since it wasn't changed for the third year in a row? If not, could we get a list from PPL of all of the rules which are typos?
Click to expand...

Yes I would like to know this as my truck is a 167'' CC LB chevy and waiting to build for 2.6 was told in past would be fine..
 
The 2013 rule changes aren't up now either. I'm hoping they will update the old rule book to show all the current rules. There's way too much gray area in these rules. WB being one and stock appearing motor being another with motors that have deck plates. If it's a typo it needs to be changed and the rules need to be enforced. I only made 1 PPL pull last year because we had a new baby around Platte and Scheide time. I'd like to make more this year.
 
Last edited:
BluegrassDiesel said:
I don't know if I would go that far. Although payouts aren't stellar, they are a lot better than most places, and they give us a platform to compete regionally/nationally ...
Click to expand...

Just for the sake of discussion, what's the winner payout for PPL 2.6?
 
In my opinion the first question that needs to be answered is which is considered the "neck" area, the red arrow or green arrow?

84mm_zps39d78cd5.jpg


Now it is my assumption they mean the red arrow, but this should be very clear so there is no confusion, or liberties can be taken as they have been in the past.

Second there needs to be a real discussion about what is legal and what is not legal, otherwise I don't see what good changing the wording of the rule will be.
 
Last edited:
the neck area would be the green arrow per what we are being told from ppl. though that is not what comes to mind when I read neck area.

what was discussed in the meeting was to require the map groove where its measured at .200 to be behind the face of the compressor, because a 3.0 charger was built earlier in the season that contained the mwe on the face of the cover itself several inches in front of the wheel. the way they chose to word it is confusing however.

the real solution to me would be decide where you want the general power level to fall in the class be it 800 or 1200 and chose an appropriate size bore with slick cover. so if guys want to maintain the current 1200 plus hp then allow them to run slick 3.0 covers.

this has been done in a majority of tractor classes and it eliminates trick of the week covers and while power will still be increased with better wheel technology it grows at a much slower and smaller pace. so instead of gaining 100hp a year a guy might only find 15 or 30 much like ntpa superfarm.

this is just my opinion from what I have seen myself over the years of being involved in pulling
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top