2015 ppl 2.6 rules

DMDP said:
So limiting the wheel base 10 inches is gonna fix the 2.6 class?
Click to expand...

Ppl makes the rules. Many may not agree with them but if you want to pull its what it is. Their going to whats best for their sponsors . It appears they think the diesel truck classes a fine how they are. Funny you dont ever see guys with rclb trucks complaining about long wheelbase trucks.
 
158" was in the ppl rulebook for 2012 and 2013 for 2.6. It was said to be a missprint for 2012 but wasn't taken out for 2013.
 
DMDP said:
If your gonna enforce a wheelbase rule that makes FACTORY cclb trucks illegal, then we should limit the amount of weight a single cab can hang out front. What a BS rule if it's true... I don't care what class it is
Click to expand...

Hey why you gotta be picking on standard cabs,?? No one told you to buy a land yaught! :poke:
 
I don't agree with limiting weight on RCLB trucks. They'll should be equal as its you choice on what to build. However making what cclb trucks that have pulled for years now illegal is a chit move on ppl part. I could understand if it were enforcrd this way from the beginning and was in the rules every year but it wasn't. Its no different the them all the sudden saying no RCLB or Chevy bodied trucks allowed in 2.6. Let me guess you RC pullers and Chevy owners would be cool with that. I think not. Regardless this was hearsay earlier in this thread. Before we all get bent, has this been confirmed?
 
Last edited:
Was anyone on here actually at the rules meeting? Since our organization decided to go with ppl we run off of there rules and there changes. Which if they change the wheelbase rule we are gonna have a lot of pissed off pullers
 
bigsexy7.3 said:
Was anyone on here actually at the rules meeting? Since our organization decided to go with ppl we run off of there rules and there changes. Which if they change the wheelbase rule we are gonna have a lot of pissed off pullers
Click to expand...

Id like to know as well
 
The limiting weight thing I said was just trying to make a dumb point. You say the weight thing isn't a big deal an I agree and have no problem with a light truck hanging as much as they want. But then what's the big deal in allowing a 10 inch longer truck? Is that magically gonna fix the rear axle problems? Isn't that what we re trying to do?
 
ComnRailPwr said:
So you would be ok with it if they came out and said 145" max wheelbase in 3.0? I would be ok with the rule if it was that way all along but I don't believe it has been.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have a issue with it. Cut the welds and shorten the drive shafts and your done
 
Besides everyone keeps saying 2.6 isn't a street class anyone and these are dedicated rigs. Be glad they didn't make it the same as the alky classes. Cut the frame and put a short bed on the cc trucks and your done
 
DISTURBED said:
Besides everyone keeps saying 2.6 isn't a street class anyone and these are dedicated rigs. Be glad they didn't make it the same as the alky classes. Cut the frame and put a short bed on the cc trucks and your done
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what we ll be doing but it's just ridiculous we've been building a truck for almost 2 years and just finished the chassis to find out they re gonna come out with a rule out like this. Most of the top running trucks are not running long wheelbases if I'm not mistakin. So i don't see a need for a wheelbase rule
 
DMDP said:
Yeah that's what we ll be doing but it's just ridiculous we've been building a truck for almost 2 years and just finished the chassis to find out they re gonna come out with a rule out like this. Most of the top running trucks are not running long wheelbases if I'm not mistakin. So i don't see a need for a wheelbase rule
Click to expand...

If the rule is true then 158"-2.6 is a stepping stone to a already 158"-3.0 ODL class when they go ahead allow big rears in 2.6
 
What was said at the meeting according to out pullers that were there, "158 wheelbase will be enforced." There was talk that they may allow a factory wheelbase if you still have all the factory parts, meaning rear bakes and leaf springs. The feeling is once you go so far as to weld your rear axle in place it is not any harder to shorten the frame while doing so.
 
DMDP said:
But then what's the big deal in allowing a 10 inch longer truck?
Click to expand...

I would say the answer to your question is the addition of the hitch rule that specified a distance from the rear axle no matter the driveline length. If they really wanted all frame lengths I think it would have been a percentage rule.

DISTURBED said:
If the rule is true then 158"-2.6 is a stepping stone to a already 158"-3.0 ODL class when they go ahead allow big rears in 2.6
Click to expand...

That was my thought too.

Every other ppl class has a specified length, why should we be any different?
 
DMDP said:
Yeah that's what we ll be doing but it's just ridiculous we've been building a truck for almost 2 years and just finished the chassis to find out they re gonna come out with a rule out like this. Most of the top running trucks are not running long wheelbases if I'm not mistakin. So i don't see a need for a wheelbase rule
Click to expand...

They may be doing you a favor Jon it might help cure that Ford Bounce LOL
 
97crewcab said:
I would say the answer to your question is the addition of the hitch rule that specified a distance from the rear axle no matter the driveline length. If they really wanted all frame lengths I think it would have been a percentage rule.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. Why not have a percentage rule and allow all factory wheelbases in all classes? I know that's not gonna happen. I'm just stating my opinion since I'm a little pissed I've spent a lot of time building the rear of my frame just to cut it back out. It is what it is. Guess I'll finally have some extra room on the trailer LOL
 
lubeowner said:
What was said at the meeting according to out pullers that were there, "158 wheelbase will be enforced." There was talk that they may allow a factory wheelbase if you still have all the factory parts, meaning rear bakes and leaf springs. The feeling is once you go so far as to weld your rear axle in place it is not any harder to shorten the frame while doing so.
Click to expand...

Don't want to turn this into a pissing match but, where is the 158" rule written. Wasn't in the rulebook for 2014.
 
olblue359 said:
Don't want to turn this into a pissing match but, where is the 158" rule written. Wasn't in the rulebook for 2014.
Click to expand...

I wasn't at the meeting so I just said what I was told from a reliable source. But it was in there for 2012-13 but never was enforced. But your right its not in 2014. Who knows, even though it was said at meeting doesn't mean it'll be in rulebook this year. Everybody knows how that stuff goes.
 
DMDP said:
I agree with that. Why not have a percentage rule and allow all factory wheelbases in all classes? I know that's not gonna happen. I'm just stating my opinion since I'm a little pissed I've spent a lot of time building the rear of my frame just to cut it back out. It is what it is. Guess I'll finally have some extra room on the trailer LOL
Click to expand...

sad part is jon when I first heard about the 158 rule being enforced. your truck was one that came to mind. having decided on 3.0, measurements were already taken on my behalf. I don't disagree with the rule. as for this class is no longer oem. once the interiors and rear brakes/suspensions went out.. so did everything else oem.
 
eac4805b43545426dcf4744a8ca114d1.jpg


This or 200lbs. Hmmm I know the fix I'm going for....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top