NADM 2.6 rules phone poll results

Sledpuller said:
HHehheeh Mark, Mark, Mark. Someday, you may understand the pulling issues across the whole country and not just your corner bubble, but I doubt it!!:lolly:
Click to expand...

Hey bud I'm ALL FOR a set of unified rules for EVERYONE! That's why I wanted to know your opinion, because NADM seems to be the only one trying to do this in my book.
 
Sledpuller said:
Yea, you guys proved an experienced puller with a purpose built truck from the ground up, especially the engine, can beat guys who aren't quite that serious, or didn't spend quite that much money. BIG SURPRISE THERE!!!!

You think the turbo alone made Adams truck hook like that?? It didn't.

You think one of the protrusion rules would stop Adams truck from being a winner? It wont.


I think its time to enforce the street driven rule, boys, how about it?

Or take duals and big tires away....
Click to expand...

Not just motor but to me he drove that truck better than any other pass in the video. He's got skills:rockwoot:
 
Got Smoke? said:
Hey bud I'm ALL FOR a set of unified rules for EVERYONE! That's why I wanted to know your opinion, because NADM seems to be the only one trying to do this in my book.
Click to expand...

do what? u like how the step covers trucks dominate? thats there rules and he doesnt want to change , you done said u wouldnt pull against tyron or dillard they use same rule
 
Rods said:
do what? u like how the step covers trucks dominate? thats there rules and he doesnt want to change , you done said u wouldnt pull against tyron or dillard they use same rule
Click to expand...

I mainly just wanted Gene's honest opinion on the restrictor plate idea Rodney. I am for unified rules, but not ones that allow step covers you know this Rodney. Different rules @ different places sucks. And I never said I wouldn't pull with Tyrone or Tyson/Tyler just that I couldn't compete with those style trucks. Tyrone is a good friend of mine in fact. Maybe with my new motor next year I'll be able to nip @ their heels. LOL
 
With the restrictor tube....

Is there even a limit on the turbo anymore??
How long is the tube??
How close is it to the inducer bore of the charger?
What inside diam would it be? 2.6?
What contour would it be?? Taper down to a nominal ID on one or both sides? Just a equal ID & OD the entire length of the tube?
How would the sizing be determined to know that a truck will not exceed some certain power level since this is a HP restricting idea. Has conclusive testing been done to know that, for instance, a 2.6 ID restrictor tube infront of, say a 3.0 turbo will only flow xyz & thereby be air limited & thus power limited.


Sure would like plenty more things answered about this idea. I think it has as much merit as any other option, just curious exactly what some people have in mind & exactly how they know it'll reign back the power of the class effectively.

Enlighten me please.
 
Last edited:
If something were proposed quickly, maybe these groups meeting for KY, OH, IN & PA this coming Sunday can think seriously about a restrictor tube rule instead of, or in conjunction with the protrusion rules they're suppose to be developing. ;)


IMO if a restrictor tube design is developed & utilized, the pullers have to purchase it directly from the pulling organization when they sign up in the beginning. If it's a 1-2 times a yr for someone & not running points, they can rent one on the day of the pull? Each one would be uniquely numbered & documented who got it. Then it'd be tech'ed at every pull also.


Just thinking out loud here...
 
Come on Gene, YOU can't be serious?

Sledpuller said:
HHehheeh Mark, Mark, Mark. Someday, you may understand the pulling issues across the whole country and not just your corner bubble, but I doubt it!!:lolly:
Click to expand...

Really Gene, my corner bubble, lol. Maybe you should check the results for the year. My customers won a total of 4 2.6 class points championships in multiple states this year. I have had for the 3rd year straight the top duramax in 2.6 at Schied's and I don't understand the issues. Gene maybe you should be a comedian, after all you are a pretty funny guy.
 
SmokeShow said:
With the restrictor tube....

Is there even a limit on the turbo anymore??
How long is the tube??
How close is it to the inducer bore of the charger?
What inside diam would it be? 2.6?
What contour would it be?? Taper down to a nominal ID on one or both sides? Just a equal ID & OD the entire length of the tube?
How would the sizing be determined to know that a truck will not exceed some certain power level since this is a HP restricting idea. Has conclusive testing been done to know that, for instance, a 2.6 ID restrictor tube infront of, say a 3.0 turbo will only flow xyz & thereby be air limited & thus power limited.


Sure would like plenty more things answered about this idea. I think it has as much merit as any other option, just curious exactly what some people have in mind & exactly how they know it'll reign back the power of the class effectively.

Enlighten me please.
Click to expand...

SmokeShow said:
If something were proposed quickly, maybe these groups meeting for KY, OH, IN & PA this coming Sunday can think seriously about a restrictor tube rule instead of, or in conjunction with the protrusion rules they're suppose to be developing. ;)


IMO if a restrictor tube design is developed & utilized, the pullers have to purchase it directly from the pulling organization when they sign up in the beginning. If it's a 1-2 times a yr for someone & not running points, they can rent one on the day of the pull? Each one would be uniquely numbered & documented who got it. Then it'd be tech'ed at every pull also.


Just thinking out loud here...
Click to expand...

The restrictor wont be able to be provided by the Org because all intakes are not created equal. I second your questions though Mitch, our rule meeting is tonight and I am proposing the restrictor plate idea as well as the tire size limit idea to introduce a 3.0 class into our club and keep WS class where it should be.
 
MarkBroviak said:
Really Gene, my corner bubble, lol. Maybe you should check the results for the year. My customers won a total of 4 2.6 class points championships in multiple states this year. I have had for the 3rd year straight the top duramax in 2.6 at Schied's and I don't understand the issues. Gene maybe you should be a comedian, after all you are a pretty funny guy.
Click to expand...

Sincere congratulations on the success, you have come along way from twisted up aluminum driveshaft guy!

Now, as far you not understating the issues, perhaps you do,as this quote makes sense:

Mark B:"The 2.6 class is out of control and needs to be fixed with a black and white turbo rule for intrusion of the 2.6 bore."

But your suggestion for a solution is not even close to feasible on a national scale:

Mark B:"I personally think it should be a true 66mm compressor wheel rule, that would be the easiest to tech and police and it will bring the power back in check."

LIke I said numerous times, we will change when
the masses are ready for a serious solution, until then, NADM 2.6 rules will be inclusive, not exclusive, like the pulling clubs always end up at, eventually.
 
2.6 idea's

We came down to a few events in Indiana and Ohio this summer and had a great time. Wow, the 2.6 debate is really intense. I was under the impression that the 2.6 class was the next step up from workstock. I didnt think that 2.6was intended for the all out puller, but the weekend warrior that was not stock or stock appearing anymore. This would make this a street class of sorts. 2.8 has evolved to 3.0, why I'm not sure. The 2.6 turbo controversey is way out of control. There are many 2.6 trucks that could or should run 3.0.
I would like to see 2.6 return to a street class. As much as I would hate some of these rules, it would put many trucks in the true class that they belong. 1)Nail down a true 2.6 turbo rule. Get tough on exotic equipment that does not belong. Take an average cost of 5-6 off the shelf 2.6 turbos and put in place a claim rule. Guys wont spend crazy money if they could loose it for half or less the price to replace. 2) Make it 4wd, not 6wd. 3) Keep the no hood stack rule. 4) No front hanging weight. Yes, this one really sucks, but levels the playing field for the less horsepower trucks, and puts the big power guys up in the classes they belong in. This also helps the uneducated people in the stands visually identify the difference in each class. Not trying to offend anyone, just hoping to advance the sport.
 
When classes start out everyone wants it to grow and evolve with the times, parts, and tech. But Unfortunately for the 2.6 class (a step above work stock) has grown to the extent that it is out of reach in $$ Dollars $$ for many. Being from the far east and having crappy sled pulling rules for the majority of our events it sounds all too familiar. Having been a huge "outspoken" fan for years of how your sled pulling classes have kept things fair and competitive out there. But now it is sliding towards the problems we have here.

I don't have a truck that pulls in the 2.6 class nor do I want to spend that kind of coin. It costs to much $$$ compete in a class that was intended for hopped up street driven trucks. Seams kind-of odd syaing it that way....But lets face it...thats what the class started out as.

Maybe make the 2.6 class a T3 exhaust turbine only. No adaptors allowed???
Then the work stock and 2.6 class will be back in check on a progresive scale.

Then 2.8 and 3.0 class will obsorb the guys that should move up that won't.

In saying that...look at what the aftermarket industry is selling the most of. The programmers, turbos, injectors, "Bolt on Goodies" are primarily geared for the hopped up street truck. Not the 1000hp trailer towed "street truck"...Give the hopped up street driven trucks their class back.
 
Last edited:
BDS said:
When classes start out everyone wants it to grow and evolve with the times, parts, and tech. But Unfortunately for the 2.6 class (a step above work stock) has grown to the extent that it is out of reach in $$ Dollars $$ for many. Being from the far east and having crappy sled pulling rules for the majority of our events it sounds all too familiar. Having been a huge "outspoken" fan for years of how your sled pulling classes have kept things fair and competitive out there. But now it is sliding towards the problems we have here.

I don't have a truck that pulls in the 2.6 class nor do I want to spend that kind of coin. It costs to much $$$ compete in a class that was intended for hopped up street driven trucks. Seams kind-of odd syaing it that way....But lets face it...thats what the class started out as.

Maybe make the 2.6 class a T3 exhaust turbine only. No adaptors allowed???
Then the work stock and 2.6 class will be back in check on a progresive scale.

Then 2.8 and 3.0 class will obsorb the guys that should move up that won't.
Click to expand...

T3 just means your buying expensive custom turbos.
 
Maybe so...But wouldn't the heat kill a S480 squeezing the goods through a tiny T3 manifold and housing?
 
I remember when the mod trucks were running D80's. I think one year we didn't get to see Kent Crowder run the scheid truck because he broke something in the D80. LOL
 
zstroken said:
T3 just means your buying expensive custom turbos.
Click to expand...

X2, just dynoed a Fleece common-rail single pumped custom S366 that did 795hp 15xx+ftlbs on fuel only. The technology has come along way in the last year. Tested a clipped 3.0/2.6 Curt Hailsley charger that dynoed 816rwhp on a dual fueled Fleece common-rail(Justin Jones of J&J Machine) which was 100hp better than any other clipped 2.6 charger I have dynoed to date. FWIW...
 
Mark, do you think no matter what we do with a turbo rule, someone will spend enough money to keep out front?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top