Dec 2020 Prelims
 

A lot of changes announced for AS.

Letters sent. Just crazy talk, jeez.

rev limiters and restrictors
 

Here us my letter to the CRB
This most recent TB calls for two changes to the American Sedan rules as Tech Bulletins that are really Rule Changes that should go though the system as REC and be put out for member input.

The first is a requirement for Full Prep cars to run a restrictor plate. While the CRB is allowed, by TB, to change RP sizes, they are not allowed to change the rule. The rules have never required a Restricter Plate on full prep cars. To now require them would be a change in the rules, not an adjustment as allowed by Tech Bulletin.

The second item, which is directly parallel, is to require Rev Limiters on full prep cars. This is also a Rule Change, and should go through the Rule Change process. Rev limiters have never been part of ASedan, and whether it is a good or bad idea is not relevant. It is a Rule Change and has to go through the rule change process.

I appreciate your fixing this issue and have communicated this to my BoD representative.

Blindsided again
 

At the runoffs meeting we asked for more communication and transparency from the ASAC and CRB.
Lots of discussion about the rotor increase, my take was mostly against, but that deal was already done. Multiple letters against also failed to stop the railroad.
Not a peep about restrictor plates for FP at the meeting or since.

Is there any kind of long term philosophy or strategy for the class, or are we back in the cycle of rules creep to satisfy personal agendas?

Mark,

I am also disappointed that there was no communication about this as a "looking at this" topic at the runoffs mtg. And that it was not conveyed on the forums either. Seems strange that such a drastic change shows up a little over a month after the runoffs.

Just FYI, our motors have had the same power for about 4-5 years. Improvements for us have come from Danny's efforts at improving his driving and changes/setups for the other systems on the car.

I like to encourage people to realize that engine power is not the only reason cars go faster.

Pam

Cost to existing competetors
 

Yep, blindsided again without listening to drivers. I get the move adding crate motors. But why throw expense on all existing cars to drop us down in power to the crate? The crate already makes more torque than iron heads and I'm guessing many aluminum heads. For the last 2 years, the ASAC agreed iron heads were down on power. The response was toss expense on the iron heads by reducing their weight. That's fine. Now they toss the expense on all, including iron to fit in the new crate. Why not bring in the crate at lower weight like they did us iron heads?

Rant over.....

I'm onboard with most of the changes proposed, but the restrictor plate idea seems odd to me. First the hole size proposed is essentially the same size as our throttle bores, so why do it. Second I do not like the idea of pulling my carb and spilling fuel on a hot engine in impound.

Crate engines and rev limiters are good moves IMO. The crate engines use low duration hydraulic cams and will most likely only be able to rev to 6600 RPM. I think giving the current Full Prep engines an extra 1000 RPM red line over the crates might be a bit generous, but not by much.

Karnak predicts
 

I've put the envelope to my forehead and with Ed McMahon's baritone intoning my name in the background I've "seen" the following:

The fastest cars in AS will be Spec Mustangs. SCCA has drawn data from one slow entrant and will give the Spec Mustangs cams, 3.90 rears and a 1:1 5th gear and a lower weight while retaining all the wide rims, tires, ABS, aero etc. Heck, most of them are already running those items along with juiced computers in the SF Region.

Let's see if we get a Competition Adjustment Memo in January, just like when the entire car was added to AS with no discussion.

Hey, Richard. No point in pissing on this discussion just because San Fran is the cheatingest region in the country. Add that to the fact the SMG were built to run in NASA.... That combo probably doesn't know what a rule book looks like...

The restrictor is not a done deal. BOD & CRB wil presumably still look at input.

As an owner of a RP car I have advocated to reduce the power of the FP engines. But I was advocating for a spec cam or rpm reduction. I think dealing with a carb restrictor is a terrible idea at this level of racing. Reducing rpm means reducing wear and tear on the engines and trans. Win-win.

The alternative is to equal the playing field by giving the Mustang Coyote engine enough plate to make similar HP to the Cadi as a minimum. The +2mm they are suggesting will put me in the low 364 range. How much do those FP engines make again?

From what I have seen I suppose I could go and expect some attrition to move me up but that is not really racing...

I don't remember the wording, and it is not worth looking up, but didn't it say something about demonstrating your rev limiter when asked in tech.. Like I am going to rev my motor to 7600 RPM, to demonstrate my rev limiter. These guys are delusional.

If the FP cars were forced to run MSD 6AL boxes it would be easy to tech. Given that the cheating would have to be in the 6AL box tech would simply have to replace your 7600 rpm chip with a lower rpm limit chip (say 3500). Rev it up and see if it matches.

I have the older version of this tester. Very easy to test RPM limits.

https://www.holley.com/products/tool...rs/parts/89981

Also, every roundy round group that uses crate engines has an RPM limit from what I have seen.

Link to an older thread on a dirt track forum regarding rev limiter cheats, with a contact to a someone who blueprints chips and other msd box tricks. Someone may want to contact him and get insights if this is the direction the class wants to go to help the tech inspector s

http://www.4m.net/showthread.php?214...it-be-bypassed

Restrictor Plate, Rev Limiter, CRB Minutes Final
 

The Restrictor Plate and Rev Limiter is now a REC item in the CRB Minutes. It is no longer a TB. It indicates that both will be effective 3/1/21.

Since it is now a REC item, it is going out for member input and will be reviewed and decided by the Board of Directors at the Convention in January 2021.

IF YOU ARE FOR OR AGAINST THESE CHANGES, YOU HAVE A LITTLE OVER A MONTH TO SEND A LETTER WITH YOUR POSITION IN ORDER FOR THE BOD TO HEAR HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS.

EVEN IF YOU HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED A LETTER, I RECOMMEND THAT YOU SEND ANOTHER SPECIFICALLY STATED YOUR PREFERENCE.

Pam

Letters to CRB or BOD?
 

Should letters be sent to the BOD for items that are on the REC list?
It seems that some of my CRB letters didn't make it into the BOD docket until the month after the BOD meeting - they cycled thru the CRB first.

Letters
 

Mark --

Thanks for asking, cause it is important. The CRB created the proposed rule change, so, you must send your letter to them, through crbscca.com.

If you want to send a copy of your letter to all of the SCCA BOD, you are entitled to do that as well. That can be sent to BOD@scca.com.

Pam

Please send letters if you want something done.
More letters help
:thumbsup: