Go Back   American Sedan Forum > Main American Sedan Categories > American Sedan News

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 11-13-2018, 07:53 PM
Danny"TheKid"Richardson Danny"TheKid"Richardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smithpr View Post
I have a huge problem with this thread. It is not the offseason, I am heading to VIR in December to start getting ready for the Runoffs and Majors next year. Stop with the holiday decorations, complaining, and come out and race.

They rescheduled the October race that was canceled due to flooding.
Now that is a drop the mic post! Tiss the season for snow tires falalalala lala la
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-14-2018, 01:19 PM
Ted Johnson Ted Johnson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andy mcdermid View Post
Umm, let me get this straight Ted, we should go back to engines that don't last 3 weekends to save the transmissions ? But I carried 3 spare transmissions with me at all times because they won't last more than 6 sessions back then as well. The transmissions last far longer than the did then and we are trying to make bullet proof. I'm still trying to figure out what your point is ?
Andy. Im responding to Jim's whining about better ratios for full prep cars. The class already allows for dog boxes, what else do you need? Jim's post implies that the Muncie isn't bulletproof and better ratios would fix it. I disagree. Since you and Jim quickly forget, and just asked what has made things more expensive. Youguys sold the idea of the Eddy heads as out of the box spec heads. They are far from that. The intake manifold is a spec piece. Is porting and polishing necessary for longevity? I'll remind you yet again of the initial premise that you guys dropped the ball. An altenate set of cylinder head restrictions for the Eddy heads at that time not obsolete iron heads and close the loopholes people were doing to extract more power from the iron heads at extreme expense. That was the premise. You also presented this with a HP restriction in writing that would be monitored. You then impemented these new cylinder head rules, and after the fact realized you just made all the iron head cars illegal by eliminating the old cylinder head rule. Trusting that the iron heads with extreme expense we're maxed out, and the Eddy head out of the box was as good as a maxed out iron head it would have made sense to reinstate the old cylinder head rule for the iron head and more restrictive head rules for the Eddy heads. You obsoleted engines and didn't eliminate the expensive head development that was going on with the iron heads. Now these high strung engines keep finding the next weak link in the drivetrains.

Make the heads out of the box pieces and go back to out of the box intake manifolds. That was the premise that people can go buy and not have to send to Ken to make them competitive. Adjust with weight the differences in compression ratios. Anyone coming in with untouched intake manifold and cylinder head will quickly learn the basics premise of this class is not reality. They will be labeled whiners, and you guys can't figure out why people aren't building full prep cars?

Kudos to Scott and Danny for keeping meaningful discussion in this thread.
__________________
.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-14-2018, 04:12 PM
jimwheeler jimwheeler is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 5,249
Default

My personal opinions on gear ratios are my opinions and for Ted, who is the biggest whiner on this site, to label me as a a whiner, is laughable. Personally, I think the closer ratios would be much more fun to drive and would be much easier on all of the drive train. I think everyone who really races knows this to be true. The Edelbrock heads were introduced to even up the BOP between Ford and GM, since the stock Ford heads flowed much better than the GM heads. There was extensive research done on the Edy heads and the rule change was put out for member input. In the long run, the Edy heads have been cheap and very reliable. As to comments about going back to the 1994 engine rules, with cast iron cranks that might last a couple of races in the Fords, is also laughable. It was not a real problem for my car, as the iron crank, with a $600+ treatment, (by an aircraft specialty company) worked pretty well, but the Ford needed a steel crank.
I used to race against guys who spent $2,500 per head, or more, making them flow as well as the Fords. I bought the Edy heads and had them trued up and installed and they are still there. Nobody would put "out of the box" heads on a race car. If you used the old iron heads, you had to go through a half dozen to fine one that wasn't cracked or illegal from repairs done before you bought them. Not sure when the last stock iron head was built... probably 20+ years ago. The Edy heads did have some core shift, which is why rules were written to allow for a consistent valve job with techable dimensions. We went through the same thing with Spec Miata, with heads from the factory. Dimensions were specified and everyone built to those specs.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-15-2018, 02:46 PM
andy mcdermid andy mcdermid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 222
Default

Ted. I'm still trying to figure out your point. Most of the changes, made years ago, were made from so many writing letters complaining about no parts availability and lack of reliability, yes including me. The changes were made with the AS community voting on the changes . The transmission manufactures have told us for years that the gear ratios that we run are garbage, more expensive and are harder on engines and drivetrain then the close ratio gear they recommend,but the AS community voted to keep then. Over sight on the cast iron heads, sure. Did the ASCS fix it ? Yes. The last runoffs with the iron heads, no Edelbrock heads, was attended by a competitor the stated that "his engine costs more than his first house". Most people are not willing to go back to the expense and excessive labor involved with the iron head engine days.
I wound personally love to see you come back and race with us as well as all the other people that have cars sitting in their garages.
This is a great class. The bang for the buck in AS is on the low side compared to most classes.

Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-16-2018, 02:25 AM
Ted Johnson Ted Johnson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 980
Default

Jim, Andy.

For some reason you are interpreting I would be in favor of the engine rules going back to the iron head days. I would not be in favor of that. What you aren't getting is the parts and pieces that do increase durability which is a good thing, have also increased performance. My reference to engines of 1994 is in regards to their hp and rpm limits due to the design limits of the rules everyone had to work with at that time. Exceed those limits and pay the price. And I wouldn't wish breakage on anyone, but it did reward the racer who drove more conservatively and wait for the big buck guys to blow up. It was a carrot for the low buck guys to go to the runoffs. Before shaft rockers were allowed it would be foolish to build an 8000 rpm engine. Those that did spent a ton of money. That is rules creep that then led to issues with transmissions/syncronizers.

Jim you mention racers that spent $2500 per head in the iron head era. What's stopping that from happening now with a better flowing Eddy head? Nothing. The modifications allowed today is the same as it was. And its a higher flowing head out of the box. The more restrictive rule you guys came up with was the fix that got rescinded. So that oversight cannot be fixed now that everyone who is in this class would never want to start over. But drawing people in is a tough sell to spend that kind of money on an old school sbc or sbf when a newer ls engine or coyote can do it for less.

Andy. The class will have to allow for ls engines in older full prep cars and front end chasis allowances that permit me to have a front suspension geometry comparable to a mustang. My engine would need to be max tuned reducing longevity to run a/s, as opposed to detuning it, reducing weight, and running a power to weight class for increased life span. . I need a class with longer lasting and less expensive tires that is the same for everyone. I need a class that I can run 91 pump fuel and not 110 for insurance to not detonate my high strung a/s engine. I appreciate your invite to come back, but it would only be in an RP car. A/S is a cool class, but you can't convince my wallet it's the most affordable v8 pony car class available. Thanks for the chat
__________________
.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-16-2018, 10:02 AM
Scott Sanda Scott Sanda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 487
Default

Ted,

98 octane pump gas RP car for sale over in the for sale section. Capable of winning any given race with the right driver.

Why am I selling it? Not because of any issues with AS. I have had this car since 2011. That is several years longer than I have kept any race car I have ever owned.

And, while I am currently in a TA2 mustang running GT2, I foresee an RP mustang build in the next year or 2, probably for my Son, who is currently running my Spec Racer.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-16-2018, 12:19 PM
Richard Pryor Richard Pryor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 43
Default I'm a little slow sometimes

The title could refer to my track times or my mental acuity. Today I just realized that the subject of rules creep, expense, competitiveness etc as addressed in the preceding posts has been answered.

The new A Sedan rules have been in effect in California for the past 4 racing seasons and have resulted in fields of a dozen cars or more at many race weekends. It's called Spec Mustang (SMG) and is a well thought out set of rules that has resulted in a class that is growing each year as more and more racers gravitate to its cost containment policies and competitive racing ethos.

If you're interested in the basics:

S197 Mustangs from 2005-2009, no blueprinting etc the engines (restricted to 325 rwhp and 325 torque), stock 5 speeds, mandated 3.73 r&p and Eaton Trutrac, 3450 # weight with driver, etc, spec tires on 18x10.5 rims, fully adjustable race suspension, great brakes...and so on.

SCCA allows the cars to also run in T2 (and some did at the Runoffs at Sonoma). Times at Sonoma and Laguna Seca for the SMG cars are around 2-3 seconds a lap slower than AS Runoff times at both tracks.

Perhaps the potential newcomers that all here hope would choose AS have already spoken (at least in California) and chosen SMG. Does this foretell the AS class continuing to shrink in entrants as new entrants choose SMG? It's sure happening here. It's not going to attract many current AS drivers since they already have their cars and investments in the same. But for future class growth, the SMG seems to me to be the natural outgrowth of the desire to race loud and fast fun pony cars.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-16-2018, 01:33 PM
Ted Johnson Ted Johnson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 980
Default

Richard. SCCA could separate full prep from limited prep cars like NASA does with American Iron and CMC, however the threat of lack of participation by any class could exclude it from the runoffs would not be in the best interest of the class. But according to Jim it's never been enforced and just a guideline maybe separating the two is viable. They would still be on track together and let the New comers make the choice of full prep or restricted prep. Spec mustang makes sense financially and NASA has a very similar class called Spec Iron which is very similar to spec mustang. Give people more options if the threat of not being dropped from the runoffs is real
__________________
.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-16-2018, 04:45 PM
jimwheeler jimwheeler is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 5,249
Default

I can't make this any more simple. There is no rule and no threat of any class being dropped from the Runoffs. I agree that the guideline should never have been written, but it does not threaten removing any class from the Runoffs.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-16-2018, 05:02 PM
MLong MLong is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 28
Default

I am just going to combine a few thoughts from the October WDYT and the November letters into this posts, as I have been meaning to do so for a few weeks.

In regards to the October WDYT:

1. Are you interested in AS moving to an FI option for every AS car?

Yes, however there is a lot of spec lines and information that needs to be analyzed before implementation. Spec lines to be addressed would be restrictor size, weight adjustments, ECU control, tech protocols and vehicle modification allowance to name a few. The LS and Coyote engine offer a fairly different power range that the current AS engine provide and the performance of such engine into a FP car is relatively unknown as it relates to what is currently allowed. ECU control is of importance from the performance side and tech side, especially in monitoring the peripherals of the engine management. The FI plan is not an easy one to conquer although it can be done in fairness to all versions of FP and RP cars.

I believe that AS does need to make the new gen engines available in FP without the risk of obsoleting the current engine package. There is a way for both engines to coexist in the class, and hopefully offer a new avenue of competitors to enter AS. It is the competitors prerogative to make the switch if they so desire, whether in a retrofit or new build application. From what I have researched and discovered, costs will be about a wash either way to build a top notch car.

There are exceptions out there of the younger generation being able to work on and tune a carb on a race engine, however there is a greater majority that see them as nothing more than a paper weight. In an effort to keep the class viable in the future, and with hope of revitalizing the class with new and younger competitors, FI will have to be that option.

2. Should AS Full Prep go to a larger wheel? If so, what size?

NO

3. Should AS Full Prep go to larger diameter brake rotors? If so, what size?

NO

4. Should AS have a spec tire to lower costs? If so, R-type compound? 100 Treadwear? 200 Treadwear?

Not at this time.

5. Should AS allow more aerodynamics devices? If so, what would you recommend?

NO. Questions 1-5 seem to be an AS class transition to the American Iron class. Just a waste of money vs. performance benefit for the way these cars are configured. However creating a new BP class with all these modifications and more could be interesting... but that is a whole other conversation.

6. Should AS allow the participation of T2 pony cars (same years as AS) into the class? If so, should they come in “as is” or have changes such as ABS disabled, restrictor size changes, or weight changes?

Yes, create and easy cross over for the T2 cars to run in AS is a great idea. Finding that balance that the T2 guys would accept is key. The idea should be to make that cross over simple so they could run both classes on a given weekend, much like the miata guys do all the time.


In regards to the transmission gear ratios, I am in favor of the alternate gear ratios, however without the weight adder. I am not in favor of the RP spec line that allows a 4 speed or 5 speed option. The RP cars should retain all 5 forward working gears, but in the desired ratio as listed. The gear ratios listed are not going to make a huge difference in lap times, and for the majority of people it will be a few tenths of a second, however relieving some stress loads in the box will be more beneficial in the long run.

Everyone keeps getting wrapped up in the costs associated with these changes, but racing is not cheap, never was and never will be. There have been some big advancements in the class over the years that increased performance, but also longevity, and there shall be some commendation for that. AS is one of the cheapest classes available in SCCA, and that goes for buying a car and maintaining to compete in the class, but the changes being requested are not added costs to the competitors, unless they elect to implement the new options. If the changes are implemented correctly, they will be very little change in the finish orders that are currently out there. The biggest concern is the "IF" portion of the previous sentence.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.