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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-14-2016, 08:18 PM
PamRichardson PamRichardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 863
Default Ad Hoc Commitee

For those that have read the prelims, you noticed a member advisory indicating the formation of an Ad Hoc to the ASAC to look at the future of AS.

The ASAC spent most of their call Monday night brainstorming ideas about the future. I have a written list of their ideas and once compiled, I will post them here. If you have ideas for the future of AS, please don't hesitate to either post them here, or, send them to me in a PM.

The Ad Hoc will be lead by Philip Smith. Anyone interested should submit a letter to crbscca.com expressing their interest.

Our plan is to include you, the AS community as much as possible in these plans. This will include asking you for feedback, most likely a survey asking your opinion about proposed ideas, and of course, my personal request for you to get involved in any way you can.

The major issue is that as time continues, it will be tough to sustain the class as is, and we need a roadmap to the future in order that we can all continue to race in the class we love so much.

This process will be as open as possible, so please plan to get involved.

It is your class and mine. We should all want to take it successfully into the future.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

Pam
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-20-2016, 12:12 PM
PbFoot PbFoot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 236
Default

Just a thought to throw out there.

I agree that AS is not on a growth trajectory and needs something to entice more folks into the class. Limited Prep I believe was a good idea, but the number of LP cars remains low years after their inclusion.

We AS folks like to tell people that the soul of the class is to race cars with similar rules to the original Trans Am series.

Idea. Why not open the Full Prep cars to include any Ford, GM, Chrysler or AMC pony cars from 1965 on. All current FP rules would stay the same, except new weights would need to be established for the various models.

Running a 1969 Z28 or Boss 302 clone may have a fair amount of appeal to some people. Heck some of these "old" car bodies can be purchased new in the aftermarket world.

Tom Himes
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-20-2016, 06:00 PM
Ken Felice Ken Felice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 100
Thumbs up new rules

This sounds like good idea, I would think spectators would like to see some vintage cars running with the new cars. Could be a lot of :
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-20-2016, 06:02 PM
scottdolsen scottdolsen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 142
Default

How about old cars with modern RP running gear also?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-20-2016, 09:46 PM
PamRichardson PamRichardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 863
Default Ideas

I encourage all of you to continue with your ideas.

I do have a question about the older chassis idea, so I am asking for your opinions and more info.

Do you think that say, a Gen 1 or 2 Camaro body, or a 1960s/early 1970s Mustang would be a competitive chassis? There is often a question about the span of time we already have, from 1979 to 2014, and whether or not that time and technology improvements have made some of the earlier chassis's not as competitive.

What do you all think?

Pam
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-20-2016, 10:23 PM
86notch
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

considering the mustang chassis from 1979 to basically 1998 hadn't really changed other then the body panels I would say the age span doesn't have much of a negative effect. I'm running an 86 foxbody and with the weight advantage I'm still able to be competitive with the wider track width cars. I would think with the new cage rules and the correct weight restrictions that just about any chassis can be made competitive, mainly due to the almost unlimited amount of cage work that can be done to stiffen the chassis.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-21-2016, 01:31 PM
t4wallace t4wallace is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: White Lake, Michigan
Posts: 1,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PamRichardson View Post
Do you think that say, a Gen 1 or 2 Camaro body, or a 1960s/early 1970s Mustang would be a competitive chassis? There is often a question about the span of time we already have, from 1979 to 2014, and whether or not that time and technology improvements have made some of the earlier chassis's not as competitive.

What do you all think?

Pam
Yes, I think the old chassis can be/could be made competitive.

My opinion: we have already been "rules migrating/creeping" to being a big-bore prod class with the full-prep cars. While also trying to maintain/increase car count and interest with limited prep at the same time. The way the rules are now, the full prep cars are far closer to original AS (Trans Am) cars before the rules creep turned the original AS (and B Production) cars into dinosaurs in the late-ish 70s.

We can legislate the powertrain easily, IMO. Engines and transmission could be a menu choice from the current powertrains. Weights would need to be worked out, but my guess is that if you built a '69 Mustang or Camaro to the current full-prep rules, you'd already be in the ball park of what the current full-prep cars weigh. Gen 1 and Gen 2 Camaros are essentially same underpinnings and are really not that far from Gen 3, save for the rear suspension. Track width would have to be looked at...

Chassis development/performance could be the hang up. For instance, would we allow a conversion away from leaf springs? I'd vote yes for that. Install brakes to current rules... Etc.

Would it increase field size/participation? I wish it would, but don't think so. It would seriously raise the cool factor.

Getting an AI car to be easily transitioned to an AS-spec would bring more cars, IMO. Please do NOT read that as I think we need rear wings.

Interesting discussion...
__________________
Tom Wallace
Great Lakes, Detroit Region
Hoosier Tire
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-21-2016, 02:48 PM
jimwheeler jimwheeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 5,275
Default

I think some of the commenters should put in their resumes to participate in the ad hoc group. It would entail one evening a month (a couple of hours max) on a conference call, talking about ASedan with a bunch of people who all love the class.
wheel
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-13-2016, 12:09 PM
mlanglin2007 mlanglin2007 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 52
Default Continuation of discussion

These are all good ideas. What's needed is a means of incenting the NASA AI / AIX / CMC guys to come play with us. I'm not a NASA rules expert, but it seems that AI is closest to A/S.

The NASA CMC guys used to have big fields, though I haven't looked at this in a while. Bottom line is that CMC is far more restricted than A/S, and since they used a power/weight formula, it seemed that policing was easier. CMC cars are less expensive to build than A/S.

Ultimately, both NASA and SCCA (and others) have comparable rules for Spec Miata - and there are a zillion cars running in that class in various clubs - and I'm sure there's crossover. While it's not nearly as easy as with a "Spec Class", we need to find a way to get to comparable rules between SCCA and NASA to incent the AI guys to come over.

I personally prefer SCCA-run events, and love to see ideas that will grow this class. I think that the only way this happens is reasonably containing costs.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-16-2016, 12:39 AM
Matt Jensen Matt Jensen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 30
Default

I am new to the AS class this season, with a Limited Prep Camaro. I have a fond interest in this style of car, racing and would love to see growth in this class as we all do.

I would love to see the LP cars have more options. One concern for a LP guy is to upgrade the brake system and absorb the huge cost of changing the wheel width 1" narrower(Gen 4 Camaro). Allow these cars to run the OEM wheel size/width and allow a cost effective brake-only prep update. The tire is still a constant without needing to buy 3 sets of wheels.

Allow the LP/FP drivetrains to be "mixed" by choice. Use the Gen 4 Camaro as an example:
#3300, LS1, engine/ECU ruleset as listed, stock internals, ECU, etc, open the gearbox to options of FP, along with rear end housing of choice. This will build this car into a less-expensive car(T10 cost vs. Tremec 6spd) build a reliable rear end. Allow FP brakes, while maintaining the same wheel size.

This "templet idea" basically eliminates the FP/LP dual ruleset and now is a chassis/engine/trans/rearend parts list. The rules are not being re-written, just clarified to allow an entrant to have a simple, competitive car at a cost-effective way.

IMO-I love the idea of bringing a 1960's AS chassis into the equation. Allow a 1969 Camaro, LP fuel injected LS1, T10, 9" rear, FP brakes, 17x8 wheels, 275 tire, 3300#. Or how about seeing a 1965 Mustang, carb, 302, 17x8s, 3300#. This car would be an exciting addition to the class, while being another option, as we all know how big the pro-touring scene is...

I am also a vintage racer that appreciates this class and open ideas in the AS world
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 07:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.