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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 08-22-2012, 11:23 AM
CobraR05
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkopp View Post
I can tell you right now after being part of the leadership team in AS that a power-to-weight rule is nowhere in the near future in AS. If anybody is considering racing in AS and has hopes of that happening then you might as well move on. Personally, I like the idea but the majority do not. Andy's question about what other sanctioning bodies have a power-to-weight rule has yet to be answered so it seems that NASA is the only one. Philip mentioned NASCAR but it is not part of their ruleset just a way they may elect to yank some cars and test.

AS can't be too "stuck". 21 entries for them at the RO's and 20 for AI at the NASA Championships when I checked yesterday. Not dead yet!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkopp View Post
Rob, not trying to "win" anything. Just trying to gather reliable data. It's tough as you can imagine. Most racers have an agenda and rightfully so. Seems like the only way to get good information sometimes is to counter with some facts.

I can tell you right now after being part of the leadership team in AS that a power-to-weight rule is nowhere in the near future in AS. If anybody is considering racing in AS and has hopes of that happening then you might as well move on. Personally, I like the idea but the majority do not. Andy's question about what other sanctioning bodies have a power-to-weight rule has yet to be answered so it seems that NASA is the only one. Philip mentioned NASCAR but it is not part of their ruleset just a way they may elect to yank some cars and test.

AS can't be too "stuck". 21 entries for them at the RO's and 20 for AI at the NASA Championships when I checked yesterday. Not dead yet!
* i am not a mechanic nor an engineer. that hurts me at making my point on occasion.

* I am not waiting on the power to weight rule for scca. i simply pointed out that the nasa rule makes increasing the base power of a coyote 5L ford unnecessary. it also creates easier to class and race conditions. having a $15k motor torn down as a result of a podium finish in a national race should also be unnecessary in an amatuer club sport.

* I race SCCA and NASA. I am not familiar with the other race groups. i did mention that world challenge used dyno numbers on the boss 302 to set its initial rules baseline. I have to guess that it used the same dyno info to set the rules/weight on other cars in that class.

* Why is it easier to class a car for SCCA Pro Racing/World Challenge than it is for SCCA Club Racing?

* 21 AS cars v 20 NASA nationals entries is a good sign. How many of them are current platform cars? at road atlanta this season ive seen 10 AS cars at one event and 1 or 2 at the next two. Ive seen 9, 15, 17, 15, and 15 AI group cars at each of the NASA SE events that I've race this season. I am not going to the Nationals because its too expensive for me.

* I didnt say it was dead. I said it was stuck. I think its going to be VERY challenging to find a way to infuse good numbers of current platform cars into AS and maintain the current level of happy campers among the base AS car fleet. Enough time has elapsed in taking on this issue that the jump from one formula to the next is just too wide to do with continuity and joy.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-22-2012, 11:27 AM
Ted Johnson Ted Johnson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkopp View Post
Rob, not trying to "win" anything. Just trying to gather reliable data. It's tough as you can imagine. Most racers have an agenda and rightfully so. Seems like the only way to get good information sometimes is to counter with some facts.

I can tell you right now after being part of the leadership team in AS that a power-to-weight rule is nowhere in the near future in AS. If anybody is considering racing in AS and has hopes of that happening then you might as well move on. Personally, I like the idea but the majority do not. Andy's question about what other sanctioning bodies have a power-to-weight rule has yet to be answered so it seems that NASA is the only one. Philip mentioned NASCAR but it is not part of their ruleset just a way they may elect to yank some cars and test.

AS can't be too "stuck". 21 entries for them at the RO's and 20 for AI at the NASA Championships when I checked yesterday. Not dead yet!
I'm not arguing the power to weight ratio anymore. You guys dictated that out, so I'm suggesting something different. Take one step backwards and reevaluate the full prep "base" car, then move forward with your research on the l/p stuff.

Why aren't you and JB building a full prep car anymore? For the last 10 years all the changes have been sold as a cost cutting measure and will help grow the class and bring more people in. Has it? How many new full prep cars have been built outside of Dean Palmer a complete newbie to the class. Probably others but thats the only one I know.

Why aren't there more asac members competing at the runoffs? You? Phil? Hos? Chas? Why is Jeff Werth not competing? The only data point that would matter for the third gen side of things.

The only real newbie to this years runoffs list is Kim Mcdonald who we know has been a long time local racer with us. The rest are the committed a/s racers. Wheres the other 20 + (used to be die hard) a/s racers at that the class used to have? Why aren't they there or thinking of showing? Have they been driven away? In my opinion they have due to the expense of
15 k engines. One mistake with an oil line, or a balancer coming off, or something stupid puts a limited budget racer on the sideline when your "base" engine package is so pricey. Would Werth be your 22nd entry if he could replace his motor misfortunes with a 5 k crate motor and be competitive?

Ok so now your going to say look at what were working on to grow the class right?

The point is the full prep "base" car concept is a complete failure when it comes to "affordable" racing. It is not a static performance formula. The cars will continue to make more power and only for a select few who know the system and what will get past tech and have the means to do it. This needs to be fixed before anything else can go forward. Up to this challenge? START here. And remember runoffs tech is not what it used to be. Up to 2009 we had an awesome runoffs tech crew. They were driven away and really there isn't a need for the tech shed anymore. The asac and crb control compliance and in my opinion needs to be addressed. We had this discussion privately haven't we? I assume you have shared these ideas with the rest of the asac and crb. You will censor me on these issues which is another problem but its your website. And I might add I still consider you a friend. I'm not that petty.

Here in lies the problem. You are now going to try and equalize the new cars to a moving target. If you are not willing to put restrictors on the full prep cars (to maintain a performance level yet to be determined) to then adjust the new cars to, you will fail to attract new people to the class.

So to be clear. Fix the "base" car so it has an affordable engine package with the "old" technology. (Suggestion.. The 350 crate engine above and the ford equivilent) Establish that as a "base". Then move on to what your working on now and slow the newer cars to that new "base" formula.
__________________
.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-22-2012, 01:46 PM
Ken Felice Ken Felice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 93
Default Spec for 11-13

I will tell what we have seen in our area with Chevy & Ford crate late model Dirt cars. I have had many on our dyno to see if we can get more power,or what engine to buy,some will have more power than others only because there has never been two tuned same or built the same.The crate class lasted 2 years then back to the old rules UMP. The first engine of ether brand failed,The Gm 350 kicked a lifter out.The Ford had wrong keepers and did not run above 5800 RPM.You had to send the engine to an authorized rebuilder because these engines are sealed.You would be able to buy from rebuilder,just ask for the best one pay for it.Sounds like an SCCA Spec.class.
I do have to disagree about 15000.00 If you build an engine like that it will stand a much better chance of living than one that does not have good parts.There are many engine builders that will tell you the same thing.You may spend more up front but in the long run it will save you money.Don't get me wrong but even the very best will break look at NASCAR,the things will break just when?I think that most of the cars that are fast have been worked on for many hours,in the handling,breaking etc.dept. I hope that this class grows like all of you but I think it will only grow when people understand not every thing depends on HP.

Ken
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-22-2012, 01:51 PM
jimwheeler jimwheeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 5,240
Default

Can I have an Amen?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-22-2012, 02:21 PM
kim mcdonald kim mcdonald is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: grand island, ne
Posts: 56
Default

You can. Amen!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-22-2012, 02:31 PM
Danny"TheKid"Richardson Danny"TheKid"Richardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 451
Default

Ted,
Answers to your questions.

1)If i was getting ready to build a limited prep car i would wait for the rules to finalize before i did.

2)The ASAC members not competing in the runoffs. First of all, it should not matter if you are regional or national to be part of the ASAC. Should we kick them off the ASAC for not going to the runoffs? I think they are comprised of some really intelligent people with a great deal of knowledge needed for their positions.

3)Jeff W is not going to the runoffs because he blew three motors and decided he would call it on this season. I dont care if your motor costs 200 bucks at a junkyard, go to three events and blow a motor each time then talk to me about wanting to take the rest of the year off.

4) Jeff W being the only 3rd gen that matter, I will kindly say screw you too for me and Kopper and all the other 3rd gen guys out there.

5)I am very happy to see kim come out this year. The other 20+ guys that used to run, well they can speak for themselves but i would be willing to bet a combination of economy and other interests probably pulled them from the class.

6) Would Werth be our 22nd? See comment above

7)So The ASAC should change from taking the so called "Fastest and most expesnvie setup" as the base car to something cheaper and slower? I would think they should be focusing on trying to make all the other versions just as fast as the base rather then slow everyone down and make every single AS driver racing or interested change their cars. PS ( Do you have any idea how big of restriction would have to go on the new models to get them as slow as you want?) But Big restrictors will blow motors!

8)Your right. There is no need for a tech shed anymore. We should just have that flaming jack*** jim wheeler go around and check everyone's cars and have them torn down the night before the race because A) he is charge of everything and makes all the decisions and B) Everyone wants to tear their cars down to the crank the night before the race anyway.

9)Equalizing cars to a moving target? The Base car has been stated and isnt moving at all from that point. But you want to change that base car to something with many different crate motors and other combinations to actually create the "moving target" that you are speaking of. BTW. If you try and use the slowest verison of anything as the base, you are going to restrict the crap out of every car on the track to get there. Why not go in the middle and make the weaker stronger? O their working on that right now. Cool

10)The Moon Landing was fake, 9/11 was planned by president bush, they found UFOs at roswell, The FBI killed JFK, Global Warming, Princess Diana was murdered by the royal family, and Michael Moore is a Genius!!!!!!

Finally, I will be hosting the teardown group at the chili party. Anyone who would like to prove their legality may come by the beer pong table and get me so i can hand you your motor back in a box 15 hours before the green flag drops.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-22-2012, 02:34 PM
Danny"TheKid"Richardson Danny"TheKid"Richardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 451
Default

Oh i forgot

Amen!
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-22-2012, 04:28 PM
Scott Sanda Scott Sanda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 487
Default

Oh I wish I had a oscar meyer LP car, that is where I really want to be....

I'm not an AS old time die hard. As a matter of fact, it didn't even come up on my radar until I discovered I could run my new, dirt cheap (to me) V in both T2 and AS.

I ran AS for fun, T2 serious, didn't qualify for the runoffs in T2 because - Fall Line - , did qualify in AS.

Took a real hard look at AS rules, and decided I really liked the idea of an essentially open chassis and suspension coupled with a stock driveline, and have been promoting LP ever since. Spent a bunch of money at a good shop, and I have a pretty good car this year, which still needs development.

When I bough this car in December of 2010, I was a pubic hair away from hanging up my boots all together for a while, since my Gt2 944 had sucked out my soul and my wallet.

The car, the class, and the concept has made it all fun again, and I'm working towards a goal: My LP car capable of running with full prep top line cars.

The current ASAC seems to share that vision, applied to all LP.

All of the noise and BS is just that. LP will grow. New cars will get classed. As people build new cars or enter the class, they will probably do it LP (if they are classed fairly). over time, LP will grow to rival or even eclipse FP.

Had I known a year ago what I know now, I think I would have bought a T2 camero. but, maybe not. The V has a real nice badass vibe going.

My name is Scott Sanda, and I approve of this message.

I'm also going to kick a lot of FP ass in September
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-22-2012, 04:31 PM
Danny"TheKid"Richardson Danny"TheKid"Richardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 451
Default

Hell Yeah Scott!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-22-2012, 05:48 PM
MLong MLong is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Sanda View Post
Oh I wish I had a oscar meyer LP car, that is where I really want to be....

I'm not an AS old time die hard. As a matter of fact, it didn't even come up on my radar until I discovered I could run my new, dirt cheap (to me) V in both T2 and AS.

I ran AS for fun, T2 serious, didn't qualify for the runoffs in T2 because - Fall Line - , did qualify in AS.

Took a real hard look at AS rules, and decided I really liked the idea of an essentially open chassis and suspension coupled with a stock driveline, and have been promoting LP ever since. Spent a bunch of money at a good shop, and I have a pretty good car this year, which still needs development.

When I bough this car in December of 2010, I was a pubic hair away from hanging up my boots all together for a while, since my Gt2 944 had sucked out my soul and my wallet.

The car, the class, and the concept has made it all fun again, and I'm working towards a goal: My LP car capable of running with full prep top line cars.

The current ASAC seems to share that vision, applied to all LP.

All of the noise and BS is just that. LP will grow. New cars will get classed. As people build new cars or enter the class, they will probably do it LP (if they are classed fairly). over time, LP will grow to rival or even eclipse FP.

Had I known a year ago what I know now, I think I would have bought a T2 camero. but, maybe not. The V has a real nice badass vibe going.

My name is Scott Sanda, and I approve of this message.

I'm also going to kick a lot of FP ass in September
I only have a part time dog in this fight... but I agree with Scott comments. I can understand the resistance to opening up the LP rules as it will be a nightmare to fairly class the new cars to race in AS. However, in looking at the growth of the T2 class here in the Central Division, there are alot of new cars that have joined in a variety of vehicles. A Sedan racing is one of the best in SCCA, and if properly classed, we too could see an influx of new cars joining our race group instead of another production based class.

The balancing act of what to and what not to allow for the new LP cars with be difficult at best, and alot of data will have to be analyzed to accomplish a fair field.

Scott has done a great job getting the Caddy competitive and it has shown, and I am sure he can attest to the amount of work it has taken to develop the car into a competive AS racer.

I would love to see a field of 10+ AS cars at any given National, and it is great that we are seeing and uptick of car counts in the class, but in the long term, how viable will our current ruleset hold up to the ever evolving new driver entries. Not too many guys out there are homebuilding racecars anymore, when a car basically from the showroom is capable of racing with what we have got.

In the meantime, I continue to develop my old Fox body and drive the wheels off of it the best I can.

Matt
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 10:59 AM.


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