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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-12-2018, 11:34 AM
Scott Sanda Scott Sanda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 487
Default

I will add that we also looked at simply lowering everyone's weight. Turns out that is not so simple, and a lot of cars can't get any lower.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-12-2018, 12:02 PM
scottdolsen scottdolsen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 142
Default

The car that you claim dominated, did not pass post race tech inspection. It was never proven to be legal. How can you base a rule change on that performance?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-12-2018, 12:22 PM
PbFoot PbFoot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 212
Default

Yes Scott I run a 347ci mill. From your comments there seems to be a lot of emphasis placed on what car types have won the RO's recently.

Was any consideration given to the drivers piloting these cars? Maybe in the very small sample size of potential RO's winners, the fastest guys are driving Fords. My guess is if Andy decided to build a Gen 3 GM he would kick everyone's ass in that ride too.



Tom Himes
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-12-2018, 01:00 PM
Danny"TheKid"Richardson Danny"TheKid"Richardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 451
Default

Not stating my opinion here. Just providing information for the discussion board that are facts. Facts presented are based on previous comments made.

Andy's Finishing positions over the last 5 years:
2017- 27th
2016- 1st
2015- 1st
2014- 3rd
2013- 2nd

Top 3 Last 5 Years (1st 2nd 3rd)
2017- Ford GM GM
2016- Ford GM GM
2015- Ford GM GM
2014- Ford GM Ford
2013-GM Ford GM

Top 3 Qualifying Last 5 Years (1st 2nd 3rd)
2017- Ford GM GM
2016- Ford Ford Ford
2015- Ford Ford GM
2014- Ford GM GM
2013- Ford Ford Ford

Now lets assign point values. 3 Points for 1st 2 Points for 2nd 1 Point for 3rd

Ford-
Races- 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1 = 15
Qualifying- 3,3,3,3,3,2,2,2,1,1,= 23

Chevy-
Races- 3,2,2,2,2,1,1,1,1= 15
Qualifying- 2,2,1,1,1 = 7

DQs Are not relevant data due to cheating.

Participation and Where Runoffs are held. Season // Runoffs Entries
2017- Central/Northern - 152 // 30
2016- Northern - 115 // 22
2015- Southeast- 127 // 22
2014- West - 123 // 13
2013- Northern - 113 // 36
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-12-2018, 01:10 PM
nomics nomics is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 131
Default

There you go, Fords are just better. Seriously though one platform should not be penalized 100 pounds 2 years in a row. Lower other cars, there is always a way to lower weight these days.
__________________
Matt
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-12-2018, 01:39 PM
MLong MLong is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 28
Default

The only dominating finish performances in the past 6 years have been Andy's 20.4 second win in 2015 and his 13.85 second win in 2016. All other races have been closely contended.

2013 - Heinricy - 0.103 seconds
2014 - Olsen - 2 seconds
2015 - McDermid - 20.46 seconds
2016 - McDermid - 13.85 seconds
2017 - Long - 0.359 seconds

GM 9 podiums
Ford 6 podiums

Again, there is hardly a reason showing that the two Ford models require a 100 lbs weight gain.

The most sensible solution for trying give the GM cars a runoffs win is take off 50 lbs from the 3rd gen FP Camaro and 4th gen RP Camaro. Those two cars, even with 5 podiums in the past 5 years, are the cars that are in need of more speed. Granted there have been some good cars and drivers that have been in those cars, that doesn't mean they were championship winning campaigns.

American Sedan is dangerously close be disappearing right now, second to last in participation this year, and with a rules change that is pushing cars away, is this really a bridge that SCCA wants to burn right now? As I see it, the death warrant has been signed for the class, its just a matter of execution.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-12-2018, 01:40 PM
Danny"TheKid"Richardson Danny"TheKid"Richardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 451
Default

Sorry Forgot one more data point.

Current Participation 2018 vs same time other years.

2018 - 7
2017 - 17
2016- 10
2015- 15
2014- 14
2013- 13

(This is based on Major Entries. Much harder to find regional info sorry)
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-12-2018, 02:45 PM
Scott Sanda Scott Sanda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 487
Default

Tom,

The GT community had the same protracted issue 15 years ago. Penalize Finch and Davis, because they always win. You have to base decisions on the best driver in the best prepared car. Put a top driver in a medium build, and they might be competitive but they won't win (most of the time) GT2's answer was to open the class up with almost no enforceable rules. Makes for big fields, but no one knows how to tech anything,, or even what mostly is or is not legal.

It is not JUST the driver, and not JUST the car. It is a combination. McDermid would win in anything he built, because it would be built to the limit of the rules. Long would win in anything he built, if he built it like he built his Fox. There are a dozen drivers who are capable of winning with the right build.

Does anyone really think Ed's car was illegal? I don't. Long's car wasn't illegal based on post race. Olsens car wasn't illegal based on post race.

Lot's of Fords on the top step. Lots of good builds and good drivers in GM cars, but not on the top step. Make an adjustment in an attempt to find mechanical equality. We did seriously look at reducing GM cars, but everyone we spoke too said they could not take 50 to 100 pounds out because their cars were already as light as they could get.


Again, Emotional issue. I personally certainly do not want to functionally penalize any car. I want to see them all capable of equal performance with equal builds and equal drivers. Won't ever happen, but we can keep trying to work towards it.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-12-2018, 03:22 PM
MLong MLong is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 28
Default

If a team of a 3rd gen Camaro can't take out 50 lbs to meet a 3200 lbs min. weight, then that car doesn't belong on the top step of the podium. Don't get me wrong, I love the 3rd gen Camaro, it is a killer car for this class, and if we had the time and funds to build another car, that is what we would do.

We have over 200 lbs of ballast in our car to make our 3200 min. weight.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-12-2018, 04:08 PM
jimwheeler jimwheeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 5,240
Default

I could lose the 50 # to come down to 3200 in my Firebird. I would be fine with that. I didn't see why the Mustang should way less than my old Firebird, so I'm OK with them bringing the weights up to equality.
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 07:14 AM.


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