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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-07-2016, 09:26 PM
scottdolsen scottdolsen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 141
Default Fox penalty

"Originally, this difference was required to offset chassis and handling deficiencies when compared to
other Full Preparation Cars. However, changes in American Sedan rules over the past 12 years for all
Full Preparation Cars such as, but not limited to, splitters, seam welding, suspension control and roll
cage rules have made the 79-93 Mustang and 79-86 Capri as or more capable than all other Full
Preparation Cars, which weigh 200 lbs more than the Mustang/Capri."

Splitters, seam welding, suspension control and roll cage rules apply to all cars, they did 20 years ago and they do now. How do these across the board rules affect the Fox more than the rest of the cars? All other cars have a track width +- 2.0 inches wider than the Fox, that is why the Fox got a weight break, not because a splitter is more effective on a Fox over A Camaro. This is BS. Just because a fox is competitive once CRB penalizes all
cars. I had the fastest Fox at the 2014 Runoffs and was still 2 seconds slower than pole. Now I will be even slower.

Who do I thank for this gift?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-07-2016, 10:18 PM
nomics nomics is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 127
Default

That's the dumbest explanation for a rule change I've seen in a long time. I thought these people were looking for how to put new people in the class and they are jerking around with this crap. Very discouraging.
__________________
Matt
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-08-2016, 01:21 AM
thomas toth thomas toth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 664
Default

Seems like a knee jerk reaction. There is one very fast Fox body. Ed has worked every square inch to the car to the maximum of the rules and is an excellent driver. Looks like he found something else this year to make it even faster. I like the idea of a different car being competitive. Face it, if the Fox body was that good they would be building new A Sedans out of them. I don't think there is one out there that was built in the last 17 years.

Maybe we need to add 200# to cars built by chassis engineers that have polished their craft. Ed you rock!

Tom
#38 Camaro
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-08-2016, 02:31 AM
MarkMuddiman MarkMuddiman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Belleville, MI
Posts: 145
Default

Just think how much faster we'll be in the corners with a perfect 50/50 weight distribution!
__________________
Mark Muddiman
AS #71
Detroit Region
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-08-2016, 02:51 AM
MarkMuddiman MarkMuddiman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Belleville, MI
Posts: 145
Default

Excerpt from https://www.scca.com/pages/rule-making-process
(emphasis added)
"Competition Adjustments— Unlike a rule change, competition adjustments typically affect only one make or model of car and often are a reward for overachieving. When one-make dominance occurs the Club Racing Board acts to slow down the front runners and/or speed up the back markers. This is usually accomplished through changes in weight and/or the diameter of the carburetor venturi or a restrictor in the throttle body on fuel injected models."

One Fox in the country that's competitive hardly fits the definition of "dominance."
__________________
Mark Muddiman
AS #71
Detroit Region
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-08-2016, 06:29 AM
PbFoot PbFoot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 203
Default

The weights in FP have been stable for many years and the Fox Mustangs have not been the dominate car in the class.

What has not been stable is the weight penalty for using a "Dog Ring" transmission. If memory severs me the weight penalty used to be 125# for a dog box and that number has now dropped to 50#. I think a focus on the Dog Ring transmission rule post Mid Ohio would be more appropriate.

Pretty sure Ed used a Dog Box, but not sure.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-08-2016, 07:25 AM
nomics nomics is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 127
Default

I don't have any seam welding, no splitter, and cage was built in 1989. They didn't even let me bend over first. Way to go sniffing out the budget minded racer. But they change the rules to allow someone to build a brand new $100,000 racecar.
__________________
Matt
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-08-2016, 10:32 AM
fastandyracing fastandyracing is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Apopka FL
Posts: 544
Default

Nice to hear some fox body guys speaking out, I was thinking the same thing, Ed is an awesome set up guy and a great drive, but one fast fox hardly justifies a weight penalty.

Guess its done now, who decided this and what data was used to determine it? Seems kind of arbitrary.

Andy
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-08-2016, 12:16 PM
Scott Sanda Scott Sanda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 471
Default

I will wade, briefly, into this. I am easily the most neutral person on the ad hoc: I voted to add weight to my own car just prior to runoffs because we had listed it incorrectly in the GCR. I'm the guy who has NOT worked to get more advantage for my car, knowing that I am not, all things being equal, the fastest driver out there. BTW, thank me for that, you just saw what a absolutely top notch driver could do in a V, as classed. Drew was running 3rd right behind Andy when he had an electrical issue. It is not a stretch to say that, barring the electrical problem, he would have won the runoffs after Ed broke and Andy got crashed. Not because he had an overdog due to adjusting it to my driving, but because it is damn close to properly classed, and had a top driver.

On to the Fox: We are working on the assumption that Ed had a legal car. There is no evidence or indication otherwise. So Ed had a car that was technically duplicateable by anyone.

Ed is a great driver. Easily on par with with any of the top drivers in this class. He is, however, on par. Not Senna. So Driving, while top notch, was not significantly better or worst than any of the top drivers.

That left data on the entire package:

Ed was 4 to 6 miles an hour faster than every other car except Tom's. Repeatedly. He was not breaking as late as some, so it wasn't a "he just stayed on throttle longer" issue.

Ed was the fastest car in the corners, when you looked at speeds at the apex among the top cars.

So you had a car with a top driver, in a legal car, that was faster in a straight line and faster in the corners than the other top drivers and cars, by a fairly significant factor.

The Ad hoc looked at all of this, and decided to add 100 pounds to the car.

I personally think it was a good decision, because the package really was dominant in every aspect. Had it just been top speed, or just been corner speed, it would not have even been a discussion.

It was both.

If we are incorrect, weight can be adjusted. If we are correct, and Ed brings the same package (with a better clutch) to Indy, he is still going to be the fastest car in a straight line, and will still be an odds on favorite.

The intent is to make disparate cars as equal as possible, based on theoretical best. We had real data, and real results to work with.

You wanted to know why, here it is. Debate it all you want, but it wasn't a conspiracy, wasn't punishment and wasn't done with ill intent.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-08-2016, 01:05 PM
jimwheeler jimwheeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 5,212
Default

Also, remember, this car is still 100# lighter than the other cars.
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 05:37 AM.


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