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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 03-12-2018, 05:09 PM
PbFoot PbFoot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 192
Default

Thanks Scott, I appreciate the explanation.



I run a big motor because I like the torque and they are cheaper to build than the high RPM 302's. I have had two tire failures recently with my "Lead Sled" Fox and I'm wondering if the high weight is an issue. Not sure but wondering. I guess I will see how the new wt correlates with future tire failures. My heads up to the AS community is a blowout at high speed is not fun. Good luck.



Tom H
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-12-2018, 05:25 PM
MLong MLong is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimwheeler View Post
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.
The fox has a 4" narrower track width, higher COG and a forward engine position compared to the other cars in the field. Equality has to start across the board in specs for equal weights, which will never happen as everyone will be affected to some degree.

I still believe the best option for the class at this time is lowering the 3rd gen FP and 4th RP gen Camaro/Birds 50 lbs and leave all other cars the same weight.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-13-2018, 04:21 PM
DBailey's Avatar
DBailey DBailey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northern California
Posts: 116
Default really??

During the 12 years I've had an A Sedan car the fox body has always had a lighter weight--I always wondered why---These arguments about COG and track and wheelbase are BS! These cars in A Sedan are on the same size tires!
If you weigh less than your competitor, and are on the same size tire, you have a competitive advantage! This has been pretty obvious in many of the runoffs when the tires are going off on the heavier cars sooner than with the fox bodied cars. Seems the Fox guys have had an advantage for many years,maybe that is why there are so many of them.
What some are claiming as a shortfall/hindrance to a car can be an advantage if the car is prepped properly. This isn't drag racing and there are many variables to what makes a car competitive.
Good car prep and setup teamed with a good driver will make any car a winner. The 4th gen f-body has a higher CG than a third gen--so should it get a weight break? No!

Pick the car you like, build and drive to your best, and enjoy the race.

And to some of you--My God, you guys have already won the runoffs and all you can do is whine??

Maybe the changes in the class have to start with attitude!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-13-2018, 08:29 PM
PbFoot PbFoot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 192
Default

Hello Dean, Tom Himes here. In past A Sedan posts we have been very much aliened in our thinking of what the class needs to move forward. I do have to take issue with your last post though. Physics does matter. If what you posted was true, why wouldn't most pro teams narrow their cars width and track as much as possible to reduce air drag because as you stated wt transfer ( AKA COG and track width) does not mean much. We all know when a racing class is given a max track width all cars run at that max width.

In AS our track width is limited by the stock body width and this is why the Foxes have had a wt break. Foxes have never dominated in AS and as Mark M pointed out that appears to be the SCCA trigger to make comp adjustments.

I think the Long team idea of lowering the wt of FP Gen 3 GM's and the RP Gen 4 GM's by 50#'s ( I would also add the 94-2004 Mustangs to this list) and keeping all others at the current wt would make the most since. BTW I send a PM proposing that idea months ago.

Knowing how close you guys came to getting gold at the 2014 RO's, I sure hope you give AS another shot at Sear Point in Oct.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-16-2018, 09:04 PM
MarkMuddiman MarkMuddiman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Belleville, MI
Posts: 139
Default

Winning the runoffs is a horrible metric to prove any position (even mine).
Every year there are more unique incidents.
Every year a Fox won, you can easily point to attrition that took out one (or usually more) primary competitor.
Even the exception to my point (Hosni at Mid-Ohio) was an asterisk on the winner due to multiple attrition at the front of the field.

RO qualifying and race lap times are much more useful and comparable, but still not perfect. This year could have been an excellent comparison if not for Andy getting clobbered on lap 1 and Hosni's absence. And the first 3 Q sessions were a waste of gasoline for most of us due to the T2 traffic.

Even the pro race series struggle with BOP, because there's absolutely no way to come up with metrics or data that is statistically significant. The sample size is always = one. Can't calculate mu, much less t.

The only way to level the playing field is to use weight/tire/restrictor/etc adjustments on individual drivers.

Andy always pops out of analysis as an outlier. Sloe was a standout in both the SN95 and S197 cars, and Heinricy used to be an outlier, but I don't know that anything changed between the GenIV and Fords since John was regularly out front.

The rest of us, basically, are noise in the data.
__________________
Mark Muddiman
AS #71
Detroit Region
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-17-2018, 04:06 PM
DBailey's Avatar
DBailey DBailey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northern California
Posts: 116
Default

Hi Tom, I appreciate your comments and can understand where you are coming from. We spent several years at a very high weight for no real reason other than to make sure a LP car was not a threat to the FP cars. Been there and dealt with that! My statement was not that cg, etc isn't important, it was that these comments about it being the justification for a 100 lb weight break is BS. The other parts of my post explain why. And funny you mention track as we have done exactly what you mention in tuning our suspension at different tracks. Anyone familiar with Karting will understand it's importance.

A Sedan is NOT a spec class! Never was and hopefully never will be. Each car is different and will behave differently at different tracks! This is what can make a class like this fun to race in and fun to watch.

There are obviously quite a few Fox cars racing in A Sedan---Why???
It has to be the worst factory engineered car for road racing that there ever was! Crappy front suspension, goofy rear susp., short wheelbase,narrow track, and requires lots of modification to make it work for road racing!
Why would anyone wanting to go Road Racing in a Ford, pick this as a starting point??
Could it be because it was a 100lbs lighter than every other car in A Sedan---and those choosing this car knew how important weight is??
Could it be the shorter wheelbase is a serious advantage in smaller radius turns?
Did those who picked this car have possibly have thought--" I'll work around these drawbacks for the benefit of less weight"
Unless someone happened to love the looks of a foxbody it seems reasonable that some of these thoughts were involved.
Changes in the rules over the past 5-10 years have reduced the effects of higher CG(lexan windows) suspension(balljoints and multilink rear susp.), aero(airdams and splitters)---these changes have helped the fox more than other cars in the class. Why? the f-bodys and later mustangs were not as boxy--

I have usually not been in favor of many of the changes submitted by the ASAC---but this one has been long overdue.


Instead of whining and threatening to quit or claiming power from numbers, why not just get on with re-setting up your car and testing it --maybe you will be surprised with what you find!


SCCA's job is not to make the Ford owners of America happy, it is to provide a environment where cars of different types can race in classes in a safe and
reasonably competitive environment.

lets move on---
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-17-2018, 06:57 PM
nomics nomics is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Addison,IL
Posts: 107
Default

I I don't care if they close the gap in weight, I just think the cars are too heavy so lower other cars. We shouldn't have hundreds of pounds of ballast in the cars. That's why I'm "whining"
__________________
Matt Regan
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-20-2018, 11:21 PM
mlanglin2007 mlanglin2007 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 27
Default

Dean, not bad points, but one of the reasons for so many Fox-body Mustangs is that at the beginning of the class, you chose Chevy/Pontiac (Gen 3 cars) or Mustang/Capri Fox cars. I doubt that many Fox Bodies have been built in this century. I just hate the idea of putting 100 more pounds of lead inside the passenger compartment, and view it as potentially dangerous in a crash. And though this idea has been roundly dismissed, power/weight ratio should be part of the equation (IMHO).
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-21-2018, 01:14 PM
scottdolsen scottdolsen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 138
Default

As far as I Know, This will be the first time in the history of the class that a Fox will have to race a gen 3 Camaro at the same race weight. As for the allowed improvements, the lexan should help the Camaro more than the fox due to the huge heavy rear glass in the Camaro. The Camaro got the longer ball joints and spliters. And now that we are disusing spliters, they become more effective the closer to the ground that they are mounted. At the required 3" min. ground clearance they are useless for creating downforce.

Let me have the same track width as the gen 3 Camaro and I will gladly race at the same min. weight.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-21-2018, 07:08 PM
MLong MLong is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DBailey View Post
Hi Tom, I appreciate your comments and can understand where you are coming from. We spent several years at a very high weight for no real reason other than to make sure a LP car was not a threat to the FP cars. Been there and dealt with that! My statement was not that cg, etc isn't important, it was that these comments about it being the justification for a 100 lb weight break is BS. The other parts of my post explain why. And funny you mention track as we have done exactly what you mention in tuning our suspension at different tracks. Anyone familiar with Karting will understand it's importance.

A Sedan is NOT a spec class! Never was and hopefully never will be. Each car is different and will behave differently at different tracks! This is what can make a class like this fun to race in and fun to watch.

There are obviously quite a few Fox cars racing in A Sedan---Why???
It has to be the worst factory engineered car for road racing that there ever was! Crappy front suspension, goofy rear susp., short wheelbase,narrow track, and requires lots of modification to make it work for road racing!
Why would anyone wanting to go Road Racing in a Ford, pick this as a starting point??
Could it be because it was a 100lbs lighter than every other car in A Sedan---and those choosing this car knew how important weight is??
Could it be the shorter wheelbase is a serious advantage in smaller radius turns?
Did those who picked this car have possibly have thought--" I'll work around these drawbacks for the benefit of less weight"
Unless someone happened to love the looks of a foxbody it seems reasonable that some of these thoughts were involved.
Changes in the rules over the past 5-10 years have reduced the effects of higher CG(lexan windows) suspension(balljoints and multilink rear susp.), aero(airdams and splitters)---these changes have helped the fox more than other cars in the class. Why? the f-bodys and later mustangs were not as boxy--

---
Want to know why I bought a Fox mustang? It was an extremely cheap purchase, that for under 4k, I was on the track. It was toy to go out an play in at the time, and this is coming from a Chevy family that would have never thought about racing a Ford. Fox cars were a dime a dozen back then and easy to convert into race cars. The mustang aftermarket is cheap, so building a race car out of them was a no brainer to many people, but they were never dominating.

The Fox is a bastard of a car, with conventional car setup thinking thrown out of the window. Overall, there is nothing beneficial to the Fox with 100 lbs weight break, what they gain in acceleration and braking, they lose in cornering and tire longevity (yes, tire longevity).

If you still don't believe that weight distribution, COG and track width have nothing do with the cars performance, then I suggest you read Chassis Engineering by Herb Adams. It is an excellent introduction to race chassis building and vehicle setup.

In the past 10 years, there have been 3 Fox cars finish on the podium at the runoffs. Only the LP Camaro has less with 2, including what should be an asterisk finish in 2014 for both cars. The LP Camaro is also the car I advocate for a weight break to make them more competitive.

The Fox weight break has worked for many years, but now that a couple of them have become competitive with the rest of the field, it's time to penalize them. Why? It's not that they are dominate. The 3 Runoffs wins were a combined 2.5 seconds margin of victory and only one of them has the fastest race lap.

This weight adjustment makes zero sense, and not a single person has been able to give a valid reason for the change.

Give the help to the cars that need it and stop adding weight to the cars that don't.

I still propose the following (with the help of Tom Hines) and urge those that agree to write in letters.

79-93 Ford Mustang
Adjust weight back to 3150; 3450

05-14 Ford Mustang GT
Adjust weight back to 3250; 3550

82-92 Camaro/Firebird
Adjust weight to 3200; 3500

98-02 Camoro/Firebird RP
Adjust weight to 3200

94-04 Ford Mustang FP
Adjust weight to 3200; 3500


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 10:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.