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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-21-2019, 08:37 PM
jimwheeler jimwheeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 5,185
Default

The aluminum heads were introduced because there was no way to run a GM car, with legal heads, against the good Ford heads. A lot of research was done to show that the Eddy heads were equal, Ford vs Chevy. This proved to be true and everyone went to the Eddy heads. The only racers who stayed with iron heads were the Fords, since they were very good.

The Eddy heads have saved me thousands of dollars over my many race seasons. No doubt about that. The brake change has also saved many thousands of dollars. Now, if I didn't really race, but just went out for a couple of events every season, the initial cost of the brakes and the heads would not make any sense. If you race, the changes to AS make sense. All of those changes were made with lots of research and lots of input from AS racers. That is not the case with the SMG Mustang.

Last edited by jimwheeler; 02-22-2019 at 10:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 02-21-2019, 08:43 PM
KFan KFan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 9
Default

Ted,

As far as I know, this ABS idea is simply a topic of discussion for forums. It hasn't been formally discussed, and if it was, it would be a long time (years?) to work out how to implement something like this, if its even possible.

Agree that adding $$ to the "lower cost V8 car" class is not the way to go to grow entries.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 02-22-2019, 07:29 AM
PamRichardson PamRichardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 792
Default ABS in older cars

Scotty --

While I thoroughly agree our class has incredible talent in the fab and tinker area, I don't think (my personal view) going back to a set of PBRs (no longer available and any used are already clamshelled) and a booster is the safe and correct way to go.

Our team moved to 4 piston aftermarket calipers in front (kept the stock rear) when the rule first came out, and even that technology aged to the point where I was rebuilding them every 2 events, until, one event at NJMP, a newly rebuilt set started leaking through the piston seals during the race. Then I moved to something much more current, over time.

In an attempt to go back, our team would personally throw away a 5 year process (to lower costs per year) of converting over to (used) Brembos all around (used from NASCAR teams leftovers) to keep costs down, with the dual master cylinders and balance bar to provide a more consistent, current system that can get parts. Many teams are in the process of this conversion as well.

My personal view is that FP drivers would not want to dismiss those efforts since the systems are way better than OEM.

On many occasions over the past 7 or so years, I have asked the question of someone who wants to bring in, as Jim says, a car that has things that AS never has agreed to, into the class: Why don't you build to the AS rules if you want to run in AS? SMG was given the opportunity to join us if they would disconnect their ABS, remove their rear wings, and make their splitters AS compliant. On each occasion, they chose not to. And on each occasion, the AS community, in a WDYT, resoundingly said no, not without such changes.

So, in my new role as private citizen, I can state my view and hopefully not get pounded on too much!

Pam
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 02-22-2019, 04:13 PM
scottybwhite scottybwhite is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PamRichardson View Post
Scotty --

While I thoroughly agree our class has incredible talent in the fab and tinker area, I don't think (my personal view) going back to a set of PBRs (no longer available and any used are already clamshelled) and a booster is the safe and correct way to go.
Pam
Pam, I must respectfully submit I don't think you're on the same page with me as to how I would see this happening.

Let me be more clear as to what my vision is, and again I don't even race AS (yet) but my idea was more that the FP cars would keep all of their FP brakes and "ADD" or "RETRO" an OEM ABS pump... That might include an OEM master and booster if the competitor deemed that the way to go or keep the dual masters with the balance bar and just pump it all through the ABS pump... I would expect NO ONE to go back to the old useless clamshell calipers...

To me this would make it easier to balance the BOP between RP and FP cars...

Last edited by scottybwhite; 02-22-2019 at 04:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 02-22-2019, 04:46 PM
Ken Felice Ken Felice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 92
Default

Why should FP change to satisfy a few people that want to run AS. Build to the class. You will hurt what is there.every time we change someone says add wgt.
That is not an equalizer just takes more power to get going and harder to stop.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 02-22-2019, 04:55 PM
PamRichardson PamRichardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 792
Default Thanks!

Scotty --

Yes, thanks for that clarification! If it could be done with OEM parts and the current FP braking systems, that would be something to consider, if the costs were reasonable.

I do tend to agree with Ken also, that adding more mods to come up to a current car not built to AS specs is not something I can support as a private citizen.

Pam
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 02-22-2019, 05:01 PM
jimwheeler jimwheeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 5,185
Default

So, if we are going down this road.... The whole idea of RP was to provide a plan for the FI cars, with unmodified drive trains, to race in AS. RP cars can now modify their drive trains, from the engine through the clutch and transmission, to the rear gears. They also have always been allowed to do the suspension/brake, etc. mods that the FP cars could do. Why can't I put a FI LS engine in my full prep car? Talk amongst yourselves.

p.s. Also, the RP cars have better gear ratios than the FP cars. This was one of my requests over the years. Get rid of our ridiculous wide ratio gears sets. Always turned down. But now the Restricted Prep cars have better ratios than we do and they have alternate gear boxes to go with it.

Last edited by jimwheeler; 02-22-2019 at 05:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 02-22-2019, 06:37 PM
Tim White Tim White is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 332
Default

When Prod added new cars did they cause a big expense to the existing cars? What they did helped the classes grow, did it cause attrition of the original cars?

My personal opinion is the base of the class is FP and bringing in new cars should be made equivalent to the base. If the base has to continue to make expensive changes to remain competitive, the class will continue to shrink. Adding a small number of cars in one shot is not going to over come the attrition in the long run. So SMG needs to make change to play in the AS sandbox, not the other way around. In reality it would make more sense to create a specific package for new cars. Oh, wait, we already did. It is called RP.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 02-23-2019, 12:10 AM
Ted Johnson Ted Johnson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 976
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimwheeler View Post
So, if we are going down this road.... The whole idea of RP was to provide a plan for the FI cars, with unmodified drive trains, to race in AS. RP cars can now modify their drive trains, from the engine through the clutch and transmission, to the rear gears. They also have always been allowed to do the suspension/brake, etc. mods that the FP cars could do. Why can't I put a FI LS engine in my full prep car? Talk amongst yourselves.



p.s. Also, the RP cars have better gear ratios than the FP cars. This was one of my requests over the years. Get rid of our ridiculous wide ratio gears sets. Always turned down. But now the Restricted Prep cars have better ratios than we do and they have alternate gear boxes to go with it.
You can. I did. Light clutch, close ratio Muncie, ls motor. You will love it.
__________________
.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 02-23-2019, 02:04 PM
Scott Sanda Scott Sanda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 467
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimwheeler View Post
Why can't I put a FI LS engine in my full prep car? Talk amongst yourselves.

p.s. Also, the RP cars have better gear ratios than the FP cars.
We tried. We spent 18 months or so working on a stock based FI option that could apply to all FP cars. LS3's with the current restrictor for GM, Coyote's with the current restrictor for Fords.

The theory was less cost than a new, Andyish level FP motor, and years of running with no rebuild needed. Or, Ebay motor and ECU, and you have a long living low maintenance option.

Yes, there were potential issues: Wiring harness, transmissions, adapters needed, etc. it was all surmountable.

Was killed stillborn by a combination of our BOD liaison (not Jim), and a few others on crb/bod.

If you want to mount up a heavy ass, slow shifting T56 or 2020, be my guest Jim. You will still only use 2-3-4, or 3-4-5 depending on your rear end.....

I don't see giving the camaro a 2020 as an issue. Technically, he could run one now, since it is the "factory" replacement for the T56. Provided that the gearing was the same. It would be an interesting protest and hearing. I also don't have an issue with FP clutch and flywheel, as long as there was an appropriate weight adjustment. IMO, it is actually a cost savings over the OE stuff, long term.

I do have an issue with the cam.

Scott
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 10:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.