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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-19-2017, 03:40 PM
PamRichardson PamRichardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 796
Default January 2018 Prelims

...are up:

https://www.scca.com/pages/cars-and-rules

What you will see:

23597: The BOD did not approve letter 21799, the tire rule, so the CRB/ASAC have withdrawn the letter.

22348 and 23049, NR. The CRB/ASAC is in the process of adjusting performance of some cars that to bring them in performance alignment (aka cars that are over the performance of other AS cars) to the other cars in the class. More adjustments are expected in the February 2018 TB.

22363, TCO.

23471, TB, clarification of head modifications for Full Prep cars.

23549, TB, brings the 79-93 Mustang to the same weight as all other Full Prep cars (+100 lbs), due to its performance at least as comparable to all other Full Prep cars.

Pam
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-19-2017, 04:03 PM
MLong MLong is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 25
Default

23549, TB, brings the 79-93 Mustang to the same weight as all other Full Prep cars (+100 lbs), due to its performance at least as comparable to all other Full Prep cars.

So you want another penalty for a car that is comparable to all other full prep cars? How is that justified?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-19-2017, 04:49 PM
PamRichardson PamRichardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 796
Default Focus

The important thing to focus on is the wording "at least as comparable". This perhaps was not as succinct at it could be. So, if more succinct is needed, the decision was made to bring this car to the same weight level as other FP cars, to see if its performance is a bit more in line with other FP cars, because at this point, it is over the performance of the other FP cars. If, per chance, this change causes the car to suddenly be underperforming compared to other FP cars, the weight can be adjusted back.

Recall that the CRB/ASAC could have added the full 200 lbs after Mid-Ohio, but, decided to go half way and see what happened. And it was also indicated that if moving the weight to the same as the other FP cars was warranted after another year, it would be something that would be considered.

Pam
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-19-2017, 05:44 PM
MLong MLong is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 25
Default

So this is basically an experiment to see how far the club can penalize the car without justification. There is no doubt for the car the club is penalizing is our car after this years race, heaven forbid a very well prepped and driven car wins. I understand that many of the AS community does not know who myself or Bryan Long is, but the runoffs result was not a result of having a car that is perceived of having a performance advantage, when significant engineering, testing and prep went into his car.

We have been give the black box twice this year, and only in the runoffs race did we have the fastest race lap when equal cars are on the track. That fast lap difference was a whopping 0.07 seconds. That is hardly over the performance of other FP cars.

At Mid-Ohio, there were 3 cars of different make/models that had a faster race lap time, with our fastest almost 0.9 seconds off the pace. Again, where is that advantage hidden?

The math simply does not add up based on our experience this year.

Where is the weight penalty for the Camaro and Cadillac? There were 3 make/models that pulled away at this years runoffs together, with very close lap times.

There is either an ulterior motive or ignorance in the committee to properly analyze data and results and recommending such a rules change.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-19-2017, 08:26 PM
PbFoot PbFoot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 200
Default

This seems bizarre to me and very reminiscent of what happened after the 2016 RO's.

Why is it that after multiple RO's wins by Andy and John, (at times with huge margins) no wt was added to those cars?

The message seems to be that Andy and John are super drivers and you can't penalize others that race on that spec line, but Ed and Bryan could only have won if they where using "Advantaged cars".
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-20-2017, 08:53 AM
nomics nomics is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 126
Default

In my opinion, the people making these decisions don't seem to know what they are doing. Sorry, I know they are volunteering their time but also molding things in someone's? favor. They put black boxes in our cars and don't show the data. They don't even know the vast difference in preparation between our cars. We have huge differences in horsepower, brakes, and set up. One car you put the box in could easily have 50 more horsepower than another car you test and they are not accounting for that. Not to mention the huge difference in driver ability. The Caddy is obviously advantaged and nothing is done to that car. You don't even need the stupid box to tell the difference in acceleration in that car compared to others.

I'm tired of spending alot of money to race with nobody and the things that are being focused on are not helping that.
__________________
Matt
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-20-2017, 08:59 AM
PamRichardson PamRichardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 796
Default Thoughts

First and foremost, yes, the Long team put together a well built, very competitive car, with an excellent driver, setup, etc., in other words, a winning team.

FWIW, the ASAC has been watching the 79-93 Mustang for a long time (way before I was on the ASAC), and, has always felt that the car could be a true winner, in every engineering way. And the ASAC still believes that. But, it took last year and this year for the ASAC to observe that what it had been watching and felt was true because two teams so successfully built and drove such cars. And, bringing this car to the same weight levels of other FP cars has been deemed to be appropriate, since the car now overperforms the other cars.

At this point, as I mentioned originally, there are more changes in the works, and it is the ASAC hopes that those changes will be in the next month's Fastrack. I can't say what yet, because the CRB hasn't seen those letters or decided on them (they should be TBs).

Finally, there are changes in the works for the ASAC and they will be delineated soon. Some are across all ACs, and some are specific to the ASAC.

Pam

P. S. A reminder that this thread is on the ASAC News part of the forum looking for only positive replies. Any potentially negative replies should be moved to other parts of the forum.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-20-2017, 11:22 AM
nomics nomics is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 126
Default

I apologise for being one of the negative comment people but I'm pissed off. How bout letting everyone get a hold of the data and show how it is justified. Even so it is not sufficient data. What about asking what gear people had in the car? That affects acceleration and top speed etc. and no one asked those things. They just put boxes in our cars. The Fox Mustang was effectively adjusted by 300 pounds in 1 years time because all other cars lost 100. That's quite an adjustment with nothing showing why except "we've been watching them". Watching them and not taking proper data. Sorry for being negative but I call it like I see it.
__________________
Matt
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-20-2017, 11:53 AM
PamRichardson PamRichardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 796
Default Math?

Matt --

Help me with the math?

Two years ago we gave every car in AS a 50 lb weight reduction.

One year ago we added 100 pounds to the 79-93 Mustang.

We are now adding an additional 100 pounds to the Mustang.

The 79-93 Mustang base car (302 with AL heads) now weighs the same as all other AS FP cars, 3250.

Watching means data acquisition and analysis. Data is not accessible to ASAC members, only the conclusions of the analysis done by the Data Technician Team, which is independent of all classes.

Perhaps it would be a reasonable plan to wait for additional changes that are planned (assuming they are approved).

Pam
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-20-2017, 11:56 AM
MLong MLong is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 25
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomics View Post
I apologise for being one of the negative comment people but I'm pissed off. How bout letting everyone get a hold of the data and show how it is justified. Even so it is not sufficient data. What about asking what gear people had in the car? That affects acceleration and top speed etc. and no one asked those things. They just put boxes in our cars. The Fox Mustang was effectively adjusted by 300 pounds in 1 years time because all other cars lost 100. That's quite an adjustment with nothing showing why except "we've been watching them". Watching them and not taking proper data. Sorry for being negative but I call it like I see it.
Completely agree Matt... this years runoffs was one of the closest battles in many years between 3 different types of cars, but somehow the Fox now has a competitive advantage. The "data" simply does not support this change, no matter how they try to sugar coat the reasoning.

The ASAC has been looking for ways to create parity and increase participation, but this stupid change has now negatively affected a quarter of the runoffs grid, which will no doubt cause people to leave the class or leave all together.

Shame on the SCCA and ASAC.
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 09:30 AM.


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