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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-13-2020, 02:37 PM
PbFoot PbFoot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 227
Default Dec 2020 Prelims

A lot of changes announced for AS.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-13-2020, 05:07 PM
Tim White Tim White is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 367
Default

Letters sent. Just crazy talk, jeez.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-13-2020, 07:00 PM
jimwheeler jimwheeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 5,262
Default rev limiters and restrictors

Here us my letter to the CRB
This most recent TB calls for two changes to the American Sedan rules as Tech Bulletins that are really Rule Changes that should go though the system as REC and be put out for member input.

The first is a requirement for Full Prep cars to run a restrictor plate. While the CRB is allowed, by TB, to change RP sizes, they are not allowed to change the rule. The rules have never required a Restricter Plate on full prep cars. To now require them would be a change in the rules, not an adjustment as allowed by Tech Bulletin.

The second item, which is directly parallel, is to require Rev Limiters on full prep cars. This is also a Rule Change, and should go through the Rule Change process. Rev limiters have never been part of ASedan, and whether it is a good or bad idea is not relevant. It is a Rule Change and has to go through the rule change process.

I appreciate your fixing this issue and have communicated this to my BoD representative.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-13-2020, 11:39 PM
MarkMuddiman MarkMuddiman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Belleville, MI
Posts: 165
Default Blindsided again

At the runoffs meeting we asked for more communication and transparency from the ASAC and CRB.
Lots of discussion about the rotor increase, my take was mostly against, but that deal was already done. Multiple letters against also failed to stop the railroad.
Not a peep about restrictor plates for FP at the meeting or since.

Is there any kind of long term philosophy or strategy for the class, or are we back in the cycle of rules creep to satisfy personal agendas?
__________________
Mark Muddiman
AS #71
Detroit Region
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-14-2020, 07:18 AM
PamRichardson PamRichardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 824
Default

Mark,

I am also disappointed that there was no communication about this as a "looking at this" topic at the runoffs mtg. And that it was not conveyed on the forums either. Seems strange that such a drastic change shows up a little over a month after the runoffs.

Just FYI, our motors have had the same power for about 4-5 years. Improvements for us have come from Danny's efforts at improving his driving and changes/setups for the other systems on the car.

I like to encourage people to realize that engine power is not the only reason cars go faster.

Pam
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-14-2020, 10:55 AM
Ted Warning Ted Warning is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: TN
Posts: 9
Default Cost to existing competetors

Yep, blindsided again without listening to drivers. I get the move adding crate motors. But why throw expense on all existing cars to drop us down in power to the crate? The crate already makes more torque than iron heads and I'm guessing many aluminum heads. For the last 2 years, the ASAC agreed iron heads were down on power. The response was toss expense on the iron heads by reducing their weight. That's fine. Now they toss the expense on all, including iron to fit in the new crate. Why not bring in the crate at lower weight like they did us iron heads?

Rant over.....
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-14-2020, 12:28 PM
PbFoot PbFoot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 227
Default

I'm onboard with most of the changes proposed, but the restrictor plate idea seems odd to me. First the hole size proposed is essentially the same size as our throttle bores, so why do it. Second I do not like the idea of pulling my carb and spilling fuel on a hot engine in impound.

Crate engines and rev limiters are good moves IMO. The crate engines use low duration hydraulic cams and will most likely only be able to rev to 6600 RPM. I think giving the current Full Prep engines an extra 1000 RPM red line over the crates might be a bit generous, but not by much.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-14-2020, 10:56 PM
Richard Pryor Richard Pryor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 45
Default Karnak predicts

I've put the envelope to my forehead and with Ed McMahon's baritone intoning my name in the background I've "seen" the following:

The fastest cars in AS will be Spec Mustangs. SCCA has drawn data from one slow entrant and will give the Spec Mustangs cams, 3.90 rears and a 1:1 5th gear and a lower weight while retaining all the wide rims, tires, ABS, aero etc. Heck, most of them are already running those items along with juiced computers in the SF Region.

Let's see if we get a Competition Adjustment Memo in January, just like when the entire car was added to AS with no discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-17-2020, 01:12 PM
DHRMX5 DHRMX5 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 70
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Pryor View Post
I've put the envelope to my forehead and with Ed McMahon's baritone intoning my name in the background I've "seen" the following:

The fastest cars in AS will be Spec Mustangs. SCCA has drawn data from one slow entrant and will give the Spec Mustangs cams, 3.90 rears and a 1:1 5th gear and a lower weight while retaining all the wide rims, tires, ABS, aero etc. Heck, most of them are already running those items along with juiced computers in the SF Region.

Let's see if we get a Competition Adjustment Memo in January, just like when the entire car was added to AS with no discussion.
Hey, Richard. No point in pissing on this discussion just because San Fran is the cheatingest region in the country. Add that to the fact the SMG were built to run in NASA.... That combo probably doesn't know what a rule book looks like...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-17-2020, 01:23 PM
DHRMX5 DHRMX5 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 70
Default

The restrictor is not a done deal. BOD & CRB wil presumably still look at input.

As an owner of a RP car I have advocated to reduce the power of the FP engines. But I was advocating for a spec cam or rpm reduction. I think dealing with a carb restrictor is a terrible idea at this level of racing. Reducing rpm means reducing wear and tear on the engines and trans. Win-win.

The alternative is to equal the playing field by giving the Mustang Coyote engine enough plate to make similar HP to the Cadi as a minimum. The +2mm they are suggesting will put me in the low 364 range. How much do those FP engines make again?

From what I have seen I suppose I could go and expect some attrition to move me up but that is not really racing...
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 11:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.