| Title: | Racers and Racing |
| Notice: | As long as it's not NASCAR or F1 or Drags... |
| Moderator: | RHETT::BURDEN _D |
| Created: | Tue Aug 08 1995 |
| Last Modified: | Thu Jun 05 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 391 |
| Total number of notes: | 4486 |
There were three Shelby Can-Ams (SCAs) at Watkins Glen this weekend. All
three were in the drivers school on Friday and then all three ran the
race on Sunday.
Up until this weekend I had no real opinion about the cars even though
they have caused a big stir in SCCA. After this weekend I have several
opinions about the cars and the way they were handled by SCCA.
First, the SCA's are LARGE. 1700 pounds without driver, 15 inch wheels
in the back with fiberglass which completely covers the wheels. This
wouldn't bother me much if the cars weren't put in the same group as
the Formula Fords (1050 or 1100 pounds WITH driver), Club Fords,
Formula Continentals, Sports 2000 and Formula Atlantics. The S2000's
will admit they have trouble seeing the open wheeled cars and the
S2000's are tiny compared to the SCAs. I was held up badly in one
qualifying session by an SCA and it was obvious that he could not
possibly see me behind him. The rear fiberglass of the SCA was above my
eyelevel and probably higher than my roll bar.
At least 1/2 dozen drivers spoke to the chief steward and asked him to
move the SCAs to a different group for our safety. The SCAs are almost
twice the weight of the other cars in the group, they are large in size
which causes visiblity problems for any smaller car near them and
because of their size it is impossible for them to see the smaller open
wheeled cars around them. The Chief Steward said that SCCA national
office has placed them in this group! After the final qualifying
session I realized that there were 2 SCAs between me and the first
place FF car. The thought of having these cars near me at the start,
not to mention the whole race, really upset me. I went to the Chief
Steward again and asked him this time if he would at least give us a
split start from the SCAs if he wouldn't move them to another group.
Other drivers also requested the same thing. He placed the three SCAs
at the back of our field which meant that they wouldn't cause an
accident with us at the start at least.
I'm not sure exactly what happened but from what I can piece together,
on the last lap of the race there was an accident between one of the
SCAs and an FF going through the esses onto the back straight. There
was almost no damage to the SCA which continued driving all the way to
the end of the straight before pulling off the track. The FF was
completely destroyed. There were car parts covering the track for
hundreds of feet. I couldn't even tell what kind of car it was when I
went by on my cool down lap (which shouldn't have taken place to begin
with). The driver was taken to the hospital with broken bones and they
were going to give him a cat scan. I heard he was conscious and cursing
Shelby Can-Ams.
Why is the SCA in that group instead of being in with large closed
wheeled cars like itself? Did SCCA put it in there to run with the
Atlantics because they were more appealing than GT1 cars (my opinion)?
At least 2 of the drivers had never raced before. The drivers school
requirements for a license require a certain amount of track time be
completed in the school to graduate. Since not one of the SCAs ran in
every track session why were these drivers allowed to graduate? None of
them met the minimum track requiremtents. Were they allowed to race
because they were driving SCAs? When I went to the SCCA driving school
I was chastised for missing 2 laps of a session! Since they were
running times equivelent to a FF the requirements weren't bypassed
because of driver ability.
Glenn
who-doesn't-want-large-heavy-closed-wheeled-cars-in-with-his-FF
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 225.1 | ALIEN::MCCULLEY | RSX Pro | Tue Oct 09 1990 15:53 | 42 | |
.0> At least 2 of the drivers had never raced before. The drivers school
.0> requirements for a license require a certain amount of track time be
.0> completed in the school to graduate. Since not one of the SCAs ran in
.0> every track session why were these drivers allowed to graduate? None of
.0> them met the minimum track requiremtents. Were they allowed to race
.0> because they were driving SCAs? When I went to the SCCA driving school
.0> I was chastised for missing 2 laps of a session! Since they were
.0> running times equivelent to a FF the requirements weren't bypassed
.0> because of driver ability.
Welcome to the wonders of SCCA's more-or-less independent regional
organization. Drivers Schools are run by a particular region under a
sanction from the national club. So you can go to two events run by
two different regions and find considerably different policies, even at
the same track!
Depending on how the track time is organized, there is often more than
enough to satisfy the formal requirements, even if you miss a small
amount. Then again, maybe not, it depends on the particular event.
And even if there is an adequate amount, it's up to the particular set
of officials running the event to decide whether or not to bust your
chops about missing some of the available track time.
I don't know all the facts to pass judgement on a particular case, my
recommendation is that unless you are sure you know all the revelant
information you're better off not second-guessing the folks upstairs.
And even when you do know it all it's much less frustrating not to
worry about specifics, like drivers school graduation decisions.
FWIW, about the Shelby Can-Am, if you really feel strongly, write and
tell the responsible club officials about your feelings, and
experiences. It's tough for them to discount first-hand anecdotal
experience from drivers who have raced against them. The appropriate
officials would be National offices, like Nick Craw (SCCA President),
Doug Reed (club racing honcho), and your BoD rep. Sports_Car magazine
should probably also be added to the list. If you really feel
strongly, you might also make a point of including comments about
insurance issues and copying those responsible for such areas.
From the comments in .0, I'm feeling more and more strongly inclined to
give up SCCA racing entirely. It sure doesn't motivate me to get back
out there in my club FF!
| |||||
| 225.2 | See Yua Next Year ? | BPOV02::SCHRODER | Tue Oct 09 1990 16:30 | 8 | |
Glenn,
Sorry to hear about your problems with SCA's but hope maybe I can
get otu to give you a hand next season, should be easier now that I'm
a free man!
Mark
| |||||
| 225.3 | Shelby Can-Am, Sequel to Spec Wrecks | JETSAM::ROTH | Tue Oct 09 1990 19:53 | 136 | |
More reasons for SLEEPLESS NIGHTS than just ON_TRACK performance...
Shelby Can-Am, the second generation "Specification-Class" chassis,
designed and MARKETED BY THE SCCA, has stirred the controversy of
Conflict-of-Interest from various OTHER chassis manufacturers, most
notably, those who compete for the Sports 2000 dollars and drivers.
Certainly the price tag for a SCA is in the same ballpark as an S2, and
therefore, one would think so too would be the performance
capabilities. The powerplant for the SCA is a 60 degree V6, as
compared to the 2 liter 4 cyl. motor found in S2's. The SCA is
SUPPOSED to run with the ASR, CSR, S2, FC, and FA, and NOT with FF or
CF, as it is SUPPOSED to be MUCH QUICKER. Not yet confirmed.
Personal commentary follows:
I will not race at the Glen. The quality of the flagging, whether it
is SCCA, RCA, or some combination of both is subpar. READ: DANGEROUS.
Previously this year, in a SPLIT START, the second group was WAVED-OFF,
NOT ONCE BUT TWICE. That is not a misprint; WAVED-OFF TWICE.
SPLIT-START. NO BLACK FLAG ALL to correct the situation developing
on-track!! What in the hell were they thinking??????? The resulting
accident caused a competitor a broken leg and arm, as cars at race speed
caught cars on the THIRD PACE LAP. To hear that complaints to a CHIEF
STEWARD fell on DEAF ears is not at all surprising, AT THE GLEN. The
track is the most picturesque in these parts, but, stories like these
have kept me at HOME. It just aint worth the RISK. To hear that
ANOTHER major incident took place only SOLIDIFIES my concerns.
Now, add in a dosage of the "drivers_of_SCA's" concerns as follows;
A competitor holding a REGIONAL license can participate in an SCCA
Driver's School. This is good. The fact that ALL 3 SCA drivers were
participating in the DS is BAD. The SCA is NOT an ENTRY-level car. My
fear is that this requirement was waived for the SCA, because, well,
look who is marketing them. They don't sell real well sitting in the
paddock. My other fear is that these drivers come out of MY CLASS (the
FIRST generation specification class, Spec Racer) and one of them, who
I know has purchased a SCA, as I have seen his name on the side of it,
ALWAYS CRASHES AT THE GLEN. In this case, the driver was DANGEROUS in
SR, so, well, draw you own conclusions. Must be some inate need from
the SR ranks to remain SPEC COMPETITORS, I mean, you get to continue to
deal with all the same CSR folks from SR, just spend 10X the money. For
a car as fast as a FF. (Referencing the report from the Glen.) Hmmmm.
I was hoping a report from Atlanta would say these cars were literally
FLYING, as they have a 5000' runway to achieve terminal velocity, but,
if peak velocity of the SCA equals that of a FF, this SCA is in
BIG TROUBLE in the showroom. Of course, those Glen SCA drivers might be
reluctant to STAND ON IT, as spares might be an issue, and driver
ability has been questioned, but if I just plunked down over $40K for a
racecar, and was at a fast track like the Glen, and my fastest lap was
only as fast as a FF, hell, I'd buy a FF/CF, and use the balance to
finance the WHOLE SEASON of racing. I have not heard anyone say
they would buy a SCA over an S2, EVER. I have NO ambitions of
purchasing a SCA, and CERTAINLY not before I see a performance comparison
between the two classes. Besides, I can't afford it anyhow, but that
would be MY approach. The previous owner of my SR bought an S2, and he
COULD afford either. Hmmmm.
As a chassis builder, SCCA thinks mirrors are for girls. (Reminder,
personal commentary!!) Real MEN don't eat quiche, and therefore, REAL
DRIVERS, turn DOWN their mirrors to INTIMIDATE the competition. The
SR's mirrors provide a panoramic view of the DUCKTAIL, and little more.
I installed 3" extensions two years ago (when it was an illegal
modification) because I couldn't see S*IT. I imagine the SCA is no
different, I mean, hell, the designer wears a COWBOY HAT!!! Designer,
"MIRRORS, WHAT DO YOU MEAN MIRRORS. NOT ON MY GAWD DAMNED RACECAR!!"
I'll refrain from comments about his heart. Another fear, do you think
a letter to SCCA regarding the SCA will REALLY have an impact?? Remember,
SCCA BUILDS this car!! And most of the owners seem to be coming from
the SR ranks, a class noted for developing AGRESSIVE driver tactics as
intimidation is one way in an all-equal class to FORCE your way to the
front. How many SR races have you seen that DID NOT involve car to car
contact somewhere during the race, even if it was only a fender rub??
Do you think I use DuPont Rubbing Compound religiously after every race
to enhance the paint scheme, or rub off the TIRE MARKS??
FAST TRACK Article
We have received your letter, Mr. Glenn Jankowitz.
Please mail us your competition license for unsportsman-like
conduct, (how dare you!) you are fined $200 dollars,
and you will race ONLY in groups that have SCA's for the
remainder of your competitive life. Your license is
suspended for three months. Have a nice day.
ps. We have sent you an AUTOGRAPHED picture of OUR HERO,
CARROLL. Have a nice day.
So, what happens if the SCA is a SLED, both in performance and SALES??
Membership renewal goes from $50/year to $500/year? License renewal
increases 20-fold? I certainly enjoy the fruits of the first exercise
in the "Specification Class" aka "Cookie Cutter" cars, but, the Spec
Racer ANSWERED A NEED for a relatively inexpensive ENTRY-LEVEL class,
that the SCCA could control. Paraphrased; So, how much is a DB-1??
Club Ford exists as a class due to the membership reacting to a FAR
SUPERIOR chassis developed by SWIFT, which, if YOU happen to be the
developer of THAT superior chassis, from a CHASSIS DEVELOPMENT
STANDPOINT, is GOOD BUSINESS. Either you own MY design, or you get to
see the BACK of MY design. Kiss good-bye the PREVIOUS entry-level
class, to the tune of $27.5K (roller). Which leads to; is the SCA
FAR SUPERIOR to its competition?? Hmmmm. I currently know what two
previous SR owners bought; the highly competitive one bought an S2, the
second, not noted for anything more than crashing EVERYWHERE, bought a
SCA. Remember, as an SCCA member, you and I ARE CHASSIS DEVELOPERS, right?
If you can show me the NEED that the SCA is answering, then I might be more
positive about its future. As a current owner of an SR, I have nothing but
GOOD THINGS to say about this class, because it provides a stable platform
at the entry level, is the highest subscribed class, which provides
competition from the lead pack all the way to the back, and is, by
comparison to other classes, relatively safe. A great learning class,
teaching all aspects of racing, at a reasonable cost. Answering a
need within the club racing ranks. A success story. Kind of like a
TIMEX watch; takes a lickin', and keeps on ticking. Also noted for
delivering a lickin', but that's another story.
Ever notice how the Sequel is never as good as the original??
Enter the SCA.
Currently, I fear I will support the SCA FINANCIALLY, as my membership
dues, license fees, entry fees, and more, will increase dramatically as
the membership gets to pay for a mistake, starting with its name,
because it aint no REAL CAN-AM car. If they called it anything else, I
probably would only dislike it, as opposed to, well, if you can't tell
by now....BUY ONE!!! It will save me money in the long run!!!!!
Geez, with all these FEARS, maybe I should seek prefessional HELP!!!!
Or hope SCA's don't end up in MY groupings!!
Or take up checkers, a SAFE SPORT.
OR fall asleep at my desk, because I know I aint gonna be sleeping well
at any event where those SCA's might end up in MY RACE GROUP!!
End personal RANTING AND RAVING commentary.
| |||||
| 225.4 | You mean you don't want them either? | NYTP05::JANKOWITZ | Lost in Wonderland | Wed Oct 10 1990 12:31 | 22 |
The SCAs should be faster than an FF. We were estimating a good driver
should take one around the Glen a little faster than an FC. At the end
of the race they were running about 1 second faster than the first
placed FF so they will be faster.
My concerns weren't about the speed differential but the size and
weight differential. The Atlantics are much faster than the Fords (10
to 15 seconds per lap at WG) but they are about the same size and weigh
the same 1100 pounds and have a similar amount of visibilty. I don't
really want to be out there with something that weighs twice my weight
and can't see me.
There is one thing I found very amusing about the SCA I looked at.
There is a placard by the drivers right arm that says something like
W A R N I N G
This is a high performance race vehicle. It is intended to be used on
specially designed race courses.........
So Bob, does your reply mean that I shouldn't suggest to National that
the SCAs be put in with the SRs?
| |||||
| 225.5 | I've got a similar problem | VANTEN::MITCHELLD | Spin? Who Me? I'm only the driver | Wed Oct 10 1990 12:40 | 8 |
I race kit cars in the U.k. My car weighs 600Kg and has 160-170 Bhp So its no slouch but its on road"ish" tyres ( Max rim width 6") In the same start we have vehicles weighing 1000Kg with 600+Bhp with 9" rims. So in a 10 lap race you are doing very well if you only get lapped once. There is 20% differece in lap times. Frankly its a bit crazy.... | |||||
| 225.6 | ALIEN::MCCULLEY | RSX Pro | Wed Oct 10 1990 13:22 | 1 | |
re .3 - but Bob, please tell us how you *REALLY* feel :-) | |||||
| 225.7 | Fact-Finding Mission | JETSAM::ROTH | Wed Oct 10 1990 14:42 | 18 | |
The author of reply .3 is off on his own FACT FINDING mission to
Road Atlanta, armed with multiple stopwatches, in addition to his
normal flagger's equipment. There is an "Exhibition Race" of OUR
BELOVED Shelby Can-Am's. If, in the hands of experienced pilots at
Road Atlanta, (as opposed to rookies from the Glen) these cars are
NOT CLEARLY FASTER than the Sports 2000's, ............ well, a guess
is you know what will happen........
I will file a report, including lap times, and, if possible, a driver
review, so you know the qualifications of the CHOSEN PILOTS that will
put on this little MARKETING DISPLAY.
OK, so I'm actually leaving Thur. evening!
Bob R.
| |||||
| 225.8 | flying noses | OASS::BURDEN_D | He's no fun, he fell right over | Thu Oct 11 1990 13:50 | 9 |
Tuesday during the SCA practice session there was a problem with the noses coming loose on the cars. Most of the teams had the problem resolved by the practice yesterday. Duct tape sales were pretty high...... I also heard rumors that one fairly respected SCCA driver was offered a drive in an SCA during this week (he's here anyway, racing his normal class) and he turned it down! I will try to the get the particulars tomorrow. Dave | |||||
| 225.9 | Bleeding Noses??? | JETSAM::ROTH | Thu Oct 11 1990 14:28 | 9 | |
Referring to turning down the ride in a < ooooooooo > SCA.
Must have read the PLACARD, which he figured would cause a major
distraction while trying to navigate Road Atlanta. Such as
uncontrollable laughter.
Armed with stopwatch and lap charts,
Bob
| |||||
| 225.10 | Stopwatch Report | JETSAM::ROTH | Mon Oct 22 1990 17:20 | 67 | |
Road Atlanta SCA Stopwatch report: The following classes ran FASTER
than the SCA at Road Atlanta; GT2, FF, S2, DSR, GT1, FC, CSR, and FA.
A listing of the lap times for ALL classes follows. Now, in fairness,
most drivers of the SCAs were in the car for VERY little time, and were
still sorting out the capability of the SCA. The SCA Exhibition race
winner, Bob Lotenberg, has extensive experience in FF.
Where to group the SCA? The following is a listing of the TOP
qualifying or racelap record at Road Atlanta (whichever is fastest):
CAR TYPE TIME SPEED (mph) SESSION
Formula Atlantic 1:18.855 115.047 qual
C Sports Racer 1:21.133 111.816 qual
Formula Continental 1:22.799 109.567 qual
GT1 1:23.073 109.205 qual
D Sports Racer 1:24.319 107.591 race
Sports 2000 1:26.624 104.729 qual
Formula Ford 1:27.426 103.768 race
GT2 1:28.598 102.395 qual
SHELBY CAN-AM 1:28.685 102.280 qual
GT3 1:31.686 98.946 qual
F440 1:34.102 95.560 qual
E Prod 1:35.551 94.944 qual
GT4 1:35.604 94.891 race
F Prod 1:37.042 93.485 race & qual
GT5 1:37.571 92.979 qual
G Prod 1:37.651 92.902 qual
Showroom Stock GT 1:38.601 92.007 qual
Formula V 1:40.359 90.395 qual
Spec Racer 1:43.089 88.020 race
H Prod 1:43.198 87.909 qual
Showroom Stock A 1:45.053 86.356 qual
Showroom Stock B 1:47.782 84.170 qual
Showroom Stock C 1:50.180 82.338 qual
Because groupings are dependent on both entry numbers and potential
vehicle performance, (vehicle weight, braking capability, open or
closed wheel) the SCA is likely to be put into a number of unusual
groupings. At National competition, the SCA will likely be put in the
FA, FC, S2, CSR grouping, based on a good showing from the other classes.
At Regional competition, it will be entry-dependent, and groups with
SCA and FF/CF might continue to happen.
FWIW,
The SCA is powered by a 255hp V6. A professional series is being
discussed, utilizing a 400hp Chevy V6. NASCAR Grand National motors???
With the 400hp motor, top speed is advertised as "in the 200 mph
range."
This should make for great bench-racing discussions over the winter
months, and then watch for the professional series on the racetracks
come next season. Of course, with different motors for each series,
(pro vs. club racing) what you see at a pro race is NOT what you buy!!
My personal recommendation:
SCA GROUPING: GT1,2,3 and SCA. Let 'em run with the BIG IRON, and
leave them FF drivers alone!!!!!! ;*) ;*)
Let the bench-racing continue,
Bob
| |||||
| 225.11 | BEING::MCCULLEY | RSX Pro | Wed Oct 24 1990 17:03 | 24 | |
some interesting info from .10:
CAR TYPE TIME SPEED (mph) SESSION
Formula Atlantic 1:18.855 115.047 qual
C Sports Racer 1:21.133 111.816 qual
Formula Continental 1:22.799 109.567 qual
GT1 1:23.073 109.205 qual
D Sports Racer 1:24.319 107.591 race
Sports 2000 1:26.624 104.729 qual
Formula Ford 1:27.426 103.768 race
GT2 1:28.598 102.395 qual
SHELBY CAN-AM 1:28.685 102.280 qual
That DSR to S2000 comparision is striking! Offhand I'd guess that the
SCA (is that Shelby Can Am or Society for Creative Anachronism?) might
find a couple of seconds with development, but I'm really not sure that
it will find much more than 2 to 3 seconds total - which means it will
probably be about as fast as a Sports 2000 and slower than a DSR? Or
does anybody else have a guesstimate of how much time they may be able
to pick up with development (remember, those cars have had quite a bit
of testing time)?
I agree with Bob, run 'em with the other big iron classes. Maybe we
should make the first pass division by weight (gvw)?
| |||||
| 225.12 | Just curious. Good thing I'm not a cat. | NYTP05::JANKOWITZ | Stock transfer program DECline | Wed Oct 24 1990 19:09 | 7 |
Bob, >> winner, Bob Lotenberg, has extensive experience in FF. Was that Lobenberg? Any idea how many SCAs qualified, started, finished, broke? | |||||
| 225.13 | SCA winner correction | JETSAM::ROTH | Thu Oct 25 1990 13:10 | 37 | |
OOPs. LOBENBERG is the correct name/spelling.
The entry list shows 22 cars entered, but I believe only 19 took
the green flag on Sunday's exhibition race. It appeared that most
drivers were NOT going to chance a questionable pass ANYWHERE, so a
high number of starters finished. Other drivers in the field included:
Bob Gardner, J. Robert Young, R. David Jones, Gary Luterak, David
Daughtery, John Huber, Chris Herr, Terry Jesk, Don Ketter, Ross H.
Francis, Stanley P. Werner, Richard Combs, John K. Freeman, G. Les
Meares, M. D. Rogers, W. Jerry Gillis, Walter Gerhardt, Russell Dirks,
Alan Preston, Vicente Pita.
Any previous knowledge of any of these drivers? Some names look very
familiar, but...
FWIW, the FAtl field has a Robert Young listed, S2 has Ricard Combs, FV
has M.D. Rogers, FC a Ken Gerhardt.
I still say put 'em in with the BIG BOYS!! GT1, GT2, GT3. I will
guarantee the SCA drivers will keep ONE eye in the mirror with THIS
GROUPING!!! (Unlike with FF, CF, FC, etc, etc,)
BTW, in the Marketplace section (page 103) of the Oct. 1990 SportsCar,
a couple of '88 and '89 SWIFT DB-2 Sports2000 are priced in the $26K-$28K
range. Older S2s seem to settle into the $12.5K to $25K range. The
current pricetag for an unassembled SCA is $37.9K, or $39.9K assembled.
IMHO
SCA = Sports Rambo on Steroids
bob
| |||||