2008 Rules-Comment Period Open

[JWL]

Folks-

 

If you have comments or suggested changes for the 2008 rules, please send them to me here via PM or to my e-mail as listed on the NASA National site. We will accept comments until 10/8/07 and then work towards a release date of 10/31/07.

 

Thanks.

 

-JWL

[racercosmo]

I have a radical rules idea.

 

 

 

Leave them alone for a year.

[Ultimate Altima]

Agreed.

[LMan]

I have a radical rules idea.

 

 

 

Leave them alone for a year.

 

 

 

 

 

blasphemy!

 

 

 

"She's a witch, burn her!!!" -- M. Python

[Pat L.]

Jerico's and dry sumps in AI.

 

[Grizlbits]

1. Non- DOT tires for AIX (slicks) The AIX cars should be more spread out with AI anyway. OR: use Toyos as the spec tire to level competition. Those who do not run the spec tire can run in SU.

 

2. Allow removal of floor in AIX between the frame rails from the behind the main hoop if a metal fire wall is present to seal driver compartment. This will cut the BS of hoses for coolers, fuel, wires from being cut when going through the floor and such with grommets. It also makes the cars easier to maintain, and inspect. Most of the Fords have enough rust holes to make this easy anyway.

[Pat L.]

Chris, good idea on the rear floorpan removal. One huge benefit would be that cars built to world challenge spec would be able to race in AIX. Should help boost the number of entrants!

[Red Tornado]

Power to Weight- allow average of both peak numbers to be above 9.25 to 1 (taking 9.5 and 9 current rules and just using straight avg.)

 

Allows more engine combo's and could allow some folks to go for a little more hp than trq and others to build more trq than hp.

 

Otherwise you will continue to have folks spend alot of money on a combo that maxes both instead of building what they want with what they have and allowing a little trade off.

 

Could also make for even more exciting racing as folks have slightly different combo's and tradeoff's.

[Jeff F]

Power to Weight- allow average of both peak numbers to be above 9.25 to 1 (taking 9.5 and 9 current rules and just using straight avg.)

Been there, done that, denied, thread locked: http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=11548

 

Must we go through this again?

 

Related subject: Let's put each proposal in a unque thread like we did last year; "2007 Rules:Blah, Blah, Blah"

[Red Tornado]

With 8 pages of comments it must have some rationale.

 

Just means more money spent for those us with DOHC motors whose engine never has a chance of having the peak trq number and a flat curve.

 

How else can I catch the 4th place car.

 

That GT-40 aluminum 351 may be calling but would really rather not spend the money to do that.

[Jeff F]

How else can I catch the 4th place car.

Well, if your big-HP Mod Motor didn't make so much power, you wouldn't have had to start from the back. (I played it safe and was 250# heavy post-race, so no whining will be accepted!)

[Frank Corkran]

The entire torque limit rule is based on a touchy-feely argument that ignores the fact that hp and torque (especially the torque number calculated from hp and engine rpm by the dynojet) are related by gearing - which we are allowed to change to suit our engine power bands. And why do we do that? Because it's mathematically proven (and empirically, for those who hate math - Jeff, I know you've read the various threads) that our cars will accelerate fastest at any given speed by being in a gear that allows us to operate at peak engine hp instead of peak engine torque (in a taller gear). For a fixed tire diameter, maximizing acceleration requires maximizing torque at the wheel - which is not the torque number on a dyno sheet. Since torque at the wheel is hp x gearing, that always occurs by running at a gear ratio that allows max hp , not max engine torque. Just ask any CVT engineer why they program the transmission to maintain the engine at peak hp instead of peak torque for maximum acceleration. Doesn't matter if you make 300 hp at 8000 rpm with a 200 lb-ft torque peak or 300 hp at 4000 rpm with a 400 lb-ft torque peak. Gear each optimally for the combo and both cars will accelerate the same.

 

Jeff, to answer your remark from a while back that "it's not fair - you could have infinite torque at zero rpm", let me use an answer you gave someone not long ago in one of these forums: "That just means you built a better motor than the next guy". If I could build the motor you're worried about in real life, I'd be too busy selling the technology to every engine builder/designer/manufacturer/racer to compete in AI anyway. But I'd offer a fat NASA contingency for using it.

 

The reason I dislike the torque limit (and where exactly did this magically fair 9:1 number come from?) is because it rules out the possibility to build a high torque, low rpm, low cost, high reliability motor (especially a Ford) that addresses the problems so many have complained about on this forum. Cracked blocks? Broken cranks? Dropped valves? $6000 and up motors to make 300+ hp every few years (or in some cases far more often)? I know Jeff, you've been quite lucky and successful with your combo. Glad to hear it, good job and congratulations. Doesn't mean the choices should be limited to your combo or the mega-dollar route.

 

Naturally, I'm somewhat passionate about this because I chose to go with my ultra-mild, low rpm 351W combo (because I already had it in my daily driver) just before the torque rule suddenly appeared. That was before this fine open public discussion on potential new rules. With the number of cracked blocks and broken cranks I've seen this year just in MA region, I'm happy I traded a little extra nose weight for the ruggedness of the 351W block/crank run at low rpm. Not too hard to keep from dropping valves at low revs either. Sure, if I had the resources I'd probably build myself a killer Boss block motor with all the unobtainium bits to live at high rpm, but that's not going to happen. One of the things I liked about AI was that it appeared to allow folks to arrive at a competitive car through many different approaches. In particular, this allowed folks to start with what they had and tweak it to be competetive rather than requiring everyone to go have "the" car built by a top shop. You know, like so many of the race classes in the "other" group? The torque rule appears to limit that without any valid justification except to comfort some people who believe in "common wisdom" such as "hp wins on the dyno but torque wins the race". Even the 410 Sprint car guys around here know better - and they only get to change rear gears to suit the track - no transmissions.

 

OK, I feel better now that I got that off my chest. Carry on.

[trackboss]

There used to be a very vague rule for engine location in AI. I cannot seem to locate it in the rules, and I never remember it being eliminated. Can someone point it out to me?

thanks,

-V

[Ultimate Altima]

*hijack Warning*

What's so good about the jerico that you'd be willing to lose a gear or 2 and spend so much more money, unless it also comes in 5 or 6 speed versions, then I could see it.

[b_tone]

Please for the love of god can we please not change any rules this year for the sake of continuity and common sense?

[nape]

Please for the love of god can we please not change any rules this year for the sake of continuity and common sense?

 

Agreed, especially not a motor rule. They're too expensive to make it a moving target. I built a 305 to satisfy the rules for a light car, I'd be quite pissed if the rules change and I could've built a 350.

[horsewidower]

I'm just about ready to get my $hit wagon on the track. Leave it alone for a year.

 

Bob

[Paul Bird]

2. Allow removal of floor in AIX between the frame rails from the behind the main hoop if a metal fire wall is present to seal driver compartment. This will cut the BS of hoses for coolers, fuel, wires from being cut when going through the floor and such with grommets. It also makes the cars easier to maintain, and inspect. Most of the Fords have enough rust holes to make this easy anyway.

I am all for this as well. Given that many of us have batteries, exhaust(2), three links, dry sump tanks, etc. potruding through the stock sheetmetal anyway, it would seem to me that this is a safer option and much easier to rule on. On my own car I will have clearances cut for all of the above (except the three link) as well as the driveshaft which basically bisects the entire area. All that I have remaining of this area is the equivalent of a 'G' string of stock sheet metal that winds around all of these elements.

 

I like the way Chris phrased it as well. Something like "Floorpan modifications are unlimited behind the main hoop in AIX as long as the frame rails and rear shock towers remain."

[mikef]

I second that motion, leave the engine rules alone.......unless you want to grant the 4 cyls something to make them competitive, or raise the V8 min weight back up.

[marshallmosty]

I'd also vote for no rule changes for AI. Seemed like this year flowed pretty well (at least in Texas).

 

 

For AIX, I think Chris and Paul have good points regarding their floor pan. It's the "Extreme" class. Let them get extreme with their cutoff wheel.

[onralz]

Just to clarify, should the changes be put in this thread, or pm'ed to JWL? I've got a couple of very small suggestions and neither of them relate to HP to weight. Something for all to consider. Nationals. How close was it, which cars "seemed" to have an advantage, how hard was it for the officials and race drivers in impound, how close was the racing, how many DNF's did we have and why, etc.

Random thoughts.

The class is building. The speeds are increasing. We are all having fun.

 

Is the class going to be too expensive to race in? My opinion, not at this time but it certainly could be.

 

One thing I'd like to state for the record about the power rules is simply that if we don't have dyno's at the tracks, we might as well not have the rule in my opinion. It was there at Nat's and that was good, but I didn't see it anywhere else this year.

 

The rules that the class has have to be easily enforceable by the officials. If they aren't, then something needs to be addressed.

[JWL]

Mark-

 

Folks are free to discuss things here, but all requests for the directors to consider should be PM'ed or e-mailed to me.

 

Thanks.

 

-JWL

[Red Tornado]

After thinking more about it I am all for no changes at all.

 

Yes personally the power to weight thing kills when you run a dohc but I did fine anyway and next year I will run 50lbs heavier and actually not pop the hood and let the car cool down for an hour and half before the dyno impound run.

 

Leasoned learned for me.

[99cobra2881]

With 8 pages of comments it must have some rationale.

 

Just means more money spent for those us with DOHC motors whose engine never has a chance of having the peak trq number and a flat curve.

 

How else can I catch the 4th place car.

 

That GT-40 aluminum 351 may be calling but would really rather not spend the money to do that.

 

With all the doubt associated with the Ford modular motors it makes the day I get mine on the dyno seem like a sure dissapointment that's just waiting to happen. I wonder if I just spent my $$ on a back marker. What kind of HP is the average for an AIX car this year?

[Red Tornado]

The dohc cars are wonderful the issue is they will nver make a smooth fat torque curve. They aren't non competitive I don't beleive just not as easily comeptitive and be prepared to do alot of shifting.

I was shifting like a crazy man during nationals goiing from 2nd to 3rd and back to 2nd in the whole back section.