Texas Region Input for the Mid-Ohio AI Conference

[tacovini]

(Sorry this is sooo long.)

 

Dear American Iron Racing Nation,

 

With most of the Texas AI/CMC racers unpacking their cars from last weekend’s long distance race in Oklahoma, I wanted to speak on behalf of all of them and ask that you remember us at the National AI Conference at Mid-Ohio this coming weekend.

 

It would be great if there was some sort of agenda going into the meetings (Fri or Sat) and some sort of notes/follow-ups coming out of the meetings for those of us who can’t attend (but are just as passionate about AI racing)!

 

In any case, since the NASA Texas region won’t be represented, I thought I’d post my list of Top 10 issues (and positions on them) as the Texas AI Series Director. We currently have approximately 22 AI cars, 11 CMC and less than a handful AIX cars built and/or being built in the Texas region...in our first year of competition!!! The series is growing exponentially in this region and we have a lot at stake to not be present this weekend.

 

At the risk of being controversial, here is my (our) position on the Top 10 AI Issues if we were going to Mid-Ohio to participate in the AI Convention:

 

1) AIX/AI/CMC- need to always run together. The first step was placing CMC within the American Iron Racing Series. I believe CMC is a feeder series into AI/X. In order to grow, we have to keep “filling the pipe”. CMC is entry level & budget friendly racing which can provide an excellent stepping stone or fallback series to/from AI. Combined series racing allows for greater car counts and better appearances. I’m not opposed to someday changing the CMC name to conform into a base AI series, but the timing is not right just yet for 2005. Each series has its marketing merits on either coast and changing either name during our building years would be detrimental to growth.

 

2) NATIONAL PRESENCE is important. Everyone wants to be a part of something big. I believe the AI/CMC events should be run exactly alike across the country. Consistent and standardized events/products will only help our series. This means everything from # of races, to standing starts, to rules enforcement, to car appearance, to trackside support services and even race recaps & write-ups. I believe better communications between the AI/CMC directors could facilitate that. (I also believe we need to divide the country into four AI regions and call them East, West, North and South.)

 

3) RULES…should only be touched upon this weekend. I believe AI rule changes should be minimized and only where clarification is necessary. Drastic rule changes from year to year are detrimental to the series. I think rules suggestions should go thru the “chain of command” and be presented to the National Directors during the review period by the various regional directors who represent their racer's interests. (Otherwise you guys will have 40 opinions and 40,000 suggestions…there won’t be time for racing! )

 

4) PUBLICITY/ PROMOTIONS…could be stepped up a bit. I think putting our heads together for some constructive input could result in some sort of national magazine marketing campaign which benefits all the AI regions. List of regional events, list of websites, etc. Series sponsors should pay for this and for their efforts be included in the publicity. I would love to see this be a follow-up item for the National office with help from the regions.

 

5) SERIES SPONSORS…is a tough one. I believe series sponsors should benefit racers nationally where practicable. I believe any sponsor dollars should first go to promoting the series and second go to individual contingency dollars in all regions. Promotions benefit everyone; contingency dollars only benefit the usual Top 5 guys. We need to include everyone in the fun and continue growing the series.

 

6) CAR APPEARANCE…I think posting our HP/TQ/WT #’s on the vehicle somewhere for all 3 series AIX/AI/CMC is a good thing. Windshield corner as posted by Richard Pedersen seems to be best bang for the buck. This facilitates enforcement, marketing and competition.

 

7) PRIZE MONEY…should be avoided. I believe NASA’s niche is creating entry level sedan racers. Prize money and large purses will inhibit “the little guys” from entering the sport of road racing. Prize money and large purses will bring in a more cut-throat style of racing that is not what AI is about. Individual racers should only get enjoyment, glory & experience from NASA. I believe it’s a personal responsibility to seek personal prize/contingency money from personal sponsors. (See #4 “Publicity” above which helps this effort.) I see the pecking order of powerful professional sedan racing in the US to be CMC, AI/X, Grand Am Cup and World Challenge. I don’t believe AI/CMC should try to compete with “the other series” television packages and prize monies. Our racers should graduate to those series, not compete with them.

 

8. http://WWW.AMERICANIRONRACING.COM needs to be developed more. I believe similar to the CMC website, it would be great to expand the national AI website to include car/driver pics/bios, regional bulletin boards, etc. The AI website should be where we all go for our info. Eventually, I believe the CMC website should fold under this national website. This website should be nationally supported, not regionally. Right now there are still over 6 websites for AI racers to access information. I believe this fact is keeping the series fractured and preventing the unity of a National series. Again, communication between the regional directors could facilitate this.

 

9) “HOW TO ARTICLES”…I think it’s time to bring back some of the old “How to get started in American Iron Racing” articles and post them to the national website. In addition, CMC's Tony Guaglione and the boys did some “How to build a CMC Mustang and CMC Camaro” articles and made them available for any of the new guys coming in. Same could be done for AI and saves a lot of heartache when the experienced racers can give newbies a list of “Do’s and Don’ts” when preparing a car. We could even impartially list the MM and GR and whomever part #'s as reference to preferred setups and let the racer decide which product he would rather have.

 

10) DIVERSITY...sounds politically correct, but we need a diversity program. Let's face it, AI is primarily a Mustang series. We need to market the F-Body and 60's musclecars more heavily. This could be a source of untapped AI racers. Regional car clubs and vintage racers need to be introduced to AI racing. Where are the Cuda's and AMX's? This can be a national and regional follow-up item to market those groups.

 

BONUS ISSUE.... I’ll leave the Bonus (not "Bone-Us") issue out and let someone else from Texas provide anything I may have left out.

 

I realize not everyone across the country is going to agree with all my positions on the issues, but at least you know our position on them and won't forget us (clap, clap, clap) Deep in the Heart of Texas!

 

(I can't believe I just said that after moving from NorCal just over 2 years ago!)

 

Todd Covini

[Admiral]

NATIONAL PRESENCE:

Must have item IMO.

 

RULES:

I'll second what Todd said about rules. I've built my car, now I hope to enjoy it for several years at least. The major costs have been dealt with and it was expensive getting to this point, now I want to have some confidence that there won't be major changes forthcoming that might either a.) cause me to have to spend more or b.) cause a drastic change in the car's current performance. Right now I know most of us are trying to get a budget that works and makes sense, if rules changes can impact that significantly you'll be putting a huge variable in a racer's planning that can't be foreseen. While I also can see Todd's point about 40 opinions, I feel that any changes being considered MUST be put up for discussion by the competitors so that the Directors can receive feedback PRIOR to making the change. I feel this should be done with ALL changes, not just the major ones.

 

PUBLICITY/PROMOTIONS:

Where is it? When talking to a potential sponsor they want to see demographics and advertising items not race results. Need a little help here.

 

WEBSITE:

Got to get all this together in location that is updated regularly. I totally agree with Todd's input on this item.

 

You guys have a great recipe for fun, the SCCA isn't going to sit around and let it drain their pool much longer, a few tweaks here and there and NASA keeps gaining momentum!

[mwilson7]

Todd,

 

Many feel the same way you do but unfortunately I don't think little changes will accomplish what you want. It's completely understandable that you guys aren't attending the event but it would be nice to have the Texas chapter represented in person.

 

I agree about CMC being incorporated into AI/X but from what I have seen it honestly hasn't happened and probably won't. I've never really heard why this isn't easy to accomplish but I can only guess that it's because NASA doesn't own CMC and it does own AI/X. Pure speculation but from what I've been able to determine that probably has something to do with it.

 

All you other points are very valid and hopefully we will have some discussion around these items as well as a few others.

 

I will say one thing about the rules. Right now the rules are so wide open in many areas that I don't think people realize just what can be done under them. The vast majority of cars participating in AI/X are ex-open track cars turned into race cars which typically don't maximize the rules to the fullest. What happens when these cars start showing up?

[Sidney]

I'd like to hear the pro's on Standing Starts! This sounds like a good way to tear up stuff. I'm going road racing...not drag racing.

 

Sidney Franklin

Bloomington, IL

'89 Firebird #64

[Jim P.]

10) DIVERSITY...sounds politically correct, but we need a diversity program. Let's face it, AI is primarily a Mustang series. We need to market the F-Body and 60's musclecars more heavily. This could be a source of untapped AI racers. Regional car clubs and vintage racers need to be introduced to AI racing. Where are the Cuda's and AMX's? This can be a national and regional follow-up item to market those groups.

 

I too would like to see more diversity, possibly a AI/H - for American Iron Historic (pre 1979), many of the older cars are just not as competitive with late model engineering, and if we are going to attract those racers to the track we need to provide them with a level playing field, that's what attracts racers to AI is the open rules, so we need to provide a venue for the older cars to compete.

 

 

Note: The above post is as a fellow AI racer and NOT as a regional director.

[Adam Ginsberg]

I'd like to hear the pro's on Standing Starts! This sounds like a good way to tear up stuff. I'm going road racing...not drag racing.

 

Sidney Franklin

Bloomington, IL

'89 Firebird #64

 

Sidney -

 

It's hard to describe a standing start until you do one. Quite simply, IMO, they are the only way to start an AI/X-CMC race. ~20 V8 powered cars on the grid, all wrapping the throttle, waiting for the green flag to drop.

 

It's all about presentation - during our event this past weekend @ Hallett, there was easily ~75 folks out, watching our starts. We were the only group to do them.

 

IMO, I don't think it's any harder on the car then everything else we do.

[Frank Corkran]

I'd like to hear the pro's on Standing Starts! This sounds like a good way to tear up stuff. I'm going road racing...not drag racing.

 

I second that. I managed to open track an '83 Mustang with the original 7.5" rear and non-WC T5 for 15 years and 175k miles because I *never* did a drag style launch. And I'm only on the second clutch at 227k. While the 8.8 rear and Tremec I'll be running are a lot stronger, I see no reason to abuse the equipment to provide a "better show" for a few non-paying spectators. I'll worry about that if I ever race in a series where the fans pay for my racing. I have no illusions about becoming a professional racer. If I did I'd be looking elsewhere.

 

The thought of accelerating hard through the lower gears, only to have traffic part to reveal a stalled car directly in front of me cancels any desire for a brief thrill. For those who believe they'll always start near the front, the thought of *being* that stalled car isn't any better.

 

Whenever someone calls for standing starts, I think of Matt Bookler's totalled Honda. Or the usual F1 start carnage. Just doesn't seem like a good risk/reward tradeoff to me. I wouldn't try an AI "pass in the grass" manuever at Loews, either.

[Adam Ginsberg]

Frank - don't take this the wrong way, but OT'ing a car, and actually racing it door to door aren't even the same thing.

 

Comparing the two is like comparing a floor tile to a hot air balloon. 'nuff said.

 

It's all about car and driver management.

Edited August 18, 2004 by Guest

[spunout50]

I'm currently building my car and I just have a few comments. Hopefully, a point of view from someone still on the outside has some merit here.

 

#2,3 National Presence, Rules: standardization nationally seems like a must for the integrity of the series. The thought of racing outside of my region is very

appealling and having different rule sets would only hinder that. I don't actually know if you can do that as far as points goes for your series, but to race on different tracks sounds exciting.

 

#8 Website: very good idea to consolidate. I found it very confusing in

the beginning. The idea of pics/bios is great and can only help some of what I say in #9. Some of the NASA-East bios gave me the incling to go forward with the direction of my car. The video clips are really cool too.

 

#9 How-to's: This would be great for any upstart person. Putting it into

a pregression type format might help also. i.e. show the individual what

it takes to start HPDE's and go from there. I know a lot of that is in

the rules, but it still can seem daunting. Especially when the rules encourage you to do some modification, but you find that most haven't. I'm sure you could even point them to forums like CC's for help and/or links to threads. I have yet to attend an HPDE event and can only imagine how much I'd learn from seeing an actual race and from looking at the cars. My problem has been fitting these into my family schedule. I know seat time is key and I attend OT events as much as I

can, but I still feel my car needs to progress if I ever plan on racing.

 

Thanks,

Jeff LaPlante

OH/IN region

[johnbasf]

Frank - don't take this the wrong way, but OT'ing a car, and actually racing it door to door aren't even the same thing.

 

Comparing the two is like comparing a floor tile to a hot air balloon. 'nuff said.

 

It's all about car and driver management.

 

Please explain this Adam?

[nasaracer32]

It's all about presentation - during our event this past weekend @ Hallett, there was easily ~75 folks out, watching our starts. We were the only group to do them.

 

IMO, I don't think it's any harder on the car then everything else we do.

 

Right, and most of, if not all of the 75 were waiting for someone to get mowed over. Standing starts look cool yes, but they do beat up your car a lot more on takeoff. One of these days, I am afraid someone may get hurt or a car torn up because of them. I personally am not in favor of them. Plus, some guys out there have smaller clutches that can make a car tricky to get rolling sometimes. After all, these aren't drag cars like they said.

Edited August 18, 2004 by Guest

[nasaracer32]

I too would like to see more diversity, possibly a AI/H - for American Iron Historic (pre 1979), many of the older cars are just not as competitive with late model engineering, and if we are going to attract those racers to the track we need to provide them with a level playing field, that's what attracts racers to AI is the open rules, so we need to provide a venue for the older cars to compete.

 

Jim has a good idea here and I agree with him. I know some of the guys that race the earlier cars have talked about it before.

 

The above post is as a fellow AI racer and NOT as a regional director.

 

Can you still do that?

[racercosmo]

Standing starts aren't hard on the car?

 

 

For those that didn't see it, that was from the Speed Touring Car race at Sears Point. One car stalled, got hit from behind by someone that also got hit from behind. The car in the middle ended up on his lid. By the wya, all three cars were on the same team.

[JWL]

Here are a few answers to some of the questions above.

 

> Why don’t AI and CMC always run together and always use the identical format for each race?

 

In some regions they do, in some they don’t. We’ve tried time and time again to get everyone to see the light and run the series together, but there were threats to quit/leave/race somewhere else if we tried to force the issue, so we gave up for this year. The series ownership has nothing to do with the current state of affairs. We’ll try yet again to synch things up for 2005, but no promises as I don’t know if can get people to work together and I don’t want to have to hammer folks hard to get it done. Again, we’ll try to integrate more for 2005, but this all depends on whether people want to work together or not. I like the idea of all three classes running together, but it’s going to require compromise to work.

 

As to using identical starts, races, and format, this is nearly impossible as each region has unique challenges with the schedule at each event and I don’t want to take the flexibility to swap things around from my directors. I’d like to see this, but again it will be nearly impossible given the diversity that already exists, the need for flexibility, and people’s reluctance to change what they’re already doing. I think the posts above are an excellent example of the issues you face if you try to switch stuff around and this is only regarding the start of the race and not all the other issues!

 

> Why isn’t NASA putting AI on TV and buying ads in major magazines?

 

Simple. No money. We aren’t sitting on a pile of cash in the national office. We have tried to keep membership and license fees low, so the profit margins are pretty thin. We’re running things as skinny as we can in order to keep growing, so there is simply no cash to spend on a bunch of advertising right now. We’ve tried to get some backing to allow us to do more things, but we’ve failed, as no one seems receptive to our advances, has no budget to do anything, or wants stuff we can’t give them. We have some wonderful programs in place to directly benefit the racers, but there’s no big cash to do anything else. The business is growing at a remarkable rate, but we’re not going to be foolish and spend it into oblivion to get some exposure that may or may not yield returns. As to the suggestion that we hire someone to go find the money, we don’t want to pay a marketing firm an insane amount unless they will guarantee results or get paid from a cut of whatever they bring in. Been there, done that, wasted a bunch of time and money. No marketing guy or firm seems interested in such a deal based on his or her performance (everyone wants a guaranteed payday whether they fail or succeed), so here we are. The bottom line is that we can’t spend $100K on TV coverage for a weekend (yep, that’s what it costs) or $25K per year on magazine ads if we can’t fund it from outside and we haven’t found that outside funding yet. So, we have the coverage we get now for AI in nearly every ponycar magazine and the TV exposure that pops up on Spike every now and then until we find a way to do more.

 

> What’s the rule making process?

 

Same as last year. We’ll start a thread here where we can bat things around and then the directors will work on deciding what the rules will be for 2005. The trip to Mid Ohio will also be helpful as we look over cars other than the ones we see all the time and see what people are interested in. There will not be a group vote on what does and doesn’t get in there, so do your best to convince us that your change or suggestion makes sense. If you’re interested in helping, let us know about any loopholes you’ve found so that we can work together to close them and stabilize the ruleset. So, look for a new thread on rules after we get back from Mid Ohio and we’ll get things finalized by October or so like last year. I agree with Mike that the rules should become nearly static so that people can build to a known standard, but there will always have to be changes when someone builds a better mousetrap that’s two seconds faster because of something we didn’t think of. As to the rules and other processes in CMC, they have a board that works well on the rules and other issues in that class, so there’s no reason to mess with it as they’re doing a fine job.

 

> How about some how-to articles?

 

Great idea! I’d talked about this with a contact at Mustang Enthusiast and it’s an excellent project. Now I just have to find some time to start writing the damn thing…

 

> We need more forums (?)

 

I think we've got the forum thing covered and we're not going to add more. A link to this forum should work fine and we can discuss everything here instead of on 8 different boards. Creating more forums is just going to create more confusion. It is true, though, that the main site could use some more shine, but again it's a question of time, money, and resources. Our web guy is booked solid for the next few months on critical stuff, so it's hard to get time for him to work on projects like this. Ideas to fix it up are welcome.

 

So, that’s what is on my mind as I read this thread and that’s where we’re headed. I hope this allays some fears and rekindles a bit of the excitement for AI. Lord knows I’m still a huge fan of this monster we’ve created and I am looking forward to growing it even bigger as the years pass. Off to Mid-Ohio!

 

-JWL

[Adam Ginsberg]

Standing starts aren't hard on the car?

 

Where did I say standing starts weren't hard on a car, Cos? Don't play word games...what I said was:

 

IMO, I don't think it's any harder on the car then everything else we do.

 

The picture you posted from the TC race is a good example of a mistake during a standing start. Not to make excuses, but that was a very unique incident.

 

This accident in Mashouf's car was done at speed:

 

 

Looks worse than the BMW image you posted.

 

John - to clarify my earlier statement about car and driver management......if the driver doesn't manage the launch, there's gonna be trouble. IMO, it's no different then entering T10 @ SPIR, hanging the rear out too far ( driver not managing the car properly ), and sliding into that ever present wall.

 

Car and driver management. Kapeesh?

[mwilson7]

Here are a few answers to some of the questions above.

 

 

> Why isn’t NASA putting AI on TV and buying ads in major magazines?

 

The bottom line is that we can’t spend $100K on TV coverage for a weekend (yep, that’s what it costs) or $25K per year on magazine ads if we can’t fund it from outside and we haven’t found that outside funding yet. So, we have the coverage we get now for AI in nearly every ponycar magazine and the TV exposure that pops up on Spike every now and then until we find a way to do more.

 

-JWL

 

Not to create conflict here but somehow the HC guys have managed to work a deal and get their race televised on Speed TV. In the discussions we had last year around VIR it was going to cost about $20k to get the VIR race taped, edited and aired. I understand it's still a lot of money but still quite a bit less than $100k. They also seem to have regular ads in GRM. Anyone know how they are able to do that?

 

As to the rules and other processes in CMC, they have a board that works well on the rules and other issues in that class, so there’s no reason to mess with it as they’re doing a fine job.

 

Why doesn't AI have a board? Wasn't there talk of creating one earlier this year?

[donovan]

Standing Starts...

 

This is my first year in American Iron and Racing... (read: Rookie)

 

In all the races that I have run so far in the Texas region they have all been rolling starts approx. 8 starts... this past weekend at Hallett I was able to run my first standing start and we did a total of three...

 

I loved it, and wish we could do it at all the tracks... I have no Tech/Facts... this is just my personal opinion...

 

My personal thoughts on it... my racecar was not strained anymore from those starts than it was from climbing up T9 (the bitch) or T2(stop sign).

 

David Donovan

[nasaracer32]

> Why don’t AI and CMC always run together and always use the identical format for each race?

 

In some regions they do, in some they don’t. We’ve tried time and time again to get everyone to see the light and run the series together, but there were threats to quit/leave/race somewhere else if we tried to force the issue, so we gave up for this year.

 

John -

 

I agree with you that it is better to have CMC run with AI/X. Since you guys are the national execs, can't you just say 'hey, run them together. This is how it is going to be"? Granted, I don't know the ins and outs of how all of this works, but it seems like that would set the standard for the groups to run together. You would have my support in making that call.

[JWL]

Will-

 

We can do that, but it would make people mad and I prefer trying to get people to work together rather than laying the hammer. We'll see how it works out. Thanks for the support and hopefully this will be how everyone thinks as we go forward.

 

Mark-

 

$20K was what it cost just to turn the cameras on according to what Dan told me. Editing would cost a pile, voiceovers would be more, and then airtime on Speed is also spendy. We spent around $10K just to produce the Full Throttle TV show we did and we did all the production and post production ourselves which involved 100+ hours of work. It aired once on local cable late at night and the airtime was still the biggest expense. I am somewhat in the dark on the HC deal as I just found out about it Monday, so it will be interesting to see how they did this and perhaps learn something. I also don't know how they did the GRM ad, but this is something else I can talk about them with this weekend.

 

As to the advisory board, I don't know if this will happen or not. After all the controversy and headaches this year, I am not confident a board will solve anything and perhaps only create more animosity and turmoil. We'll discuss this weekend and see what looks reasonable.

 

I'm out of here to go catch a plane. See you at Mid-O!

 

-JWL

[Adam Ginsberg]

Not to create conflict here but somehow the HC guys have managed to work a deal and get their race televised on Speed TV. In the discussions we had last year around VIR it was going to cost about $20k to get the VIR race taped, edited and aired. I understand it's still a lot of money but still quite a bit less than $100k. They also seem to have regular ads in GRM. Anyone know how they are able to do that?

 

Mark - do you know when it's going to be aired ( unless it already has )?

 

BTW - good luck @ Mid-O guys. Wish we were going to be there!

[mwilson7]

I'm not sure when they are going to air the piece but the camera's were there capturing the HC action the whole weekend. They definitely seemed to have their act together!

 

It is probably most appropriate for JWL to post the results from Saturday nights AI meeting. I thought it was a good meeting with quite a bit of discussion taking place over a wide variety of topics.

 

The racing was great on both days with EXTREMELY close times being laid down by a large majority of the field. There were quite a number of DQ's (including myself) due to being over the HP/Weight ratio which brought up a discussion of just how much variation is there from dynojet to dynojet. This is an issue which will come up more and more as people start dialing in their cars. My advise is if you build a new car make sure it is COMPLETELY broken in before you dyno it.

[Admiral]

It is probably most appropriate for JWL to post the results from Saturday nights AI meeting. I thought it was a good meeting with quite a bit of discussion taking place over a wide variety of topics.

 

OK, so where are the results from the meeting/discussion? JWL?

[JWL]

Mike-

 

I didn't write anything down as the meeting was pretty informal and I figured I would just implement the things that were discussed. Main things were adding tech bulletins to nasaforums to explain some technical rule questions, clarifying the rule interpretation process, and working to improve communications. We did talk over some technical things, but not at a level that would be much different than a bunch of gearheads bench racing over dinner.

 

-JWL

[Admiral]

JWL, thanks for the response. I guess for those of us who didn't make it we thought it was going to be a big rules discussion type meeting. I see you've opened up the channels here on the forums for such a discussion so we'll get to chime in and read as well. Thanks for the help and guidance!