robbodleimages Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 I am not sure the attitude is necessary. The new tires are wider than the old tires. They are wider on the rims and wider unmounted. How much wider may be different after being mounted, but they are wider. Personally, I have not asked for a specific adjustment because I am not providing specific numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nape Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Hey no rule changes are great for the ford guys........ but lets do a few changes for the GM's. Lower the Hp/Tq ratio! I don't want to do an ls1 swap either! Stop crying ford guys! The new pony cars are going to need this, an ls2 makes to much hp for AI! 17x11's with 315's, they bolt right on my car .... If you want to race on a budget go to CMC! Whoa whoa whoa. How about we get some practical experience with the new cars before we start changing rules for them? Lowering the ratios makes no sense either. You might not have experienced it yet, John, but there's a reason that Randy in SoCal and I are looking at going to 9" rears for next year. These 7.5" rears are timebombs. Good luck putting even more HP through them. Ask Randy about the Viper internals in his T56 too. That wasn't cheap either. As far as running 315 steam rollers, cut some weight out of that car and you'll be amazed at the difference. And about running on a budget, if you want the sky to be the limit, run AIX. By the rules, you can already run $3000 sets of wheels, $6000+ worth of shocks, and basically anything else you want to spend money on. We don't need to make it any bigger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehawkclone Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Hey no rule changes are great for the ford guys........ but lets do a few changes for the GM's. Lower the Hp/Tq ratio! I don't want to do an ls1 swap either! Stop crying ford guys! The new pony cars are going to need this, an ls2 makes to much hp for AI! 17x11's with 315's, they bolt right on my car .... If you want to race on a budget go to CMC! Whoa whoa whoa. How about we get some practical experience with the new cars before we start changing rules for them? Lowering the ratios makes no sense either. You might not have experienced it yet, John, but there's a reason that Randy in SoCal and I are looking at going to 9" rears for next year. These 7.5" rears are timebombs. Good luck putting even more HP through them. Ask Randy about the Viper internals in his T56 too. That wasn't cheap either. As far as running 315 steam rollers, cut some weight out of that car and you'll be amazed at the difference. And about running on a budget, if you want the sky to be the limit, run AIX. By the rules, you can already run $3000 sets of wheels, $6000+ worth of shocks, and basically anything else you want to spend money on. We don't need to make it any bigger. My 7.5 seem to be good after 4yrs of beatings(knocking on wood) I think you mean Randy from NorCal, he's making 500rwhp. My t56 has a 120t miles on it(still knocking) I picked AI, I run $550 for all 4 wheels and my shocks are under $2000. TJ you know my lt1 doesn't run at high rpm's, and the few changes that would help it puts it way out side the Hp box for the weight everybody else runs. You also know a 4th gen will never weigh what 3rd gen/ fox will. S197 got 18's, why not ask for 315's for a 4th gen This is all a mute point though..... the powers will not alllow these types of changes for a 4th gen since there is only a few of us. And they are all mustang people. It doesn't hurt to ask though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadracetransam Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 How about giving some breaks for the GM guys. It would encourage participation from us the other brand. The last few years has turned AI into an almost all mustang show. Since it is all mustangs all the time there is no contingency or part support which makes fielding a GM hard. But on the other hand without GM's running in AI, it is impossible for the race directors to offer anything in return. So how about 9.0:1 for both TQ and HP for 4th gen GM's, since their stock power trains seem to make matching HP and TQ numbers, which are right at 9:1 at AI weight. Also to encourage new guys to run AI, how about open tire brand for rookies. No slicks but any DOT R compound that you may already have on the car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizlbits Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 I think the guys from California should write their suggestions before polishing off the two bottles of wine next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST#97 Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 I'm not smoking anything, but you must be if you think it's reasonable to request a rule change until you have actually mounted a tire on rim and checked it on your car. yes, I see your point but I don't want to foot the bill for buying tires/wheels that might end up getting marked as "non-compliant" next year. Sure I could use them for DE's when I instruct, but budgets are getting tighter and I would rather spend money on entry fees rather than parts. How about to end any ambiquity going forward we say we are sticking with a 9.5" max rim width and are staying with 275's as the max tire width so the parts list is fixed, then those who have those parts now can chime in what track width they end up with that clears suspension components and works for each platform. I already realize I am going to have to buy all new rims at this point to run a 275 R888, but without knowing the new target track width, I am blindly guessing at offsets and potentially pissing money away. Here is my math. I currently have 3/8" sidewall clearance to my coil over with RA1's. with 3/4" additional tire width, I lose the 3/8" clearance, and gain 3/8" in track width per side. so to gain back that 3/8" clearance at a minimum, I would add a total of 3/4" per side to track width. I am currently at 72.5", so that puts me at 74" of track width on 9" rims. Taking into account another 1/4" per side with a 9.5" rim, that would put me at or near 74.5". So, can we propose a 74.5" max track width for SN95 stangs? And, add 1.5" for the other platforms to be fair, IF they have the same clearance issues? F-bodies are already at 74" and I am not sure I like the idea of 75.5" for them...and I am sort of worried that my car will not fit on my trailer at that track width! Foxes I understand are hosed with fender clearance but that is a cutoff wheel or some flares which are relatively cheap. You asked for numbers, so there are some numbers that haven't cost me a dime. Anyone else have any numbers yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadracetransam Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 I think the guys from California should write their suggestions before polishing off the two bottles of wine next time. It doesn't hurt to ask. This is the forum to ask.... right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nape Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Anyone else have any numbers yet? F-bodies are already 75.5" max. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadracetransam Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Anyone else have any numbers yet? F-bodies are already 75.5" max. So to be fair 77" for the f-body. That should put even more stress on the hubs, which are already a weak point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic_Cobra Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 (edited) already said. Edited October 1, 2008 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic_Cobra Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 yea...found the tape measure. the car and the tires are out of state right now and the tape measure isn't the missing part of the equation. don't believe me. Ive seen the two sets stacked side by side. Ive also, as I said, have loaded the tires left to right across the bed of my truck. I was able to fit 6 RA1's and only 5 R888's. Good thing I'm getting ready to buy a bigger truck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic_Cobra Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 How about giving some breaks for the GM guys. It would encourage participation from us the other brand. The last few years has turned AI into an almost all mustang show. Since it is all mustangs all the time there is no contingency or part support which makes fielding a GM hard. But on the other hand without GM's running in AI, it is impossible for the race directors to offer anything in return.So how about 9.0:1 for both TQ and HP for 4th gen GM's, since their stock power trains seem to make matching HP and TQ numbers, which are right at 9:1 at AI weight. Also to encourage new guys to run AI, how about open tire brand for rookies. No slicks but any DOT R compound that you may already have on the car. Is this series dominated (I mean car counts, not wins) by Mustangs because they are popular, cheaper, or faster? I don't think loosening the rules for GM cars is the solution. And besides what's wrong with all the Mustangs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 F-Bodies have more trackwidth allowance, an SLA from the factory, a torque-arm from the factory, and have an aluminum block from the factory. I'd *assume* they also have better aero (although I have not seen any tunnel data). Sounds like a pretty good set of advantages out of the box already..... As far as I've seen, there has not been a "fully" prepared F-Body car around yet - at least not one that I've seen. On paper, with equivalent preparation time and effort, the Fox platform is probably the WORST platform in AI/X. IMHO, it does as well as it does for two reasons - because lots of people have them (and are willing to write them off as a racecar), and because they're cheap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadracetransam Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 F-Bodies have more trackwidth allowance, an SLA from the factory, a torque-arm from the factory, and have an aluminum block from the factory. I'd *assume* they also have better aero (although I have not seen any tunnel data). Sounds like a pretty good set of advantages out of the box already..... As far as I've seen, there has not been a "fully" prepared F-Body car around yet - at least not one that I've seen. On paper, with equivalent preparation time and effort, the Fox platform is probably the WORST platform in AI/X. IMHO, it does as well as it does for two reasons - because lots of people have them (and are willing to write them off as a racecar), and because they're cheap. I guess that is why they do well in CMC, since CMC is pretty much (kind of) out of the box. There is little out of the box in AI. I guess AI is for people thinking out of the box. One would assume that there was more model variety in AI due to thinking out of the box. Speaking of boxes that reminds me. I got to find a box to ship back the battery cut off switch that went sour. I felt pretty boxed in when it broke. At least it was easy to remove it since it was not near the battery box. You guys don't want to hear about my box issues. I certainly don't want to get into a boxing match over being off topic. I will not mention any more boxes any more. OK, may be one more............. box...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
47car Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Lets make rules that make AI cheaper to run and cheaper to build a car for!!!!!! We need more cars in AI right? More cars equals more competition which equals more fun and more exposure. That would equal more sponsorship $ for the racers as well. Lets make it easier and cheaper for someone to make the step to AI. If a guy feels that he needs to spend an incredible amount of money to feel like he has competitive equipment he will be far more unlikely to go for it. I am open to almost anything but here are some suggestions........ 1. Leave the carbon and fiberglass for AIX. All steel bodywork for AI. Flares OK.(this would suck for my car personally but I think it would be best for everybody) 2. No more wings and other expensive aero parts. Leave that for AIX too. 3. Raise the minimum weight for AI. 4. Use inexpensive data acguisition to monitor power to weight (if this is possible) each region could buy a few of these and just monitor the top 3 cars. This means no more dyno expenses. 5. 18s only for overweight cars 6. The only thing I would like to see that would add cost would be fuel cells for all rear tanked cars. What else??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboss Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I personally voiced my concerns about AI a long time ago. Several times over both publickly and privately. Aero was a huge one. I've never had aero on any AI car I've raced. Actually I've had quite the opposite, but I've done quite well. Now it seems as though I have to drive the wheels off the car to stay up front if I am competing against a well built one with that advantage, among others. I even offered a solution for those who already had wings on thier cars, but it all fell on deaf ears. I finally caved and bought a wing my self. It would really suck to not be able to use all the parts that I never wanted to buy yet gave up and did because the rulesmakers refused to see what it would create. The steel fender thing would be fine, but as long as the rules allow AI cars to be as wide as they are then there is no way to do so on a fox car without custom fenders. I've stretched my fenders to the point where they are still screaming on the car and I'm still under the width limit. From a distance they look ok, but up close they are not pretty. To do it right would require a lot of time and that would simply cost more than a properly built fiberglass fender. The worst part would be damaging a one off steel fender and having to do it all over. At least with a carbon or 'glass fender you simply put it back in the mold and repair or buy another one saving a ton of time and money. Plus it will always look good. Here's an outrageous idea, how about simply enforce the rules that are in place? I have yet to see any serious enforcment take place, ever! Tell me how many transmissions in AI were torn down at nationals for inspection? Ever dismounted a tire and checked wheel sizing?. . . -V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horsewidower Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 For the love of god, leave the rules alone!! And set a timeframe for how long they won't be touched. Say three years or more. Having caused a change in the rules on a car that hasn't even been tech'd yet for AI (although I do now have a logbook, thanks JWL) I can say that the annual changing of the rules is white knuckle time for those of us that have cars on the verge of participating. Let's take the uncertainty out of this and leave the rules as is with a term for their applicablility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holster Maker Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 I agree. Leave the rules alone (for about 10 yrs)! Tom Wilson from 5.0 mag (Nov '08) article about AI/X Nat's even stated "With stabilized rules" and so forth........all talking about it being somewhat cost sustained. We should require the same brand motor deal and grandfather the current cross-brand motor users for 2 yrs. This was not right for brand specific pubilcations and accessory dealers or the original intent for this race series. Just my 2 cents........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST#97 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 When might we settle the changes? Our first event in Texas is Jan 31st 2009!! We gotz a short offseason!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWL Posted October 13, 2008 Author Share Posted October 13, 2008 Rules will be out 10/31/09 with a preview a little before if we can swing it. As to the question about tech at the Nats, there was no need to tear down the boxes as it was easy to tell that the cars we had on the podium still had synchros in place. We had three NASCAR-level techs look over the podium cars and they said there would be no point in tearing down the boxes other than proving a point...and the point didn't need to proved as it would have just been painful for all involved with little benefit. As for anything else that needed to be checked (track, wings, weights, etc.), it was checked and I'm confident that our top three were legit. So, the rules seem to work fine, but we can perhaps find some easier enforcement methods and work on more checks at the regional level. From following the discussions here, it appears to be a bad idea to change anything that will cost folks more money or change the level of car prep required so I think the directors are hesitant to do much. CMC is around for folks who want to run with less mods and AIX is here for mondo stuff that does push the edge with AI as a happy medium. As has been pointed out, spec tires with a limited section width, fixed power-to-weight, and other limits have defined a pretty stable platform for AI where you can spend a ton but not go much faster than the lower budget guys. To end, the directors are discussing a few things, but don't plan on seeing much change this year as we're pretty happy with the series and the parity we saw this year at the Nats. Hopefully all of you are too... -JWL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tornado Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I think the only real rule change I see needed or worth the effort is track width adjustments for the new wider tires seems appropriate. It sounds like on 17x9.5 they add about an inch per axle but someone needs to verify exactly. I personally will have to hope they fit and don't roll on 17x9's since the max motorsports fronts don't give me much ability to run wider unless I go to 18's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 It seems to me that the only cars that need an adjustment are the cars that have a limitation on the inside and/or the cars that have are on the low side now. Too me, that means the Fox and SN95 Mustangs. Everyone else already has a significant advantage in trackwidth, and plenty of room to make adjustments as far as I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST#97 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 It seems to me that the only cars that need an adjustment are the cars that have a limitation on the inside and/or the cars that have are on the low side now. Too me, that means the Fox and SN95 Mustangs. Everyone else already has a significant advantage in trackwidth, and plenty of room to make adjustments as far as I know. If they made us all equal at the 74" width I would have no problem with that... I might have to do some flares or creative fender work but that's cheaper than new wheels and such... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nape Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 If they made us all equal at the 74" width I would have no problem with that... I might have to do some flares or creative fender work but that's cheaper than new wheels and such... Don't even start talking equal when it means taking something away from a non-dominant platform. Where's my fab shop that I can call for fabricated parts and setup tips? Our only option from stock A-arms is drag race A-arms and there isn't enough room to run coilovers even if we did have some decent ones. If you want to limit my car running GM stamped steel A-arms and 5.5" diameter front springs, I'm going to tell you I need all the track width I can get! Sure, take away my track width. I'm sure my CMC legal suspension will continue to be competitive... All I ask for is that if you get a half inch, that a half inch be added to every platform in the rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Don't even start talking equal when it means taking something away from a non-dominant platform. What's the AVERAGE finishing position of a Fox-Body Mustang? And what's the AVERAGE finishing position of a Firebird? I suspect that the Mustang is "dominant" only in numbers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.