Sutak11 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 If a car and engine fall within the class rules then let it be!! As far as the LS engines not staying together, if they are ran within the parameters of what the intended build is than they do stay together for a fairly low cost. I have some personal experience with running beyond the limits of stock components and have a box of paperweights to go home with as well. That being said along with an expensive education, I now have a Mustang with a LS2 that runs well and holds together. As far as some of you saying "I have never seen one finish a race yet" I can now smile and say they do. Just ran Thunderhill backwards in the AI/AIX race (10-4/ 10-5) and ran great while breaking in the new engine. Oh yeah, I also ran the TT group Sunday to see what happened when these engines are ran at 8/10ths..... 1:52 so oh yeah I am talking smack now!!! Can't wait to run with all the haters next year, and oh yeah... East coast racers, see you at Miller. BRING YOUR A GAME!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 (edited) We're jealous We're talking AI not AIX. (edit) Clarify - The concern or hate as you put it, is swapping manufactureres engine in AI not AIX. I don't beleive anyone is concerned about what type of engines are used in AIX. So, the LS2 in your car is not ruffling anyone feathers. Best of luck with it. Edited October 10, 2008 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Rogers Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I can't wait to get video of your rig blasting past the checkered flag! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 We're jealous We're talking AI not AIX. (edit) Clarify - The concern or hate as you put it, is swapping manufactureres engine in AI not AIX. I don't beleive anyone is concerned about what type of engines are used in AIX. So, the LS2 in your car is not ruffling anyone feathers. Best of luck with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
860TTC Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 With an LS1 in a Ford chassis you are taking the cheapest, lightest and most developed chassis and mating it with the lightest motor available. On paper, this is a killer combo by balancing the weight of the car much better. By not allowing this combo, the field would be more balanced. You would have a lighter car with a heaver motor competing against with heavier car with a lighter motor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST#97 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 With an LS1 in a Ford chassis you are taking the cheapest, lightest and most developed chassis and mating it with the lightest motor available. On paper, this is a killer combo by balancing the weight of the car much better. By not allowing this combo, the field would be more balanced. You would have a lighter car with a heaver motor competing against with heavier car with a lighter motor. excellent point! I also think the OTHER point of the "haters" is that if you are going to allow the aluminum LS1, why not the FRPP aluminum 351? If no FoMoCo aluminum motor, then no LS1. It's about a path of least cost for existing racers to obtain the same result. Denying the "Mustang SS" costs nobody any more money. Allowing it opens the doors for everyone to spend money they don't want to spend to remain competitive. Personally, If you want an LSX motor so bad, I would build an F-body for the better aero. Granted, you won't get one down to 2700lbs like a mustang but you already have the SLA, torque arm and "God's Motor" between the frame rails. That's how our local hot rodders refer to them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 With an LS1 in a Ford chassis you are taking the cheapest, lightest and most developed chassis and mating it with the lightest motor available. On paper, this is a killer combo by balancing the weight of the car much better. By not allowing this combo, the field would be more balanced. You would have a lighter car with a heaver motor competing against with heavier car with a lighter motor. excellent point! I also think the OTHER point of the "haters" is that if you are going to allow the aluminum LS1, why not the FRPP aluminum 351? If no FoMoCo aluminum motor, then no LS1. It's about a path of least cost for existing racers to obtain the same result. Denying the "Mustang SS" costs nobody any more money. Allowing it opens the doors for everyone to spend money they don't want to spend to remain competitive. Personally, If you want an LSX motor so bad, I would build an F-body for the better aero. Granted, you won't get one down to 2700lbs like a mustang but you already have the SLA, torque arm and "God's Motor" between the frame rails. That's how our local hot rodders refer to them! I agree. This reinforces my point, that every car has good and bad characteristics, which are supposed to make the playing field level. Let's keep it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat L. Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Wait, did I miss something? At first you guys didn't think the Mustang SS enjoyed a competitive advantage, but now it does? When did this view change? I remember the general feeling was "bring it on", because the car is fundamentally the same, having to adhear to the same rules of physics as the rest of the field: 9:1 tq/9.5:1 hp. You guys have already said there are iron block mustangs at 50/50 weight dist. and I don't think getting a fox mustang down to min. weight is all that tough... S&S Fabrication front ends might help if you're having trouble If it's a matter of competitive advantage I can understand the rules change, but the powers at be have already discussed and come to the conclusion that all cars are in fact governed by Sir Isaac Newton. My understanding is the swap is viewed by the Ford purists as "just wrong" and goes against everything good and right. That I can understand. "I hate watching a chevy work against a two bit POS ford". Bonus points for that movie quote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST#97 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I don't think getting a fox mustang down to min. weight is all that tough... S&S Fabrication front ends might help if you're having trouble Well, the cost to just ship the car out to Kali and back is more than I spent on this entire regional race season so that solution is out unless Budweiser shows up and writes a nice fat check so I can get all that AI TV exposure... Besides, a 2700lb mustang with aero doesn't seem to be the equation if you look at Nationals..I am actually thinking of shelving my nose and wing for Miller next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Wait, did I miss something? At first you guys didn't think the Mustang SS enjoyed a competitive advantage, but now it does? When did this view change? I remember the general feeling was "bring it on", because the car is fundamentally the same, having to adhear to the same rules of physics as the rest of the field: 9:1 tq/9.5:1 hp. You guys have already said there are iron block mustangs at 50/50 weight dist. and I don't think getting a fox mustang down to min. weight is all that tough... S&S Fabrication front ends might help if you're having trouble If it's a matter of competitive advantage I can understand the rules change, but the powers at be have already discussed and come to the conclusion that all cars are in fact governed by Sir Isaac Newton. My understanding is the swap is viewed by the Ford purists as "just wrong" and goes against everything good and right. That I can understand. "I hate watching a chevy work against a two bit POS ford". Bonus points for that movie quote. Of course loosing 40-50 lbs off the nose of the lightest car with the most developed chassis that has the most aftermarket support with an engine that has huge development and aftermarket support is an advantage . I'm not aware of anyone saying that it isn't an advantage. Being able to move the weight, on any car is an advantage. Also, as Brian T. said, he a Mark were able to build an SN95 with an iron block Ford power plant and acheive a 50/50 weight and stay below 2900 w/ driver. But, that was a shell build up with, I assume, a lot of hours and/or money spent to acheive. Awesome car by the way. Again, as Mat said, about 10% of AI cars are completed this way. Most are built slowly from DE's cars. It's not fair to take a couple examples and try to pass them off as typical. Nearly anthing can be done with a pile of money and/or hundreds of man hours. Is this what AI is about? I hope not, that sounds more like AIX, but maybe I'm dreaming. Pat, based on your statements, then engines should be open, as long as they meet the power to wieght, but that's not the rule either. Which brings me back to my main question. Why allow mismatched engines? What does the series gain from it? By your own statements, the same weight advantage can be and has been acheived using a pushrod iron block in an SN95, so certainly the aluminum mod would work. So what does a Chevy in a Ford do for AI? I say nothing good. Again, I don't think the walls are going to come crashing in around us, but this clearly is a loop hole that was exploited, legally. I'm fairly certain the limited rule set has others. I'd hate to see more people poking around in the AI rules. Not the intent, based on what I know. The more this gets discussed the more I think that aluminum blocks should be in AIX, only. Grandfather the existing aluminum blocks for X years. Same with mismatched engines, grandfather for X years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardP Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 but this clearly is a loop hole that was exploited, legally. OK, just to be clear. This isn't a "loop hole" that was unexpectedly exploited by someone. It was brought up publicly and approved by the powers that be at least a couple of years before anyone built one. They had multiple rule revisions to address this issue and didn’t. They have stated that they are OK with it. Clearly you don’t like it. We got it. I am personally fine with it. Mostly I’m just tired of the same argument every single year… The rules can still be changed to disallow this although that is likely to cause a big stink with those that have built or are building some sort of hybrid. Clearly the easy time to change was years ago before anyone built one. If you look through the posts from year’s past, you’ll see that no fresh arguments are being presented this year that are likely to sway the rules makers now that change would be difficult. Richard P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Richard- Was there a discussion about this before the first car showed up? I seem to recall an after-the-fact notification to the rest of the racers that this idea had been approved. Maybe I'm wrong. Do you have a link to that discussion? I realize that there are a very few people who have already done this, and for them there needs to be some kind of grandfather clause. We're not saying the car should be illegal overnight. But it does amuse me that anyone who disagrees is suddenly a "hater". Brings to mind the following great quote by some great thinker... maybe it was Plato who said... "Don't hate the playa, hate the game!"Ahh yes, the wise Mr. Plato. There may or may not be a competitive advantage to doing this. To me, this is NOT the primary issue. We're losing touch with the spirit of the rules, the intent of the class, and the attainability of the cars. This is yet another loophole that makes the cars seem like fully-prepped and expensive racecars. AI should slot inbetween CMC and AIX, and it's moving more and more toward AIX. I know that some argue that CMC is the entry series for HPDE participants, but many HPDE participants already have modifications which put them past CMC, and few are willing to go backwards, so AI still needs to be HPDE participant friendly. AIX is mostly unlimited only because it is (and should continue to be) a catch all for just about any car which wishes to participate. No one is hating here. We're campaigning for a rule we believe in, and backing it up with some facts and a bunch of opinions. Feel free to do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 but this clearly is a loop hole that was exploited, legally. OK, just to be clear. This isn't a "loop hole" that was unexpectedly exploited by someone. It was brought up publicly and approved by the powers that be at least a couple of years before anyone built one. They had multiple rule revisions to address this issue and didn’t. They have stated that they are OK with it. Clearly you don’t like it. We got it. I am personally fine with it. Mostly I’m just tired of the same argument every single year… The rules can still be changed to disallow this although that is likely to cause a big stink with those that have built or are building some sort of hybrid. Clearly the easy time to change was years ago before anyone built one. If you look through the posts from year’s past, you’ll see that no fresh arguments are being presented this year that are likely to sway the rules makers now that change would be difficult. Richard P. I never said it was unexpectedly exploited. The engine rules do not state that mismatching manufactures engines is approved, but it also doesn't say it is. It's silent. Someone noticed that it was silent. My point, there are other similiar areas in the rules. And I wasn't aware that this was publicly approved prior to the arrival of the first time it was done. However, I'm aware that this was ruled on last year. Although, rules have been changed in the past. Sorry if your tired of hearing it, but we have been given the opportunity to voice our opinions, so I am. Quote from the AI website: "American Iron™ is a race series that calls to mind the legendary battles of the 1960's when champions competed against each other to win stoplight and drive-in bragging rights for their brand of choice. American Iron™ provides a forum where domestic "ponycars" such as Ford Mustangs, Chevrolet Camaros, and Pontiac Firebirds can challenge each other equipped with the finest performance products that tuners and manufacturers have in their arsenals. " So, AI is partially being promoted as the battle of the brands. I think mixing engines goes directly against this. Another section: "The American Iron Series was created to meet the needs of domestic sedan racers looking for a series specifically tailored to accommodate modified vehicles that are currently relegated to racing in Unlimited or Spec-limited classes. This class is designed to field a large high-profile group of American Musclecars and will unify fields of cars that currently race in other sanctioning organizations. This large field/open modification concept will provide racers and vendors access to a promotional and racing vehicle containing similarly prepared and appearing cars that can run nearly unlimited configurations." I realize its difficult to capture everything about a series in a few short senstences, but I read the above, and I think of AIX not AI. Maybe most of us don't understand the intentions of American Iron. "Open modifications" and "unlimited cofigurations", doesn't fit my thoughts about AI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST#97 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I'm fairly certain the limited rule set has others. I'd hate to see more people poking around in the AI rules. Not the intent, based on what I know. Here is one for you... Wheelbase is to be within 1.5" inches of stock. Doesn't say it has to be in the same orientation from the firewall as stock! Imagine moving the entire wheelbase forward 11" (think 60's gasser drag cars). It just effectively moved the engine, trans and driver back 11"... Now, granted, there is a LOT of body work and fab work to accomplish that but with one piece glass noses from 25.5 Drag cars that have the front wheels moved forward 12" and make a HUGE through hood radiator duct...this wouldn't be all that hard and I am pretty sure the rules leave that open...? I also seem to recall a recent discusion that the C pillar didn't have to remain stock, only the windshield frame?....so you could cut the B and C pillar and lower the rear of the roof. Rules stipulate the body cannot be "sectioned", nothing about the roof getting "chopped" other than the windshield frame remaining stock... I need to go back and read that one! I also question why I can't put a camaro one piece nose on my car...or the F1 front wing that was joked about at our 2007 awards ceremony! Richard sat me down once and opened my eyes to what the rules DON'T say and I started seeing more than just holes...more like chicken wire and HUGE money to spend! Granted, I don't see someone spending $200k to build an AI car, but you could. However, that doesn't do the series justice or accomplish anything other than fulfilling the idea you SHOULD win because you spent the most. That's AIX? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat L. Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I see some big fundamental differences in the perception of AI. There seems to be a group who sees the average AI car as showroom stockish, but the rules package and nature of the beast paints a much different picture. Aero, exotic suspension hardware, big brakes, gas-charged monotube shocks, data acquisition, big power and big tires... definitely a far departure from your average HPDE car. AI sits much closer to AIX than it does CMC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardP Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Here is one for you... Wheelbase is to be within 1.5" inches of stock. Doesn't say it has to be in the same orientation from the firewall as stock! Imagine moving the entire wheelbase forward 11" (think 60's gasser drag cars). It just effectively moved the engine, trans and driver back 11"... That's not realistic in AI. You aren't allowed to tub the rear. That limits you to moving the rear alxe about 2.5" forward, give or take. That means you can move the front axle center line... much farther than the rules makers intended. Richard P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardP Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I see some big fundamental differences in the perception of AI. I'm going to have to agree with this. What people seem to think they want the rules to say are pretty far off of what is actually allowed. It's been that way for a long time and only recently are people starting to explore close enough to the edges of the rules to make others uncomfortable. Richard P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardP Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Was there a discussion about this before the first car showed up? The search function is too painful to find much. I did find this one from 2004 where it was brought up: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2649&hilit=+2007+rules I also found a an e-mail string in my personal archives from October, 2003 where the question was brought up by someone from the Texas region. In it, John Lindsey calls the idea of putting an LS1 in a Ford "pretty cool." He also states "HP is HP, right?" Clearly this idea didn't recently sneak up on the rules makers. The rules on this topic are written as the rule makers wish. You can like the rule as it is written or not. You are certainly welcome to lobby for a rules change. But calling this a "loop hole" is technically incorrect. I guess that's all I was trying to say. Richard P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I see some big fundamental differences in the perception of AI. I'm going to have to agree with this. What people seem to think they want the rules to say are pretty far off of what is actually allowed. It's been that way for a long time and only recently are people starting to explore close enough to the edges of the rules to make others uncomfortable. Richard P. But, we have always been told to stick to the spirit of the rules and any deviation or reading between the lines will require prior approval. At least that's been my understanding. Assuming you're correct, and you may very well be, what does that say about the 80-90% of the existing cars in AI. I'm not suggesting the rules get re-written, but certainly the vast majority of cars need to be considered in regards to the tweeking of rules. If the rule set has AI closer to AIX then CMC, then that certainly doesn't match up with most the existing AI cars. I hate to see more people leave. Because I don't think there are enough folks entering AI, who are interested in heavily modified cars, that will offset those who will leave. If that was the case, there would be more cars in AIX then AI, and that's definatley not the case. If AI rules are closer to AIX, the question is why? What's the point of having a seperation. Is the difference just unlimited power, bigger wheels, open tires, and carbon body panels. I suspect the recent change is CMC rules is designed to handle what we are talking about. A place for most of the existing AI cars to run. But if that's the case the AI fields will look like most of the AIX fields with only 1-3 entries. Then AIX will have 1-3 entries and the new CMC will be loaded. The problem is, going to be tough to go back to the terrible handing stock suspensions in CMC. Plus my car is too far gone to go back, even for the revised CMC rule set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Was there a discussion about this before the first car showed up? The search function is too painful to find much. I did find this one from 2004 where it was brought up: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2649&hilit=+2007+rules I also found a an e-mail string in my personal archives from October, 2003 where the question was brought up by someone from the Texas region. In it, John Lindsey calls the idea of putting an LS1 in a Ford "pretty cool." He also states "HP is HP, right?" Clearly this idea didn't recently sneak up on the rules makers. The rules on this topic are written as the rule makers wish. You can like the rule as it is written or not. You are certainly welcome to lobby for a rules change. But calling this a "loop hole" is technically incorrect. I guess that's all I was trying to say. Richard P. How bizzare. I asked the question back in 2004 (below is a portion of the exchange). However, it appears the reponses and tone of the discussion, is that it was a joke. Not exactly the official affirmation I had in mind. I don't remember hearing or reading anything about it, or references to emails. The first I heard was when Pat brought his car out to race for the first time. Algozine Post subject: Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2004 12:36 pm Hard-core Forum Racer Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 1:22 pm Posts: 628 Location: Crown Point IN Keith wrote: Yeah, I know. I am just dying to see someone in AI run one of these motors. I need to save my money for one and continue to watch the field from the rear in the meantime... It kinda sucks that there aren't many GM products out there. Maybe the confirmed re-introduction of the Camaro in 2007 will help encourage people to not feel like the platform is a dead end. How hard could it be to bolt an LS1 in there? I don't have the rules in front of me, but is it legal to drop a GM motor into a Ford? Just a crazy thought. Dave _________________ Dave Algozine #12 AI Midwest Top pederb Post subject: Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2004 5:35 pm Hard-core Forum Racer Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 10:49 am Posts: 625 Location: Oakland, CA No Dave it's ok to do that, but why? Afraid of going fast _________________ Peder Beckman Series Director American Iron Racing NASA Nationals 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I see some big fundamental differences in the perception of AI. There seems to be a group who sees the average AI car as showroom stockish, but the rules package and nature of the beast paints a much different picture. Aero, exotic suspension hardware, big brakes, gas-charged monotube shocks, data acquisition, big power and big tires... definitely a far departure from your average HPDE car. AI sits much closer to AIX than it does CMC. I don't think showroom stockish is at all what most of us believe. Most have some type of aero package, big brakes, heavliy modified suspenion, lightened cars....but I think most prefer to stronlgy differentiate between AI and AIX. Just as there should be a difference between AI and CMC, however CMC is creeping our way. I wonder why. The biggest group of cars in the whole AI family is American Iron. I think it's because more people like it. I say keep them coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST#97 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Just as there should be a difference between AI and CMC, however CMC is creeping our way. I wonder why. The biggest group of cars in the whole AI family is American Iron. I think it's because more people like it. I say keep them coming. I am wearing my tinfoil hat when I say this but I fear that it is so that CMC becomes AI, and AI is moved into AIX...so there are only two classes....again, the brain waves from Pluto are getting in my skull but that is the image they are leaving....scary stuff!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat L. Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Wow, I guess I just got my eyes opened a little... I always pictured AI cars as very developed and on the edge of what any production car can become in terms of on track performance. From a fan's perspective, that's what we want to see! Not some street car wallowing around and reving to an ear-piercing 5k rpm. [That's why I can't watch Grand Am and prefer World Challenge] I always viewed AI as a very close cousin to AIX, just a little more restricted to keep any one competitor from running off into the sunset. I'm not sure, but I tend to think most west coast and texas guys seem to share my sentiments for the series based on their own car development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JKnight Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 "I hate watching a chevy work against a two bit POS ford". Bonus points for that movie quote. Thunder Road? Greased Lightning? If it's not one of those, you need to cough up the movie it's from. Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMan Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 If we allow Chevy engines in Fords, then the terrorists have already won. 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.