robbodleimages Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 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. AI rules allow for building a totally engineered $120k AI car. So far that kind of investment isn't required to win. At some point we may see AI national championship hopeful teams/drivers carrying a six figure annual budget like most SCCA AS national level teams/driver do. I am not sure that is good for us, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWL 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. Two Lane Blacktop...and yes I have the three yards for you, motherhunge. You can pay me in Utah when we go looking for fun after hours. -JWL See also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCWQY2SzjJI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat L. Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Dammit, John... Just when I thought your epicism might be within reach for us mere mortals - you totally raise the bar again. Guess I'm buying... and in Utah that means I'll pick up the "membership fee" as well, yay! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST#97 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 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. To an extent yes, I see some things the same...however, my car is NOWHERE near fully developed. I still consider it an uncomfortable street car and after the race this weekend on a VERY bumpy track, I still think that! However, I don't see the need or expense to develop anything any further as I think we have reached the max level of the tire. We would be chasing tenths of a second and spending thousands of dollars. There is a fixed amount of aero that can be pushed through the air with our HP/TQ to weight ratio to make the tires work...to make them work any better would be like putting an anchor on your car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFletcher Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 "I hate watching a chevy work against a two bit POS ford". Bonus points for that movie quote. Two Lane Blacktop...and yes I have the three yards for you, motherhunge. You can pay me in Utah when we go looking for fun after hours. -JWL See also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCWQY2SzjJI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Oh Damn!! Well done JWL, Well Done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 There is a fixed amount of aero that can be pushed through the air with our HP/TQ to weight ratio to make the tires work...to make them work any better would be like putting an anchor on your car.Please allow me to COMPLETELY disagree, and I have plenty of data to back it up. There are MASSIVE amounts of downforce to be had, for relatively little penalty, to the first competitor who gets serious about aero. IMNSHO, no one has scratched the surface. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lelady Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 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. x2 What Scott said above I am all for the swaps in in AIX, but agree it's a too much for AI for this exact reason. My HPDE/Street Mustang is waaaaay too modified to ever dream of running in CMC, but would require a lot more $$ to prep it to be AI competitive. I can say that for most of our HPDE Pony car customers too. Oh - and I'm one of those purists that were mentioned, however, I will also say after watching that car at Thunderhill, Andy's AIX Cobra SS is just sick now that it's all working together. So, that's my .02 ....I'll go back to being a forum spectator now Vicky Griffin West Coast AI Director Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST#97 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Please allow me to COMPLETELY disagree, and I have plenty of data to back it up. There are MASSIVE amounts of downforce to be had, for relatively little penalty, to the first competitor who gets serious about aero. IMNSHO, no one has scratched the surface. Fine...but at what cost $$$$? Keep in mind we don't have budgets to have 9 spare noses in the trailer for offs and crew to rebuild the car between sessions....I also think there are a few of us that have quite a bit more than you give credit for! Some have been snooping around in a certain local World Challenge shop for ideas... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardP Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Some have been snooping around in a certain local World Challenge shop for ideas... Those people wouldn't be very smart then. The areo rules in World Challenge are way more restrictive than they are for AI. Richard P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Fine...but at what cost $$$$? Keep in mind we don't have budgets to have 9 spare noses in the trailer for offs and crew to rebuild the car between sessions....I COMPLETELY agree with you. We don't (and shouldn't) have those kinds of spares, that kind of crew, or that kind of development money. This is one reason I say there is nothing CLOSE to a fully developed AI car. It's also why I have a string of notes to AI "people in high places" where I've been fighting for more restrictive aero rules. We'll have to do it eventually, and doing so later will only bring out a few people who have already done it and who fight for it with every last breath since they've already spent the money. (See Engine Swap Rules Proposals) I also think there are a few of us that have quite a bit more than you give credit for! Some have been snooping around in a certain local World Challenge shop for ideas... No disrespect, but if you're snooping around in a World Challenge shop, you're not even in the ballpark of maxed out. They're allowed to do very little compared to what I have in mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST#97 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 No disrespect, but if you're snooping around in a World Challenge shop, you're not even in the ballpark of maxed out. They're allowed to do very little compared to what I have in mind. Given I have NO earthly idea about Vehicle aerodynamics, Anything I can get from them is more than I had! Every little bit helps It would be cool to have the luxury of being a NASA engineer or a NASCAR engineer and volumes of intellect when it comes to air flow and drag characteristics....but I don't....so I just rely on a badass motor and lots of talent! those have already been paid for and won't cost me a dime...and I keep running strong! I am glad there are MANY others out there with my same sentiments though to "keep it simple stupid" and keep costs in check. for that I thank you all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I am glad there are MANY others out there with my same sentiments though to "keep it simple stupid" and keep costs in check. for that I thank you all!I want to keep the class like this too, which is why I'd like to review the aero rules and make them more restrictive. I'd like to prevent things from getting crazy while we can... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST#97 Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I am glad there are MANY others out there with my same sentiments though to "keep it simple stupid" and keep costs in check. for that I thank you all!I want to keep the class like this too, which is why I'd like to review the aero rules and make them more restrictive. I'd like to prevent things from getting crazy while we can... so this spare F1 nose I have lying in the garage is no bueno?! LOL!!! Personally, I am fine with the aero rules as they are. Just no belly trays and say the undertray on the splitter can't extend behind the centerline of the front wheels. Rear diffusers and side skirts are open, however, I have no idea how to design a diffuser! LOL! I am cool with the minor tweaks on the motor rules and track width and I think we are good to go! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWL Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 So, Scott...what do you suggest in terms of a rule? -JWL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 So, Scott...what do you suggest in terms of a rule? -JWL My suggestion is that the ground clearance rule extend to all components on the car, including skirts, fascias, splitters, etc. Exceptions could include only such things as torque arm mounts, exhaust components, etc., and would be explicitly listed as exceptions. This approach is used in nearly every form of motorsports to control aerodynamics. By removing skirts that rub the ground and underbody tunnels (which effectively become useless due to the 5" rule), you emphasize mechanical grip, keeping the cars sprung more softly and making them easier to drive. Aero would be limited to devices like wings which have a positive drag penalty, splitters which would have limited effectiveness. I also agree with a previously mentioned post which suggested ending splitters at the tire centerline. This rule has been used in several series, including WC. No flat-panel underbodies beyond the CL of the front tires. Please keep in mind that we might need to modify the 5" number to something more like 4". A review of existing cars would probably give us an idea. S197 rear LCA pickup mounts and things like that become limitations on some cars, but can be modified to give more clearance very easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 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. When you say "close cousins", do you mean first or second cousin I think our perspectives are very close. No one is advocating a spec class or a show room stock car. Those analogies aren't even close to what most peoples perception of AI is, and certainly make no sense in this discussion. Just so we are clear, what car developments are we discussing? Again, I haven't heard anyone complain about modified suspension, large brakes, aero components...etc. For me, I'd like to see the engines match, and a general tightening of the existing rules, meaning clarifications on several areas, shore ups some grey areas to prevent things from going too far. Generally, I think the more exotic mods belong in AIX. Also, if more people preferred more extreme modifications, there would be more AIX cars. However, there are very few AIX cars and even less that are truely AIX cars. Most are just a typically modified AI car with big power. We should be taking a harder look at how to get more drivers involved in AI, not how to make it more exclusive. How many regions consistantly have more then 5-6 AI entries? Lately, we have struggled to make 5 entries in the middle of the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horsewidower Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Whoa, we're going to start changing the measurement for ride height now, and where its measured? Talk about a radical rule change, I'll have to recalc all my suspension geometry, modify pickup points change my body mounting points and on and on. I want to race the damn thing, I'm tired of building it. 15 minutes of dyno time away from a working car and I'm going to have to tear it apart if you adopt a rule of that nature. I have no problem with limiting the splitter length, banning diffusers and belly pans, means I won't waste time on them this winter. Although we'll probably be goreing someone elses ox with those changes. But, I feel a need to remain consistent, leave the rules alone and set a term for their use. If someone is able to exploit the rules in an advantageous way, let'em. It's racing damn it, it's part of the culture and lore. Either that or go to a spec type series that tell's you exactly what components you can have. Let's issue everyone a mustang with a specified suspension package, a sealed LSx engine dynoed to within a couple of hp, a set front to rear weight bias and a spec aero package. I mean no disrepect but "let's keep it simple" means "I don't want to develop my car" to me. I wish I'd been bright enough to think of the LSx swap, would have saved me a lot of time and money over the turbo 2.3 rabbit hole I disappeared into. I salute those folks. The attraction of this series, to me, has been the room in the rules for creative solutions. And a lack of response to someone's voluminous posts hardly counts as agreement. Let me be clear, I don't agree!! I admire the tenacity of the poster, I most certainly have a lot of respect for Scott, but let's be careful about what we propose, the law of unintended consequences usually bites someone in the ass. I've said my piece, and, as one who still hasn't turned a wheel in anger, I'll bow to those who have. Respectfully, Bob Holmes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Bob- You would not have to change your car. Basically, what I'm suggestioning (sorry, my first post was not clear) was an ADDITIONAL requirement that no component extend below a certain height. It might be 4" for instance. Ride height would still be measured in the same place, and in the same manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horsewidower Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Scott: Let me make sure I understand. Are you saying no "aero component" can be within 4"? I have a number of "components" that are currently closer than 4", yet I meet the 5" at the rocker rule. Is the nose an aero component? Define a "component", please. I apologise, I spent a number of years analysing state legislative proposals so definition and applicability are very important. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nape Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Scott, my car with CMC legal aero does not pass a 4" rule. From the CMC rules: "7/28/08 Rule 8.5.5 changed effective immediately to stipulate radiator air deflectors may be extended but shall not be lower than 2" measured vertically from the ground." Anyone who raced in GL or Midwest this weekend will agree that my car is one of the least aero equiped cars and it doesn't meet your rules. Especially, if you start talking about 4" ground clearance for components of the car. I don't know if you've ever crawled around underneath an F-body, but there isn't a whole lot of room to package anything and my car flies over the ride height requirement. If you don't want to see WC-like builds, don't push for this rule. If I have to meet a WC-like rule, don't you think I'm going to have to build the car in a WC-like way? Leave the rules alone and just let everyone drive the crap out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holster Maker Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Leave the rules alone..........I just want to race. Can't even do that with two blown motors this yr! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Scott, my car with CMC legal aero does not pass a 4" rule. From the CMC rules: "7/28/08 Rule 8.5.5 changed effective immediately to stipulate radiator air deflectors may be extended but shall not be lower than 2" measured vertically from the ground." Anyone who raced in GL or Midwest this weekend will agree that my car is one of the least aero equiped cars and it doesn't meet your rules. Three minutes with a pair of tin snips will fix that. But I'm not necessarily pushing 4". It might be 3" or 3.5". But the higher the number the more it will discourage underbody aero. And I'm not suggesting for CMC. I don't know the CMC rules well enough to comment. I'm only talking about AI. Especially, if you start talking about 4" ground clearance for components of the car. I don't know if you've ever crawled around underneath an F-body, but there isn't a whole lot of room to package anything and my car flies over the ride height requirement. If you don't want to see WC-like builds, don't push for this rule. If I have to meet a WC-like rule, don't you think I'm going to have to build the car in a WC-like way?I'm not sure what you mean by "WC-like". If you mean a car that looks remotely like a factory car and does not have underbody aero, undertrays, and ground effect, then yes - that's exactly what I'm looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Leave the rules alone..........I just want to race. Can't even do that with two blown motors this yr!Will you feel the same way when someone outspends you by a mile and builds a car with around 2000lbs of underbody downforce? Will you then campaign for a rule that makes his car illegal then, or just it let it be a dominant car - even with only a mediocre driver? It's amazing to me that people are fighting against the closing of such an obvious loophole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat L. Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Two ways I see the ride height rule working: 1) An absolute minimum like in World Challenge which includes EVERYTHING, that'd come in around the 3-3.5" mark. Tech inspection requires a fixture to pass under the car without contacting anything. 2) Keep the 5" rocker panel rule and add a minimum for the splitter, 3" is probably fair. The splitter should have some kind of restriction... maybe 4-6" maximum protruding from any part of the front fascia and not to extend more than 2" beyond the maximum track width. You could even write in a maximum angle. Rear wing rules are great. Allows for healthy competition between wing manufacturers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehawkclone Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Two ways I see the ride height rule working: 1) An absolute minimum like in World Challenge which includes EVERYTHING, that'd come in around the 3-3.5" mark. Tech inspection requires a fixture to pass under the car without contacting anything. 2) Keep the 5" rocker panel rule and add a minimum for the splitter, 3" is probably fair. The splitter should have some kind of restriction... maybe 4-6" maximum protruding from any part of the front fascia and not to extend more than 2" beyond the maximum track width. You could even write in a maximum angle. Rear wing rules are great. Allows for healthy competition between wing manufacturers. Remember Pat, were not all mustangs here Those numbers would have me removing half my car like the splitter, tq-arm, and i think the exhuast and k-member. Or move the car over to rally racing I say leave splitters, wing's/ect, and side skirts open and kill all other aero! 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.