RichardC Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 I believe this was discussed last year with respect to 3rd links, what was the reason for allowing these modifications as it relates to 3rd links? How many AI cars currently run a 3rd link that is mounted within the car? Personally I would like to see the rules read that no floor pan modifications are allowed except for small holes required for routing of fuel lines, wiring etc. It should stipulate that no suspension mounting points are allowed within the original cabin area. Again AIX would have a free reign to have at it. Richard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardP Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 My AI car has a third link mounted through the floor pan. I am not in favor of changing the rules. Richard Pedersen NASA TX AI#91 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mean 69 Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 If you made the rule that way for AI, then you are basically outlawing three link setups, or at least ones that have a chance of working. I am 90% complete with such a setup on an early Camaro, and there is no other way to package things but to cut the floor above the driveshaft tunnel, and into the trunk area. Would your suggestion also restrict through-floor SFC's? I see your point, but with the exception of the late model Mustangs, there are not a huge number of aftermarket suspension solutions available. So for folks like me that are trying to modify the rear suspension, a rule like this would pretty much restrict me to running an under car T/A, which I don't want to do. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Numerous cars have already taken advantage of this rule already. Going back on it is a really bad idea. In addition to numerous competitors in AI, there are guys in AIX who are considering moving down, and have been planning on that, who would not be able to if this rule was passed. Also, available packages such as that made by Paul's Automotive Engineering takes advantage of this rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizlbits Posted September 25, 2004 Share Posted September 25, 2004 Numerous cars have already taken advantage of this rule already. Going back on it is a really bad idea. Scott, can you explain to me why this is different than your lame "dashboards" thread, where way more people have already hacked the dash out. You crack me up. I agree, this rule is way to late. It the suspension has been specifically allowed, with cutting the floor, the precidence is set. Move along - there is nothing to see here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Because you can grandfather all the cars without dashs without giving them a competitive advantage, and no one has to re-engineer their entire suspension before the next race so they can run... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbolx Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 I would have think that the spirit of the AI class was not intended to have such drastic modifications. It seems that cabin intrusive suspension linkages are more at home in Trans Am than your typical "bolt-on" Mustang or Camaro. In my opinion AIX is exactly where such modifications belong regardless of whether they've been allowed in the past. There are plenty of viable suspension options without cutting the floors for fitment. If you're willing to go that crazy with the suspension, you should be prepared to go equally crazy with the engine/brakes/aero and play with the big dogs in X. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilson7 Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Would cutting the floor for brake ducting be legal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Horse Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 What about cutting the floor for the fuel cell? (Especially if one was to move the fuel cell into a different location) And how far do you take modifications? I would think the Griggs frame strengthening (subframe connectors) rail installation would be considered alteration of the floor pan. If you want to get real strict, running bolts through the floor pan to bolt on your driveshaft loop would/could be considered floor pan modification. If enacted as a rule, specifics should be given! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horsewidower Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Count me as another one that has already invested in creating a three-link. This would be a fundamental change in how we are to build our cars. Any of us that have relied on the 3-link rule in our build-up would be severely penalized. We need a forum about rule stability. But I'm a newbie. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Corkran Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 I would have think that the spirit of the AI class was not intended to have such drastic modifications. It seems that cabin intrusive suspension linkages are more at home in Trans Am than your typical "bolt-on" Mustang or Camaro. The AI class is for 1962-present American sedans, not just late-model Mustangs and F-bodies. You're thinking of CMC. As for "bolt-on", nobody's running bolt-on SFC's (I hope), most cages are welded in, etc. Yes, you can buy a bolt-in cage and "bolt-on" suspension package for a few models (don't forget to weld in the SFC's and crossmember), so those without the skills or facilities for light fabrication can play, but cutting a clearance hole in sheetmetal and building a sheetmetal box to cover it isn't exactly cutting edge technology. Cutting the trunk floor for a fuel cell and building a sealed box over it for a hatchback Mustang is a far more radical cutting of the floorpan. As for the suspension technology of a 3-link, it's certainly no more gee-whiz than replacing the quadra-bind with a TA/PB setup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff F Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 I would have think that the spirit of the AI class was not intended to have such drastic modifications. I disagree. The spirit of the AI rules is to allow cars that are modified past what fits into the other available racing series (AS, T2, etc.), and to be as accomodating as possible in order to attract large fields. Although it isn't written in the intent of the rules, the class seems to attract more people with open-track cars than racers from other series. We need to be careful to not exclude anyone without a good reason, especially those with cars under construction for AI or who have existing cars they want to race. I don't personally believe that the typical 3-link that goes through the floorpan provides an advantage over a TA/PB or 5-Link. Unlike SCCA rules that are written as "If I don't say you can, you can't", the AI rules are written as "If I don't say you can't, you can" This makes it hard for the rule-makers to think of everything, and it is inevitable that someone will take advantage of it (and good for them for being innovative). At this point the rules-makers have to do damage control, to basically allow what has been done and to keep it from getting out of control. In this case we have 3-Link AI cars already, more in construction, and I know that Scott W is considering switching to AI from AIX, with a car that had a 3-Link before it was raced in NASA. From what I understand of the vintage cars (which is limited), having a 3rd link into the passenger compartment is standard practice, although with leafs it doesn't get them to the level of the coil-spring cars. It is bad for everyone to exclude these racers. I would support a reworking of the rules that allow the 3-Links through the floorpan, but possibly to limit the length of the arm or the intrustion into the passenger compartment... while I don't object to what is currently out there, but we don't need cars with the 3rd link attached to the dashboard. 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.