Jump to content

2010 Rules - Silly Season <<Requests Due 10/26>>


Recommended Posts

TO: ALL AMERICAN IRON RACERS

 

It’s that time again… In order to get the new 2010 AI Ruleset out in a timely manner (in the witching hours after the goblins of Halloween disappear), we need to have all of your change requests/comments/suggestions by 10/26.

 

I had hoped to have my American Iron State of the Union Address completed by now in order to give some indication of where I felt the series should go. However, in the interest of time, here it is in a nutshell:

 

We need to avoid numerous, drastic ruleset changes in any given year, however, over the course of the next 5 years need to work toward cost containment, car count…and get back to basics.

 

If you have a rule change request (RCR) for the AI Leadership Team’s consideration, pleae submit it to me ([email protected]) with a cc: to your regional AI series director. (If you don’t know who your regional AI series director is, I’ve got a bigger job ahead of me than I thought. )

 

RULE CHANGE REQUESTS (RCR) MUST BE SUBMITTED IN THE FOLLOWING FORMAT TO BE CONSIDERED:

 

--- 1) Name / Region / Car # / Contact Info (email or phone, etc)

--- 2) Rule reference # (ex.- Rule 3.2 – Title, Part, section…)

--- 3) Recommended Revised Wording

--- 4) Reasoning for change MUST include at least 1 of the following:

---------->a) Willl decrease series cost because…

---------->b) Will increase series competition because…

---------->c) Will increase competition because…

 

HINT – Requests which score points in all categories will have better chances of being accepted than those which score points in 1 category (or worse yet, go against the reasonings above.)

 

I’ll collect all change request submissions, review them with the AI Leadership Team and we’ll capture which ones are accepted, rejected & implemented and why. This will provide us with a record/reasoning so that we don’t have to re-work the same request year after year, if it isn’t warranted.

 

So…If you genuinely feel as though a series rule change should be considered in the interest of the series, work with your regional series directors. They will represent you later in the month at the decision table. This approach is far more effective than a 9 page internet forum rant attempting to rally the masses to take up their swords & torches and march into town.

 

I’m available after workhours & weekends if folks want to discuss something over the phone or email, however, please work closely with & thru your regional AI director as much as possible.

 

(Did I ever mention I tend to be long-winded sometimes???)

 

Let the fun begin!!!

 

-=- Todd Covini

AI National Director

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • tacovini

    10

  • Pat L.

    10

  • ST#97

    10

  • D Algozine

    7

What a let down!!! I was so looking forward to the entertaining threads that would have come up like in years past!

 

Every party needs a pooper I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"No LS1's in Mudstains, rah rah rah!!!"

 

 

sorry, somebody had to go there....

 

2nd Mustang SS's are in X...done.

 

....keep abs of any kind, lose the 18's and 14" brakes. Leave the rest alone and you're done for 5 years. Pretty easy....not wasting my time with "forms" and reading the damn rules again.

 

 

As for CCR changes....no passes before start finish on L1 green and restarts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What a let down!!! I was so looking forward to the entertaining threads that would have come up like in years past!

 

Every party needs a pooper I guess.

 

Hey, we can still have the entertaining threads, my point was that rules aren't decided by the amount of people we can piss off or the # of pages of rants, that's all.

 

Let's be civilized, that's all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for CCR changes....no passes before start finish on L1 green and restarts.

 

Disagree.

 

Well, since certain folks don't want standing starts...how about a compromise? I don't like it either but if it prevents cars from getting written off or expensive carnage, I'm willing to accept the change.

 

You are usually on the front row anyway and I ain't letting you pass me THAT quick!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say that I'm on the pole, they throw the green, and my car doesn't go anywhere, or i miss shift, or i stall, or that I decide to keep running at pace car speed until the S/F line. The 30 cars behind me will pile up, or they will pass me and all get black flagged. Use that example for anywhere in the lineup actually.

 

Green means go, the race is on. Or would you prefer we adopt HPDE 1 rules and use hand signals?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Green means go, the race is on. Or would you prefer we adopt HPDE 1 rules and use hand signals?

 

How does Grand Am or Rolex deal with those situations....? Todd?

 

As for the hand signals....I'm all for it....mine to you will be "slow down"!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How does Grand Am or Rolex deal with those situations....? Todd?

 

Grand Am

8-4.6 Race start - At the start of the race, when the green flag is displayed, competitors must maintain the two by two grid formation, and may not begin initiating a pass until they cross the starting line.

 

8-4.7 Restarts – During a full course yellow/pace car situation and on the restart, the race leader and the balance of the field must maintain the speed of the safety/pace car in single file formation at all times. Specific procedures for each track will be announced at the pre race drivers meeting.

 

However, I'm with Mike...IMO....the only thing worse than a stalled standing start car or lagging rolling start car....is being stuck behind one when the green flag drops under that scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for CCR changes....no passes before start finish on L1 green and restarts.

 

Disagree.

 

Well, since certain folks don't want standing starts...how about a compromise? I don't like it either but if it prevents cars from getting written off or expensive carnage, I'm willing to accept the change.

 

You are usually on the front row anyway and I ain't letting you pass me THAT quick!

 

Why can't we just enforce the rule that is currently in place?!!! If someone can't control the pace of the field or jumps the start, then the start is either waved off or the car that caused the infraction is penalized.

 

Simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome Todd.

 

From my angle, a racer from another series who plans to run AI in the northeast next year, I have to agree...

 

contain the costs but still keep things competitive, up the car counts, avoid major rule changes. One thing I hate is constant rules changes forcing me to spend money, its bad enough I have to buy belts, nets, cells all the time...

 

as far as name or class changes be careful, I'd rather be dead last in a 30 car field than the winner of a 1 or 2 car field. 3 classes is my vote, call it 1 2 3 or cmc ai aix doesnt matter.

 

As for the standing starts I'm all for them.

 

AL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This approach is far more effective than a 9 page internet forum rant attempting to rally the masses to take up their swords & torches and march into town.

 

-=- Todd Covini

AI National Director

 

now what am I going to do with all this popcorn??!?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Welcome Todd.

 

From my angle, a racer from another series who plans to run AI in the northeast next year, I have to agree...

 

contain the costs but still keep things competitive, up the car counts, avoid major rule changes. One thing I hate is constant rules changes forcing me to spend money, its bad enough I have to buy belts, nets, cells all the time...

 

as far as name or class changes be careful, I'd rather be dead last in a 30 car field than the winner of a 1 or 2 car field. 3 classes is my vote, call it 1 2 3 or cmc ai aix doesnt matter.

 

As for the standing starts I'm all for them.

 

AL.

 

I like you already, Al.

Welcome and we'll talk soon!

 

-=- Todd

Link to post
Share on other sites

8.5lbs to 1 HP to weight

8.0lbs to 1 TQ to weight

 

not sure how it would effect costs? and I am sure this will not score any points and someone will tell me why the current weight package is the absolute best thing......but after running a full season + nats in CMC and then moving up to AI, our cars are just plain heavy- more like showroom stock than race car and it seems most guys are making good power and putting in max weight except some of the new builds that start out really heavy and just don't take out as much "stuff".... Just a thought, I am sure a lot of thought and reasoning went into the current weight package, just wondering about the pros and cons.- I don't think this would cost a bunch of money.... it seems most cars could just take out the any restriction and/or adjust a little timing make a little more HP than they do now and take that pesky 150+ out of the car or more- granted the Sn95 guy that makes 330 at the rear is going to say I can't make 2,800lbs coming off the track, but it would be an opportunity for that guy to make a bit more power, which is always more fun!- it might even be better on brakes and tires to be a bit lighter? and could give us a little more difference between CMC2 and AI?

 

Aaron Bambach

AI#20

Great Lakes

AIECCS

Link to post
Share on other sites
8.5lbs to 1 HP to weight

8.0lbs to 1 TQ to weight

 

 

Actually, it's more of a reliability thing. Some guys can't keep motors together at the 300-330hp level now...plus, most are still running T5's and those ain't going to last either.

 

I know I would have a problem trying to make more power with my combo unless I started spending a lot of money to get there even if I took the 100lbs of ballast out of the car. My car dry weighs about 2730 and there is no CHEAP way to lose 150lbs as it is already a tin can. I could see 30-40lbs with some easy effort, losing parts out of the T56 could help, maybe going to an astro A5....but why spend money when we have a system that currently works?

 

I know the 5 year plan for AI is to rein things back in and cut costs to enter the series so lets keep things simple....?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8.5lbs to 1 HP to weight

8.0lbs to 1 TQ to weight

 

 

Actually, it's more of a reliability thing. Some guys can't keep motors together at the 300-330hp level now...plus, most are still running T5's and those ain't going to last either.

 

I know I would have a problem trying to make more power with my combo unless I started spending a lot of money to get there even if I took the 100lbs of ballast out of the car. My car dry weighs about 2730 and there is no CHEAP way to lose 150lbs as it is already a tin can. I could see 30-40lbs with some easy effort, losing parts out of the T56 could help, maybe going to an astro A5....but why spend money when we have a system that currently works?

 

I know the 5 year plan for AI is to rein things back in and cut costs to enter the series so lets keep things simple....?

Those are all good points, but to me, the biggest reason NOT to do this, is because there is no good reason TO do this. As Todd discussed, rules stability is still important. Increasing the power levels would add to the cost of building motors, decreas durability, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8.5lbs to 1 HP to weight

8.0lbs to 1 TQ to weight

 

 

Actually, it's more of a reliability thing. Some guys can't keep motors together at the 300-330hp level now.

 

This sounds very odd to me? - some of the guy's I know are running 350+ for 2 seasons straight piece of cake

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

It sounds like many folks want an AI "Lite" class where the only mods are Wheels, brakes, shocks, springs, anti-roll bars and some aero (ie. smaller wings). Keep the same HP:WT ratio or increase it to make the cars place between CMC and AI. That would be a good stepping stone for drivers who have basically stock cars and want to eventually move up to AI but don't want the limitations of CMC/CMC-2. This would open up the CMC-2 class to models other than Camaros and Mustangs as well - possibly some GTO's, CTS-V's, etc.

 

I'll send the suggestion to my local representative (here it comes Ed!)

 

PS. Covini saying that he is "long winded" that's like a hurricane saying it is a minor wind storm - either way there are massive amounts of hot air*!

 

*and I am saying that with tremendous respect for Todd!

 

Jim Pantas

http://www.WildHorsesRacing.com

Link to post
Share on other sites
8.5lbs to 1 HP to weight

8.0lbs to 1 TQ to weight

 

 

.

Those are all good points, but to me, the biggest reason NOT to do this, is because there is no good reason TO do this. As Todd discussed, rules stability is still important. Increasing the power levels would add to the cost of building motors, decreas durability, etc.

 

AI#97 and Scott your both correct, I was just being selfish....I make 364hp 394tq in a very reliable package (which is why I was suprised at people having trouble keeping together motors at 300-330 AI#97) I would like to run AI vs AIX without a major detune (dang thing is slow enough as it is) and i wasn't thinking of people having to rebuild motors Scott I figured they could just take weight out per the new rule and that is FREE- keep the same power be lighter- anyway I was just throwing it out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Red Tornado

For the first time in years I say just leave all rules as they stand.

Although I don't have bigger brakes and rims I think that was a plus for getting more new cars in this year.

Leave power to weight the same otherwise we all need to change.

Would like to see a gps added or something so takes power to weight to easier to enforce level.

 

Here is what I want in CCR (my big damn beef)

1. a constant region and national rule on passing under yellow flags. Every damn region is different and this has made huge differences in many races. Figure it out and be constant. My major soapbox!!

 

 

Otherwise the series is great as is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone that is in the process of building a AI car, I like the idea of rules to contain costs. Take spec miata for example. huge car counts cause the cars are so cheap. I'll be watching this thread closely as I contue to build my car. Only thing I can think of now would be maybe lower the min weight another hundred pounds. Altho I'm sure most cars couldn't make it there anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Race Starts: Coming from Grand Am, I will say that the no-passing until start/finish works well to avoid T1 incidents. It also helps prevent anyone from getting a run a the start. I would support a plan to have starts like Grand Am, but I would not support the restart procedure. I don't like it because in a multi-class series, a faster car can get stuck behind a slower class car and the cars ahead of the slower class car can run away on a restart before the cars behind that car can start racing (does that make sense?).

 

What about changing the Wt/Pwr and Wt/Tq ratios to 9.5:1 and 9.0:1 (reverse of what they are now). Maybe allow us to decide if we want more Pwr or more Tq, but if you choose 9.5 Lbs/HP, you must run 9.0 Lbs/Ft-Lb. The current rule obviously is biased toward pushrod engines. Or, we can leave the rule how it is and call it even on the ABS issue that seems to be a hot topic.

 

Rules are pretty good as they are. Choose your weapon based on the rules package.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...