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

[b_tone]

Frame Notching -

 

I have always been shocked that notching, or removing most of the upper frame rail on the front of the fox body/SN95 mustang has been given the thumbs up and been made legal considering the stink that was made over two tiny notches in the rear of a certain blue SN95 mustang......

 

What are you calling the upper frame rail, the structure that you bolt fenders to?

 

The upper rail (on the Fox and SN95 Mustangs) is the rail that that the upper shock tower connects to. The idea behind removing or notching this area (highlighted in red in the attached picture of Pat L's car) is that you can run the car lower statically, and then when utilizing an SLA you can retain wheel travel in bump. If this area is not removed the tire can impact the stock upper rail.

 

Again, I simply find it interesting that it's ok in the front.

[firehawkclone]

Frame Notching -

 

I have always been shocked that notching, or removing most of the upper frame rail on the front of the fox body/SN95 mustang has been given the thumbs up and been made legal considering the stink that was made over two tiny notches in the rear of a certain blue SN95 mustang......

 

This is why I've always said AI is a mustang rule set! I can't even clearance my shock towers for my upper a-arms so I can get my ride height down.

 

Here's a rule: .12.2 AI cars must utilize upper front and rear OEM shock/strut attachment points.

[nape]

The upper rail (on the Fox and SN95 Mustangs) is the rail that that the upper shock tower connects to. The idea behind removing or notching this area (highlighted in red in the attached picture of Pat L's car) is that you can run the car lower statically, and then when utilizing an SLA you can retain wheel travel in bump. If this area is not removed the tire can impact the stock upper rail.

 

Again, I simply find it interesting that it's ok in the front.

 

I find it interesting that you're trying to call it a frame rail, I've never heard it refered to as such. You have to work on that area on any car that travel is an issue and it doesn't really matter that it's an SLA.

 

This is why I've always said AI is a mustang rule set! I can't even clearance my shock towers for my upper a-arms so I can get my ride height down.

 

Here's a rule: .12.2 AI cars must utilize upper front and rear OEM shock/strut attachment points.

 

That wouldn't do much to change the issue at hand. With that logic, the Agent47 SLA is legal and the Griggs SLA (shown in pic) could be made legal in less then a day of fab time.

[b_tone]

 

I find it interesting that you're trying to call it a frame rail, I've never heard it refered to as such. You have to work on that area on any car that travel is an issue and it doesn't really matter that it's an SLA.

 

Actually it does matter, the issue the some people had with the clue #29 IRS car was the perception of increased wheel travel, which it did not (on the previously mentioned blue car) if the car was lowered. The only reason to cut out the upper rail is to allow additional wheel travel for the SLA setup to allow a lower front ride height. I will say that to get the strut cars down as far as the SLA cars is much more difficult to do with a strut car and involves custom length struts, not to mention the kinematics get ugly....

[swhiteh3]

My personal opinion is that this upper "shotgun" frame rail should NOT be allowed to be modified, as it is clearly a very basic piece of the car' structure. Of course, we may already be past that. I asked about modifying that structure, and was rather shocked when I was told I could do it, but have not chosen to do so yet. Removing that structure to reduce ride height is a pretty significant advantage.

[Raznkane]

I highly recommend that the dingle arm be made from unobtanium!

 

 

 

Once again I see tempers have flarred. So, I have just one question for our new series director.

 

Is this legal in AI

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

I can't wait for a panel review. I need to know right away.

[Red Tornado]

Man AI is getting interesting these days.

 

Everyone worries to much. This is all about running with a bunch of other guys in fairly similar (key word there) cars. Otherwise CMC or spec Miata is fairly cookie cutter in money limits.

 

I have said it for years, no one has ever even come close to the AI rules at all and now we are getting cars getting damn close.

 

I remeber when I first started racing AI and Bryan Shugg and I had cars that had power to weight of maybe 13 to 1 or so (275rwhp and 3,500lbs) and we bitched cause Hoover was literally within 10 rwhp of the limit and that killed us.

 

It took nearly 10 years for someone to build close to the perfect AI car and everyone acts surprised. I say about time and sorry it wasnt me first. And not one year has the expected car won in AI or AIX as what played out in qualifying so all the fear talk only played out with Jay and his old fox body (sorry Jay) and damn incredibly good driving. Otherwise most expected predestined winners have never finished or even won.

[tacovini]

I just love the Silly Season, but glad it's oNly a month!

[mitchntx]

I just love the Silly Season, but glad it's oNly a month!

 

Todd ... you want me to help this thread along? I'm pretty good at calming the waters, so to speak.

 

[RichardP]

Removing that structure to reduce ride height is a pretty significant advantage.

 

I think the reason we don't have that many people doing or complaining about that mod is because it just doesn't make that much sense with what you are legally allowed to do in the rear. If you were allowed to notch the rear frame rails for rear axle clearance, then I agree this would be a serious performance advantage.

 

 

Richard P.

AI #91

[nape]

My personal opinion is that this upper "shotgun" frame rail should NOT be allowed to be modified, as it is clearly a very basic piece of the car' structure. Of course, we may already be past that. I asked about modifying that structure, and was rather shocked when I was told I could do it, but have not chosen to do so yet. Removing that structure to reduce ride height is a pretty significant advantage.

 

If that's the argument for keeping them, what about the core support? Without the core support, all they are doing is giving you a place to bolt the fenders.

 

How many cars are at the 5" ride height limit? This modification doesn't let you lower the ride height, it just allows you to maintain adequate travel while at that ride height.

 

Removing that structure to reduce ride height is a pretty significant advantage.

 

I think the reason we don't have that many people doing or complaining about that mod is because it just doesn't make that much sense with what you are legally allowed to do in the rear. If you were allowed to notch the rear frame rails for rear axle clearance, then I agree this would be a serious performance advantage.

 

Richard P.

AI #91

 

Wait until people start building rear ends with smaller then stock axle tubes and gusseting them on the bottom to get the strength back. Makes me wish I could've found someone who made a 9" with 2.25/2.5" axle tubes instead of the 3". Anyone thought about notching the axle tube instead of the frame rail?

 

The AI rule set is still wide open, you just have to think outside the box.

[ST#97]

Cody can be my VP in 2012! Glad someone had the balls to print what most say in private and Raybob can be our regional director any time.

 

Desalvo, you need a new engine builder...I don't have nearly that much in my entire driveline.

 

also, whoever is "parting out" their mod motor, why? You are giving up an 80# advantage on the nose of the car and I do NOT have a torque problem with my little 2V. I'm also for no aftermarket ECU's.

 

Ryan W, your comment about getting hosed in T1 and race over is horsepucky. I certainly proved that theory wrong (entered T1 in 2nd, left in 12th, finished 3rd). Taking risks at other racers' expense, especially in a private funded series without sponsors to pay repair bills, is just stupid.

 

So, where are we as a series? Personally, I think we just "grew up too quick" as big money flowed in and took advantage of "we can do THAT?". We have lost our identity as a grassroots, pony and muscle car series with 'Mostly' stock cars.

 

From what I understand, MY car is what the original rules intended, and that AI has "gotten out of hand" whatever that means. I love innovation and "neat parts", but the insanity of spending cubic dollars must stop. If the spending keeps getting too big or out of control, there will no fresh meat coming into the series....IF that happens, regional directors need to have the power to modify the rules set for their region to increase car counts with the vote of the current regional racers.

 

 

Todd.....good luck brother!

[Pat L.]

So is this officially the miniature version of US politics? Conservatives and Liberals duking it out... and nothing is going to change. Well, hopefully the powers at be will surprise us and make some alterations to the rules package that will help the future of our series.

[King Matt]

If you want to see the result of unfettered capitalism at work in the area of racing, just look back at the history of the Can-Am series. It's the ultimate example of racers being their own worst enemy and "ruining" what was a great concept.

[horsewidower]

From what I understand, MY car is what the original rules intended,

 

I bet we all think this about our respective cars. Not even worth arguing.

[ST#97]

From what I understand, MY car is what the original rules intended,

 

I bet we all think this about our respective cars. Not even worth arguing.

 

Uhm....direct quote from important person... I'm not creative enough to do anything other than repeat what I have heard first hand....

[Raybob9289]

From what I understand, MY car is what the original rules intended,

 

I bet we all think this about our respective cars. Not even worth arguing.

 

I think MFW's car is, less the Giant wings.

[ST#97]

From what I understand, MY car is what the original rules intended,

 

I bet we all think this about our respective cars. Not even worth arguing.

 

I think MFW's car is, less the Giant wings.

My wing is only 68" wide!

[D Algozine]

From what I understand, MY car is what the original rules intended,

 

I bet we all think this about our respective cars. Not even worth arguing.

 

Uhm....direct quote from important person... I'm not creative enough to do anything other than repeat what I have heard first hand....

 

 

Related to these comments. AI as a series needs to decide on it's identity and shape the rules to stick to that identity. Currently, my impression is that AI is trying to be too much for too many different types of cars. Is it all about extreme modifications that lead to a cutting edge race cars, or is it all about accommodating mildly altered street cars, or somewhere in between, because it can't be everything. Examples, it's legal to cut up a shell into Swiss cheese, change the entire drive train, radically modify the suspension, etc..., but we still want to accommodate various new stock parts, such as ABS, new drive by wire throttle bodies, etc., and be appealing to new comers. I think it's asking too much from one series.

 

A bigger issue is that the most cars don't match the current rules. My feeling is that as more cars build to the wide open rules, the less the current guys will be interested in staying, and less appealing to perspective racers. My solution, is start reeling in the rules to better match the current cars. Leave the pro built, front halved, open engines, exotic computers, etc... to AIX. Right now the only difference between AI and AIX is open HP and tires & wheels.

 

Sorry Pat, I have to use your car as an example, nothing personal. Many, including some top guys in AI have commented on Pats car, even going as far as to say that this is what an AI car should be. Not arguing the point, but if this is where we are headed, I'm pretty sure we are going to loose current racers. Look at AIX, there are maybe 5-6 real AIX cars in the entire nation. Why is that??

 

In my opinion, radical changes are not needed, but many areas of the rules need significant clarifications and limits imposed. Just my opinion.

[nape]

Can we just publish the rules already? It's getting cold in the garage without the grinder and welder going.

[robbodleimages]

Dave,

 

I tend to agree in general principle to what you are saying, but disagree along the edges.

 

My understanding is that NASA got its jump as a push back against the over regulation and rules of the SCCA. Therefore the wide open rules. As long as participants took a more basic approach to car building the cars were affordable and competitive. As soon as somebody started spending more to the rules, the poop was going to hit the fan.

 

My disagreement is with the pushback on the S197. The car doesn't require a lot of build up to be competitive. Its less expensive in real terms than building an 03 Cobra in '07/'08.

S197 doesn't require the radical and expensive suspension mods. Sway bars and coilovers and a panhard bar and you are done.

 

I feel like part of the current unease is that there is fear that the S197 is going to obsolete the Fox and SN95 cars. Lets be careful that we don't twist the rules to keep it legal to spend $65k on an SN95 car while basically outlawing a $30k S197.

[Pat L.]

Dave, I think you're spot on. There are two different views of AI and we're definitely at a crossroads here. The build of a car like mine was inevitable, I think Troy and I just beat a few folks to the punch. As a matter of fact, I could point to a few cars in the paddock and on the interweb that have items that are more exotic and unobtainium than those in my car. And even some things we did have no performance advantage, but they just "look" cool (centerlock wheels).

 

I really don't think sending cars like mine or other well-developed cars to AIX is the answer. AIX isn't all that appealing now that you have to make over 600hp to even consider being competitive. What if we consider the possibility of allowing AI to lean a little more towards the exotic and adjusting the CMC2 rules to accept the lesser developed AI cars. Heck, we've all seen CMC2 cars that run up through AI fields, so the speed difference is negligible.

 

And again, I want to suggest the idea of going from dyno numbers to GPS. The ability of GPS to be dynamic in ensuring compliance means guys like me who have spent money reducing frontal area, drag Cx and of course rolling resistance in the front axle automatically LOSE some of our competitive advantage. Want the playing field leveled? That's the easiest way, IMO.

 

Bickering over the "intent" of the rules is pointless... arguing over how to fix them is time well spent.

[UBR]

I feel like part of the current unease is that there is fear that the S197 is going to obsolete the Fox and SN95 cars. Lets be careful that we don't twist the rules to keep it legal to spend $65k on an SN95 car while basically outlawing a $30k S197.

Rob,

Great points. We are contemplating buying a new S197 vs reworking our Fox. The Fox rework will be cheaper since we already have a built car but the end result will still be a compromise. Buying a S197 will start as a solid, basic platform that would perform as well or better than the Fox.

[Sidney]

What if we consider the possibility of allowing AI to lean a little more towards the exotic and adjusting the CMC2 rules to accept the lesser developed AI cars. Heck, we've all seen CMC2 cars that run up through AI fields, so the speed difference is negligible.

 

Hey,

 

Keep CMC out of this. Our rules are just fine!

 

Sidney Franklin

CMC #64

[kbrew8991]

Bickering over the "intent" of the rules is pointless... arguing over how to fix them is time well spent.

 

eh, setting the intent in stone / writing for your series is absolutely important. Once thats set the path to "fix" the ruleset becomes fairly easy to find.