Al Watson Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Agreed. There needs to be an intent/direction for the series set in stone and from there the series can be governed. qoute from the rule book: 2. Intent The American Iron Series Rules will encourage each competitor to create an aftermarket-sourced configuration that will make their car perform at an optimum level. The intent of the rules is to allow competitors to use a combination of parts that will increase the performance and competitiveness of the vehicle and create promotional exposure for that vendor. It is the intent of the series to serve as a “showcase” for aftermarket tuners and manufacturers and to create tremendous exposure for their products and services while providing a friendly, accommodating, and challenging environment for the series drivers. This approach is intended to create a reciprocal relationship that will encourage the aftermarket tuners to give their full support and attention to the competitors in the series. So we should be forming the rules based on this, in fact to me the rules are 95% there already, the annual process of updating them is great but we need not get to crazy. qoute from above "The intent of the rules is to allow competitors to use a combination of parts that will increase the performance and competitiveness of the vehicle" so whether we are talking a engine combo, brake abs combo, susp combo etc the rules are all about allowing most any type of setup with a limit set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z28racergirl Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Pat,I don't know you or your car. I do know Raybob and he is one of the hardest working, give you the shirt off his back guys I have ever met! Pat I believe in my heart that you cheat! After the 2007 nationals you were, as I recall involved in some form of alleged cheating as well. Also please refrain from insulting those of us that cannot afford our own engineers and have to resort to reading "shade tree mechanics" books. Cody Powell I don't know Raybob or Cody, but I do know Pat AND his car! (so here's my 2 cents.) He gave me his tires at the 2007 Nationals after I think it was his sixth engine blew up and he wasn't going to be able to run. (I didn't need a shirt; I needed tires, desperately. But he would have given me clothing if I needed it.) Over the years there has been many allegations of Pat "cheating" and I have seen no evidence of it. I don't need to. When Pat is driving he could be in a Miata and kick my butt in my Camaro, maybe. Pat IMHO is a class act. Yet "just a dude" like the rest of us. He's actually pretty soft-spoken, but always up-front and real. Sure he's got more (apparently) dough than I do and runs a better car/shop/race program than I do. I'm glad he races with us. I think he with his race program brings more to AI than many others have in the past - and makes us all better in the process. I find all of this nit-picking over Pat's "illegal" AI car to be frustrating and ridiculous. I agree the intent of the series should be looked over a little, but I think minimal or no changes should be made to the rules. Christine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron B Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Second That, Pat is an extremely talented driver yet a very down to earth fellow- he takes his driving very seriously and built a car to the max to match his ability.... like any intelligent driver with the proper resources would do- and in my opinion is an asset to the American Iron class. Guys like Robin Burnett, Pat L and Dean Martin set the benchmark for all of us, had it not been for some bad luck for most of the season Robin would have given them a good run....."on a budget" I have not met a racer who does so much with so little- he is proof to me that you do not have to spend a bundle to be competitive- if you can... great! if you can't you can not use that as an excuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssfab Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I still think Pat's car still has room for improvement. Whether or not we get to find out is another story. Let me lay this to rest right now. We do not cheat anyway,anyhow PERIOD. We never one time dynoed over. With flaky dyno readings all week we decide in the main race to add 100 lbs. just to make sure, and that's the reason the car slowed a little bit not to mention the bad tune i put in on saturday directly after i volunteered the ECU to Todd also, while i was tuning it i asked Todd to stand over my shoulder so he could see every single setting i put in the car. And Todd please come on the board and verify if anything ive said didnt happen like i explained. The part that totallly blows my mind about all of this is Pat clearly had a substantial disadvantage on the straightaway as it should have been and clearly since the car only makes 301 hp. The GPS verified this. Was winning the race 100% by Pat's phenomonal driving skills and my mediocre at best set-up. As far as the car goes the upper frame or whatever you want to call it underneath the strut was done when we bought the car from Ryan so you can take that up with him. As for the rest of the car is the best example of what my shop offers for an AI/AIX car. So therefore that is the intent of the rule ANYTHING on that car can be bought by contacting me or my website there is NOTHING on that car that is not available the SLA/diffuser/monoblock brake kit to 2 1/2 inch floating axle adjustable ball joints and so on. So if you guys decide to quit crying and just go all in like some of us are instead of spending all your time complaining on the board about how were cheating while were in the shop working and your here typing thank you Todd for keeping both eyes on us the whole time you should feel comfortable that we were straight up and i think that you should atleast tell these people what you saw/know so they leave the best driver alone because when everything is said and done Pat makes me look good -Troy Stacy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tornado Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I have to agree. Guys don't get involved in tech. This was the SCCA downfall. If they pass tech trust me they have been checked and double checked. It spunds like tech was full bore as it has been the past several national events. Trust me in 2008 we had engine and hoods sealed and everything under the world measured and checked before dyno time. Besides a full prison experience let the poor guy be on some of these issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 How did this turn into a discussion of Pat's legality? Leave the guy alone, and Pat & company - no need to defend yourself here. I've never seen Pat's car (I'd very much like to though - and online photo albums?), but apparently he's built a car to the limit of the rules, and that's great. There is going to be a LOT more of that as people in NASA realize how much wiggle room there is in the rules. If you're going to discuss some aspect of his car, and propose that it should be illegal in the future, that's one thing. (Be sure to consider those that already have it, and propose a grandfathering plan). Otherwise, this discussion is just noise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UBR Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 The topic does say SILLY SEASON. But, I'll jump in on the Pat and S&S band wagon. We were garaged right behind Pat at Nats this year. I sat in Pat's car for 30 minutes while they were scaling the car Tuesday night. (Seems I weigh the same as Pat.. But strangely he's 5 inches taller than me) I also spent a lot of time looking over the rest of the car during the week. I've crewed on latemodels for over a decade and Pat's car is an engineering piece of art. Cosmetically not pretty but everything I saw in or on the car was purpose built and I didn't see anything that crossed a line in the rules. The "frame rails" that have been removed are nothing but fender rails on a Fox. The upper strut mount that comes up off the true frame rail was still there and used to mount the coil over. As for HP. The dyno (even the widely variable dyno at Nats) took care of that discussion. There was 1 screwy post race dyno result that was proven to be a result of a broken valve spring. I saw the spring. Suppose that gave the conspiracy theorists fodder. Nats was the first time I'd seen Pat drive. He is obviously very talented. More so than we ever will be (sorry Mark). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST#97 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Troy, "all in" is NOT going to bring in more racers to AI and is running them off to ST2/ST1 and such...I'm sorry, I LOVE the idea of building REAL full on race cars, but I don't gather that was ever the REAL intent of AI back 10 years ago....just a byproduct of rules with huge holes which equal $$$$. Keep things simple and leave the insanity for AIX. And I will ask this question as I guess the car is within eye shot of your desk. Grab a digital camera and take a picture of the REAR frame rails on the car as it sits right now. I'd like to put that discussion to bed. Ever wonder why the top 3 cars had the ass ends up in the air after the race?... When speaking to a director and commenting that Pat's car is now AIX because of notched REAR frame rails, and he responds that "oh, that can be put back in"....tells me the car WAS illegal and should not be allowed to maintain the MMP track record....or for that matter have raced on Sunday in AI. Scott and Chris, who weren't at the event and should have been so we could have had some fun, tech this year made tech in 2008 look like child's play, and the drama around "all the bullshit" was rediculous as it was obvious something was not right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I dunno why people would run from AI to ST1/ST2 because AI is more restrictive as it stands currently. Unless they wanted to modify more stuff and spend more money... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Matt Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 As an exercise in car building, I think cars like Pat's are great. Fun to look at and I'm sure fun to build and drive. But from the point of view of a sanctioning body hoping to build and grow a racing class, is this really what NASA wants AI to be? Do they perceive a big market for cars built to that level and cost? I only use Pat's car as one example, as there have been several other AI cars build to a similar standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Agreed. There needs to be an intent/direction for the series set in stone and from there the series can be governed. qoute from the rule book: 2. Intent The American Iron Series Rules will encourage each competitor to create an aftermarket-sourced configuration that will make their car perform at an optimum level. The intent of the rules is to allow competitors to use a combination of parts that will increase the performance and competitiveness of the vehicle and create promotional exposure for that vendor. It is the intent of the series to serve as a “showcase” for aftermarket tuners and manufacturers and to create tremendous exposure for their products and services while providing a friendly, accommodating, and challenging environment for the series drivers. This approach is intended to create a reciprocal relationship that will encourage the aftermarket tuners to give their full support and attention to the competitors in the series. So we should be forming the rules based on this, in fact to me the rules are 95% there already, the annual process of updating them is great but we need not get to crazy. qoute from above "The intent of the rules is to allow competitors to use a combination of parts that will increase the performance and competitiveness of the vehicle" so whether we are talking a engine combo, brake abs combo, susp combo etc the rules are all about allowing most any type of setup with a limit set. I think the "intend" as written includes broad strokes about the series. As racers in the series, I think we need more detail regarding the intended level of modification. This info would help clarify alot of the philisophical discussions, and help eliminate some of the disagreements. Stock based cars or wide open ? If it falls in between, which I'm sure it does, we need the rules to be more specific about just how far. Again, my opinion. As AI racers better understand where the series is headed, we can make decisions about where we fit as individuals. Examples, (Realizing this isn't a democracy, but members should matter) Look at the types or level of cars that make up the majority in the series. Look at the type of new cars that have joined the series recently. What level of modification best suites perspective AI racers? If individuals want more extreme modifications, there already is a part of the series for these extreme cars, and there are only a few in it. If spending $100 k is fine with an individual, then why not just add the big motor and go extreme? Personally, I want a thundering V8 pony car to race I like the idea of having the "Big 3" pony cars squaring off against each other. I want a car that I can modify and makke handle very good. I want a car that stops great I want some HP, but don't need 500 plus. Aero is good, but should be minimal. I think the cars should closely resemble their stock versions in appearance. I want to be able to put parts on that will increase reliabilty. I'm happy to have the option of using aftermarket parts that will help me achieve one of the items listed above, and help manufacturers market their stuff, and the contigent money that is included. I want driver skill , car set up and preperation to rule the day. I like the idea of a spec tire I like the hp / tq to weight limits, but would like to see more dynos at the track. I don't want trick parts that will temporarily give me an andvantage until eveyone else runs out and buys said part. (waste of money and time). This includes electronic gadgets I don't want to have to continuely upgrade my car to keep up with the next guy, but I'm happy to make improvements within the rules to better my car. I don't want to spend $50K plus on a car, and additional thousands to maintain. I don't want to spend thousands on testing, dyno tuning, wind tunnel, etc... So, is AI the series for me? I'm hoping it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbodleimages Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Sounds to me like we are approaching a point of class splitting. AI2 AIX2. These are just random thoughts. Might it be that Since NASA has an SU class and an ST1 class that AIX as an unlimited class is overkill? Might it be that its AIX that should be pulled back to the extent that there need not be such a big gap between an AI car and an AIX car? A good AI car maybe should not have to be completely torn down and started over to move up to AIX. Maybe the AI car should be closer to stock with original body panels, oem suspension and drivetrain mounting points and 340-350rwhp and AIX cars allow light weight body panels, engine set backs and 450whp. I think common sense is something that we need to keep in mind. I am researching a SCCA T2 project for the magazine. An 05+ T2 car must be stock with the Shelby GT package of lowing springs, sway bars, 14" GT500 brakes, and a Ford Racing 3:73 gear allowed. There is no way that car can keep up with the better AI cars, but if 14" brakes and 18" wheels are not allowed this car is not AI legal. That makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_tone Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 The "frame rails" that have been removed are nothing but fender rails on a Fox. The upper strut mount that comes up off the true frame rail was still there and used to mount the coil over. . You are half correct about the function of the shotgun rails being "...nothing but fender rails on a Fox" Removing that section on the bottom side allows you to add bump travel when the vehicle is lowered considerably. It is usually only an issue with the SLA cars, as they can run lower than the strut cars due to the geometry associated with the struts going to garbage when run that low. I agree that at present they are 100% legal to do, but the issue I have is not with Pat's car, it is with the rule itself. The rear rails cannot be modified, so why can we do it on the front? It is an advantage. If the upper rails cannot be notched, the SLA cars cannot run as low as they do and maintain the additional wheel travel the notch allows. To be clear, this is not an attack or anything negative on Pat L., it's merely an observation on how the rules are not always logical. In my view at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Sounds to me like we are approaching a point of class splitting. AI2 AIX2. I don't think this is a good idea. Don't fractionalize the current group, unify it. I'm not advocating radical change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbodleimages Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 At somepoint evolution has to happen. 2010 cars and 1985 cars are just not going to be equally competitive forever. Either the class evolves as one class and the older cars get phased out OR the class evolves into two classes. One for the newer cars and one for the older cars. It may not be now, but at somepoint pressures of the marketplace and the turning of the calender pages will force change. When somebody brings a 2010 Mustang to AI there will be FIVE generations of Mustangs in the class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z28racergirl Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Dave A - your list of "wants" for AI are exactly mine. Bravo. I'm unsure about this talk of "future cars" and 2010 Mustangs in our series at this point. How many are there? 1? How many OTHER cars are in the series? (And have been for years?) Regardless, I'm over spending any more huge amounts money on #29. I don't have the levels of tech, engineering, or driving skill that many of the front runners do, to justify huge expenditures. I just do this to have fun! Christine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbodleimages Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 The 2010 Mustang is not the issue. Its the relative discomfort on the 05-09 Mustang from those in Fox or SN95 cars and the reality that the 05-09 car has already been replaced with a new model. Time marches on and how we deal with that is going to be crucial to the future of the class. On the other hand this is all supposed to be about fun. That part of it you have completely correct Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nape Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 So, is AI the series for me? I'm hoping it is. That sounds like a plan I could live with. You are half correct about the function of the shotgun rails being "...nothing but fender rails on a Fox" Removing that section on the bottom side allows you to add bump travel when the vehicle is lowered considerably. It is usually only an issue with the SLA cars, as they can run lower than the strut cars due to the geometry associated with the struts going to garbage when run that low. I'll try not to argue about it anymore after this because I don't even need it on my chassis, but you can fix the geometry on a strut car so that it needs the rule and can take advantage of the bump travel. If the Fox cars need that to get low enough to meet the 5" ride height limit, why take it away from them? Sounds to me like we are approaching a point of class splitting. AI2 AIX2. NO. It makes no sense to do that. We were just able to achieve the car counts for the year end Toyo payout here in the Midwest for the first time. That's $1750/year in contingency we've been "wasting" for the last 4 years. $7000 TOTAL! These are just random thoughts. Might it be that Since NASA has an SU class and an ST1 class that AIX as an unlimited class is overkill? Might it be that its AIX that should be pulled back to the extent that there need not be such a big gap between an AI car and an AIX car? A good AI car maybe should not have to be completely torn down and started over to move up to AIX. Maybe the AI car should be closer to stock with original body panels, oem suspension and drivetrain mounting points and 340-350rwhp and AIX cars allow light weight body panels, engine set backs and 450whp. I'm probably going to come off as a dick, but we don't need random thoughts when setting rules. SU is a catch all that allows everything from a Yugo to a full on ALMS P1 car. It doesn't matter how much HP you have when your competition only weighs 1500lbs and has the aero of a bullet. If you told me you were changing AIX and that my car is now in SU, I'd tell you to go pound sand. If you build a good AI car, you don't have to completely tear it down to turn it into an AIX car. You need to put the big motor in it, add a dog ring trans of choice, and put on some lighter weight body panels. The biggest differences in AI vs. AIX are motor, trans, ability to run a non-ferrous center in the rear end, ability to notch the rear frame rails, and wider wheels. I have no complaints with stock body panels in AI, my car has them all, but isn't that really to let the Fox cars get wide enough to cover tires to get maximum track width? Don't fiberglass fenders usually weigh more then stock steel fenders? I know they do for F-bodies. Carbon is a different story, but how many cars are actually spending that kind of money? If you want OEM suspension, go look at CMC. That was never the intent of AI. My car only makes 311RWHP, I don't want to have to make more, it's just harder on equipment. Engine set backs are nothing hard if you can read a tape measure. It cost me $60 to do it on my car. I had to change the yoke and front u-joint and I could use my stock driveshaft. Here's the tool list: -Brain -Tape measure -Pencil -Center punch -Hammer -1/4" pilot bit -7/16" bit for finished hole size There is no way that car can keep up with the better AI cars, but if 14" brakes and 18" wheels are not allowed this car is not AI legal. That makes no sense. I'll agree there, the more the merrier if they want to come run with us. At somepoint evolution has to happen. 2010 cars and 1985 cars are just not going to be equally competitive forever. Either the class evolves as one class and the older cars get phased out OR the class evolves into two classes. One for the newer cars and one for the older cars. When somebody brings a 2010 Mustang to AI there will be FIVE generations of Mustangs in the class. Bring the 2010 Mustang on, I'll bet it runs right there with the 2009 Mustang. I'll enjoy trying to beat it with my 1985 Firebird. With as open as the AI rule set is, the only excuse for one chassis not running with another is that one driver doesn't want it as bad as the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weed Wacker Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 We dont have an AI car, but are looking at buying/building a CMC car this winter that will inevitably become an AI car. So have an interest in the direction of the series that i consider the "ground pounders" of nasa. If you dont like me joining in here, dont read this... At somepoint evolution has to happen. 2010 cars and 1985 cars are just not going to be equally competitive forever. Either the class evolves as one class and the older cars get phased out OR the class evolves into two classes. One for the newer cars and one for the older cars. Why not? If your allowed to run open suspension geometry up front and update a fox chassis with the s197 rear IRS would you not have just as fast of a car? Granted its got different aero, but its also different weight-wise so there are pros/cons for either. Sure it requires more work than just running what you started with, but not necessarily a whole lot more money. If you try to split up the class, your just going to make car counts lower. That is your original problem with the present rules right, lower car counts than CMC2? We always looked at AI as a pony car battle-ground that allows good ole' american ingenuity to be put on showcase. So whats wrong with a car that has an engine swap? Most people like that thing Mr Shelby made... That was a car with a motor swap. That was american ingenuity at work. Atleast an LS motor in a Ford has nothing to do with a british car! Nothing wrong with figuring out ways to improve your platform to show your way is the best way. This would include your position on SLA set-ups, drivetrain placement, aero, wheels/tires/brakes, ABS, engine configuration, etc etc. Sure these open choices ALLOW you to spend a zillion dollars on an AI car, but you dont HAVE to. The attraction to AI for us was the ability to decide we wanted to tear something out and start over, and we could. We would not have to buy a new car, we would not have to switch classes or redo everything, we just needed to make sure we did not exceed our ratios or overall sizes. Its like being given a problem and being told to figure it out any way we want, not have to follow every single instruction step-by-step according to someone else's idea of "the right way." P.S. Not trying to single you out Mr Bodle, just using what was said to illustrate my point. Also, ST is in no way cheaper, it has basically the same open rules but allows any car and more power. No offense but i dont see an AI car being competitive against high 300 whp 'vettes and vipers and 3-4 whp evo's and sti's without spending even more money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tornado Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 You know just to prove a point I am going to win AIECCS and Nationals next year in my old and dated 2004 mustang. I usually do no upkeep except brakes and oil and it has just been left alone from the great sorting Dean and Rehagen did 4 years ago for Grand Am. So all you $100k cars watch out because me and my $25k total investment are gonna kick your butt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UBR Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 So all you $100k cars watch out because me and my $25k total investment are gonna kick your butt. Now that's exactly the right attitude we need in AI! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jim P. Posted October 23, 2009 Members Share Posted October 23, 2009 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!) I posted this way back on page 2 of this thread - We need an interim class that is just like American Iron but the modifications are limited to brakes, shocks, springs, swaybars and minor Aero - that way those that feel they are spending less by running in the AI/L(imited) class will be happy and yet they will all run under the American Iron series. Jim Pantas http://www.WildHorsesRacing.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micks 41 Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 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!) I posted this way back on page 2 of this thread - We need an interim class that is just like American Iron but the modifications are limited to brakes, shocks, springs, swaybars and minor Aero - that way those that feel they are spending less by running in the AI/L(imited) class will be happy and yet they will all run under the American Iron series. Jim Pantas http://www.WildHorsesRacing.com I'm not familiar with the intent of CMC2, but that and CMC would be a fit for people that are afraid of spending to much cabbage and ingenuity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nape Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 I posted this way back on page 2 of this thread - We need an interim class that is just like American Iron but the modifications are limited to brakes, shocks, springs, swaybars and minor Aero - that way those that feel they are spending less by running in the AI/L(imited) class will be happy and yet they will all run under the American Iron series. Jim Pantas http://www.WildHorsesRacing.com Jim, maybe I'm dense, but isn't what you're suggesting a CMC2 car? CMC2 - 256HP/294TQ (12.5lb/hp): -Koni DAs -Stock front A-arms -C/C plates -Stock sway bars (many factory sizes) -tubular rear control arms -Cobra brakes (4-piston brakes legal) -aftermarket radiator -Cobra R wing AI - 311HP/317TQ (9.5lb/hp): -Koni SAs -Stock front A-arms -C/C plates -Stock sway bars (many factory sizes) -tubular rear control arms -Wilwood 4-piston brakes -Stock radiator -lexan spoiler I think splitting AI up further is a horrible idea. The car counts are just starting to hit consistently around here. If people really want to do a class like that, you need to find out what they don't like in AI that can be changed to bring them into the fold instead of further diluting the pony car fields. CMC/CMC2/AI-L/AI/AIX? Do people want to race or just win a trophy everytime? PS- Mickey beat me to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jim P. Posted October 23, 2009 Members Share Posted October 23, 2009 Yes, it is similar to CMC-2 but it would be open to any American car - ie. GTO's, CTS-V's, Pontiac G8's, etc. - and those same cars can move up to AI if they choose to enhance their cars more than AI/L allows. In essence AI/L would be a replacement for CMC-2... Jim Pantas http://www.WildHorsesRacing.com 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.