What Would AI2 Have Looked Like?

[tacovini]

GROUND RULES

Prerequisite reading in order to post a reply here is the "2011 State of the Union Address" announcement above.

If you are posting an opinion or reply, "Try to look beyond the nose of your own car." (as a great friend once said.)

Please keep it constructive, refrain from foul language and no personal attacks on anyone.

This thread will be monitored and moderated...anything derogatory will simply be deleted, and then your voice won't be heard at all.

 

We want to hear your thoughts as to what a more modern AI2 class would look like.

How will this positively or negatively impact your American Iron racing?

 

-=- Todd

[Glenn]

A few things to consider.

Drop the AI power:weight a small amount to allow AI2 to fill the gap evenly between AI and AIX.

Reason? I would love to uncork my restricted CMC/CMC2 motor (285hp/325tq unrestricted) and run AI every now and again.

 

Put the 18" wheels and tires in AI2, and ban them from AI.

 

Put the 14" brakes in AI2 and ban them from AI.

 

Limit rear wings some more than you already do, and open it up some more than what you see in AI for AI2.

 

Price cap on AI shocks.

 

Minimum wheel weight in AI.

[GTO1]

Todd this is exactly what we need. I can't wait. More hp, bigger wheels and tires (hopefully not spec) yet not unlimited. This gives everybody a chance to stay in AI or move into AI2 and yet still be even more creative with your car. I like the idea.

When will we be racing AI2. Hopefully next year!

 

Lets get this party started.

[nape]

Alright... typical NASA fashion: Getting a decent car count? Split it up so that no one can make contingency because there's a class for everyone...

 

This would make 5 classes under the American Iron banner. So, in 2014 we get an 8.7 P/W and possibly a new class before then with even higher P/W? Talk about a moving target.

 

So, I think it should look like a stillborn idea. Make the changes you want to make to AI and keep it a unified field. I'd rather be 6th in a 10 car field then be 1st in a 3 car field. There might be a $40 difference in contingency, but when you're running $365 tires, who cares?

 

PS- I'm getting tired of "faster" chicanes as it is. I don't want to add any more. - "Don't understand chassis? Add more motor!"

[firehawkclone]

With the AI2 here's my thoughts. It hurt CMC at first, but Ca is all CMC2 now. So maybe it will work for AI to.

 

Hp/Tq-I would love to uncork my 12yr old stock motor with headers, and cai. So 8:1 i put the stock tune back in, and 7:1 i cam it!

 

Wheels- GM 4th gen car's have a hugh selection of 17x11's that just bolt on with very little mods. I think most of the platforms have 17x11 or 18x10 available. We dont need 3 classes running the same size tires.

 

Tire's- I like the RA1's, but Toyo just dont pay out enough. Is there a better choice though?

 

Aero- Leave it the same, so car's can move around within the serie's.

 

ABS- I'll wait for your response.............

[trackboss]

Nice to see that some of those on top are realizing the AI rules are in need of an update. Too bad I cut the AI car up a long time ago and shelved the whole project.

I don't post around here anymore because I'd rather not argue. I do have some thoughts I'd like to share.

Adding another class in the american iron group could possibly reduce the class sizes that are already really small. Completely gone here in CA.

A more reasonable power to weight ratio will benefit everyone. 7:1 is a very fair number and will not cost any more than any of the more recent front running AI cars that were well prepared. I think using a 420rwhp motor in an AI car is very reasonable along with a sub 3000lb car/driver. Heck, powerblock tv on spike has build some super inexpensive motors that exceed current AI limits. For those that can't reach that number they really need to take some weight out of their cars. I've seen excess weight in every single AI car I've ever looked at. Even the light ones. If someone is not creative enough to figure it out pay some one that is.

Consider things like dry sump that appear expensive up front, but go a long way towards durability if done right.

Aero is just about on every car out there already so it might as well stay, but with some restrictions so it doesn't get out of control.

Limit tire size not wheel size. As far as brand and such all I can say is hoosiers are the tire(not including slicks) to have if allowed, but a spec tire "might" have some cost savings to the competitor. One set for entire race weekend is something to think about.

jerico or similar transmissions. They are not hiding any tricks like the tremec or t-5 "stock" type transmissions. Not to mention they are much more durable, lighter(last thing I want to do is a clutch job in the paddock with one of the modern 6 speeds), and very reasonably priced.

Kind of like a solid AIX car but without an ultra expensive powerplant.

I could go on, but these are things I've mentioned for years and serious racers agreed to, but no one in charge ever did.

[Aaron B]

8:1 p/w

10" wheels

wider tires

no ABS

Edited January 28, 2011 by Guest

[gbrown8439]

Something to consider if we are going to up the power number.

 

You are going to spend a LOT of money getting any Ford Modular motor other than the new 5.0 up to 400RWHP without boost. The current AI rules don't allow a V8 to be boosted and that rule would make AI2 tough for an 05+ Mustang to make even an 8:1 power number.

 

One of the lightest 05+ Mustangs that I know of is around 3100# post race most are around 3500#. A 3100# car would need to make 387RWHP at 8:1. It would cost a LOT more money to build that motor without boost than it would if forced induction was allowed. The cost of a mod motor to make a 7:1 power limit naturally aspirated would be ridiculous especially if that car weighed 3500#.

We have a customer that we helped build a 500 RWHP NA Mod motor. It makes peak power around 8500 rpm, revs well past 9000rpm and he has at least twice as much money in his motor that I have in my 700 RWHP supercharged Mod motor.

 

I like the idea of allowing any transmission that costs less than $6000. For that money you can buy a transmission that was built to race instead of spending that money to modify a transmission that was never meant to be on a race track.

[robbodleimages]

My 2 cents:

 

1 penny: no spec tire. this invites the remaining DOT competition tire providers to compete for our business. putting faster tires on the 2 cars will further seperate them from that AI pack in race conditions. 18" tires are the norm on the new platforms and 18" Toyos are present more expensive than all the other DOT providers by a significant margin.

 

penny #2: Current World Challenge GTS rules are designed to attract Grand AM GS class race cars. It would seem to make some sense to build this class to mirror those professional classes as closely as practicable. That allows for more free movement between the amateur and professional ranks. IT means competitors can have AI/WC/GA crossover cars. It means that we can buy used and aging out GA/WC race cars and bring them straight into a quality NASA Series without having to spend further money to get them to fit into the class. It also allows for AI to become a quality training ground and testing ground for those professional series.

 

Slightly off topic: While this is a split to the AI class, I am wondering about any consideration of some class consolidation in NASA.

 

AI or AI2 looks to me like very similar performance specs to other NASA non-AI classes. AI/AI2-ST2-GTS3 are all similar in their performance base. Sometimes it seems like we are have the opportunity for some outstanding racing that we are overlooking.

 

Grand AM racing is BMW M3, Porsche 911, Mustang, Camaro, Subaru Sti and so forth. AI2 for sure could fall straight into the ST2 8.7-1 power to weight ratio. There would have to be a fairly easy way to fold the GTS2-3-4 cars into the same race class.

 

My basic question is, why race 8 cars in a class when we can be racing 35 cars and paying tires and so forth for the top 10?

 

Why not build these classes to allow for crossover racing? If there are good reasons not to fold AI/ST2/GTS classes into a single race class, there is certainly an opportunity to create special racing event racing opportunities where these cars can race each other. It also creates marketing opportunities for NASA, MFC and more.

 

We have all had great races with cars not in our class. Why not experiment with making those actual races.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Guest

[reds]

I think the AI2 class will hurt the series at the regional level. As stated above Instead of having say a 10 car AI field, you would have a 6 car field and a 4 car field. My opinion would be to just raise the hp of AI.

[Al Watson]

I have some thoughts both good and bad.

 

I have mixed feelings as it seems to me nasa is interested in more classes so they can get more racers paying for events and are not really interested in having large car count competitive classes. Good for nasa $$ bad for us racers. I'd rather be dead last against 20 cars than first in a field of one. Nasa needs to strike a balance here. Going from 4 classes to 5 classes justs makes it worse, we need to go from 4 classes to 3. I can understand the need to evolve as hp and performance levels rise over the years and I can understand the need for AI2, but adding more classes is the wrong answer. We need to realign 3 classes all at the same time so that no one classes takes the hit we all take it together. As for the comment of a large number of restricted cars in AI I think the thoughts are not accurate, sure there may be several restricted cars but almost all of them were built with too much hp as oppose to coming from the factory with too much hp and a stock '11 mustang can fit right into AI with no mods and meet the pwr to wght running around 3100-3200 lbs so that aspect is miss leading to me.

 

Heres what I would like to see: 3 classes cmc, AI and AIX

cmc: (cmc goes away use cmc2 rules)

- allow older cars like AI/AIX

- use a basic pwr to wght rule like AI

- ra1s

AI:

- have a small pwr increase to distance itself a little from cmc2, say 8.5-9:1

- ra1s

AIX:

- unrestricted and allow more stuff to keep with the extreme part

- slicks

 

If nasa is dead set on AI2 than I can understand only if cmc goes away at the same time and also that the ai2 rules ie pwr and tires are far enough away from AI. So we would be going from 4 classes to 4 classes and I think that is a nice middle ground between nasa and its racers.

 

ai2 rules:

- keep ai the same

- pwr ratio around 7.5:1

- any dot tire max 315

- any oem abs (ai no abs at all)

 

The other AL.

[Tommy55]

There are some concerns that need to be addressed on the current AI rule set before we start another class. Another concern is if I am in the middle of a build, what do I do. How soon will there be a rule set for Astronomical Income 2 (as if 1 is not bad enough). Is this going to be a class for 2011 or ????

[CMC#11]

My opinion from an outside CMC2 competitor:

AI2 should not exist.

The main issue I currently see with AI is the power level. Why not just alter the p/w ratio and keep everything else as is?

A new Camaro or Mustang will put down 370-380 stock so how about an 8.5 p/w ratio with the current AI rules.

 

The transition from AI to AI2 would be a huge jump compared to CMC to CMC2.

I have a fox and my motor transition from CMC to CMC2 consisted of a $200 camshaft. 4th gens either change or remove a restrictor plate, S197's are there stock. The only tricky platform is the 3rd gen.

 

Like others have said, alter the current AI rules slightly and keep everyone in one class.

[Al F.]

As a competitor and not as an official, these are my thoughts...

 

AI2 should be what we want AI to look like while giving the guys that dont want to change the opportunity to not have to. Drivers will vote with their wallets and either remain in AI or move to AI2. Eventually one of the two will win. That's what we saw with CMC1 and CMC2. I would be surprised if CMC1 doesnt simply go away after this year (its been several years that both are out there)

 

So, what would I like to see?

1) freeze AI1 to the current AI rules.

2) AI2 power anywhere between 7 and 8 to 1

3) define the tire size, leave wheel size open, add wheel weight min to limit cost

4) no abs or traction control, where here to drive not play video games

5) no sequential shifters or computer controlled clutches, same reason as 4

6) scour the rules and cars for things we do that arent really needed in order for us to go have fun that result in extreme amounts of time and or money and get rid of them. For example, the ability to effectively gut all of the tub forward of the firewall and make what is for all practical purposes a tube frame car.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Al F.

[sundialracing]

A lot of you guys have been running AI for quite a while, I am new to AI but not to club racing so based on my experiences I have some concerns/input:

 

1) Who really wants this? Is it the guys building the new cars that don’t want to be restricted or is it the guys that have been racing the same car for many years that don’t want anything to change? Or is it something else?

2) If this proposed change has to do with how well the #50 car did at the Nationals there is a lot more to consider than just the car. First off Dean is at the pointy end of the talent pool as far as drivers go. The car also has a bunch of development done in a short period of time by a top notch road racing team. How many of us that race do it for a living? How many of us have data acquisition? How many of us have 2 automotive engineers on our team? How well would the average amateur racer do with that car? Before any changes are made see how well some of us regular weekend racers do in the car this year.

3) Evolution happens with everything, that’s why our knuckles don’t drag on the ground anymore. Racing is no different, think about how much has changed since you started racing. The 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 already has evolved, my car is going to be better than Dean’s….

4) Will having 2 AI classes increase car counts? Will it bring new people into AI? I decided to build a AI car after a lot of soul searching to see what it really was that I wanted to accomplish. I knew for sure that I was not having any fun racing T2 with 2-3 (maybe) other cars in my class. As I sat on the bench at Mid-Ohio after my race and watched at how many freaking trophies they handed out it reminded me of my sons 4 year old T-ball season. At the final 4 year old T ball “tournament” everybody got a trophy, I thought it was nice for my kid but I was really embarrassed for all of the “drivers” that walked up to get their 2nd place trophy for finishing 2nd in a class of 2. That’s not what American Iron is about, I would rather finish mid pack in a big field than 1st in a small field. I’m afraid that is what would happen. Do we really have a big enough field of AI cars to cut them in half?

5) Would AI2 be just Mustang’s? I hope not but it seems that way.

6) Don’t punish Ford Racing because they are the only ones getting involved in the grassroots motorsports effort.

7) As you can tell my vote is no, BUT if it happens please make it easy to run in either class of OUR choice. And please, please, please no Toyo’s…

[kbrew8991]

Just as someone that might eventually one day race one of these kinds of cars (so grain of salt accordingly if you want) I'd prefer to see more of a focus on less classes instead of more. AI2 and AI, CMC and CMC2, AIX and ___... pretty soon you keep splitting up the pie until the slices get so small that you would rather have something else. 3 classes would be better imho. What those 3 should look like...? That's for smarter people than me to decide and for current and near-future competitors to influence and vote on. I'll catch up with you all later down the trail eventually.

[tacovini]

Great comments and keep them coming!

 

I'd like to address 2 of Brett's questions specifically...

 

1) This has absolutely nothing to do with the #50 car and Dean Martin's 2010 AI Championship. Completely unrelated, all your comments are duly noted and Dean did all the right things and ran a clean race (unlike the prior year ...we all learn from mistakes. ) This does have a lot to do with the newer cars and restricting of power...and that applies to Dean, Tommy, Chris, Mike, etc. etc in various platforms.

 

2) Does this split small AI fields in half? No, but that's up the racers, the regional series director and the market. For a region with all cars making power right up to the limit of AI power levels and not restricting, AI2 may not exist and all the racers may choose to reject the notion of bumping up the power. For a region where 75% of the cars are restricting down to AI levels, the racers and leadership there may all collectively choose to pull restrictors and all kick it up a notch to AI2....and AI may not exist in that region. That is a choice...and one based upon the people, the cars and the leadership in your area.

 

-=-Todd

[robbodleimages]

If I am wrong, someone will tell me. Its my understanding that CMC2 was a result of the evolution of the factory cars. the alternative there is to force CMC drivers to upgrade their current ride to CMC2 standards or get a new car entirely in order to keep that class as a single class. That or force the CMC2 world to upgrade to AI specs.

 

It would be easy to take the current idea of AI2 and encourage those cars as group to go to ST2. But thats not really acceptable. ST2 cars are often not in the AI split start group and dont paddock in the same place either. Its a different culture. The cars perform to similar standards, but the divide is unquestionable.

 

Maybe the best way to deal with this is to break down the walls that seperate the other V8 classes from the AI sect.

[King Matt]

A three class structure makes the most sense. If CMC2 eventually becomes the entry point to the American Iron series, that's an argument in favor of making a power adjustment to the current AI class to increase the gap to CMC2 below and place the AI class firmly in the middle between CMC and AIX. Adding a fourth or fifth class just splits a shinking pie into increasingly smaller slices.

[kbrew8991]

2) Does this split small AI fields in half? [snip]

That's probably how it would work on a small scale, but come Nationals when say CA and TX are in AI and SE, GL, MW or whatever are in AI2 you did just split the fields...

[gbrown8439]

For a region where 75% of the cars are restricting down to AI levels, the racers and leadership there may all collectively choose to pull restrictors and all kick it up a notch to AI2....and AI may not exist in that region. That is a choice...and one based upon the people, the cars and the leadership in your area.

 

-=-Todd

 

People who are doing all they can to be competitive are going to overbuild the motor and restrict it for a better power curve. The car that stays within 5hp of its peak through it's operating range will most likely beat the car that peaks at the same power to the end of the strait.

 

If we are going to make a change I think whether or not people are running restricted motors is the wrong reason to make that change.

[Burnett]

1st, WOW where did this come from? This is the tail wagging the dog. If Nasa has a vision of a new class then great but don’t do it at the expense of an existing class.

 

2nd, THE AI RULE SET IS WORKING!! Where are the complaints coming from? All I have heard is the idea that the S197 is better than the GM cars because of the abs. This doesn’t warrant another class. If our (AI) goal is to evolve with the times then a minor PtoW change may be needed, but lets not work in a vacuum lets consider CMC (as a whole, combined to 1 class) and AIX which has been failing because the X ='s $$$. The only way AI2 maxes any sense is as a replacement for AIX. Where are all of the cars for this new class?

 

3rd, The CMC split experiment was a huge mistake lets not do it again in AI. I hope that the CMC world doesn’t claim it to be a success when both classes have really struggled. The AI field will follow a minor power to weight change if it is phased in and announced properly.

 

4th, My offer to all of you is this, 3 classes.

1. AIX reined in to allow people to run bigger power & tires & such. Without having to be so loaded.

2. AI as it is with fewer body mods & a minor power bump (8:1). We can talk about ABS if we have to.

3. AI Challenge (formerly CMC2) which would allow for all of the current cmc cars plus some new ones (GTO T’Bird etc) and some of the previous limited prep AI cars that don’t want to chase the new AI cars can back up a bit. On a side note the V6 versions of the Camaro & Mustang fit this class too. (cool new cars)

 

Robin Burnett

[sundialracing]

1st, WOW where did this come from? This is the tail wagging the dog. If Nasa has a vision of a new class then great but don’t do it at the expense of an existing class.

 

2nd, THE AI RULE SET IS WORKING!! Where are the complaints coming from? All I have heard is the idea that the S197 is better than the GM cars because of the abs. This doesn’t warrant another class. If our (AI) goal is to evolve with the times then a minor PtoW change may be needed, but lets not work in a vacuum lets consider CMC (as a whole, combined to 1 class) and AIX which has been failing because the X ='s $$$. The only way AI2 maxes any sense is as a replacement for AIX. Where are all of the cars for this new class?

 

3rd, The CMC split experiment was a huge mistake lets not do it again in AI. I hope that the CMC world doesn’t claim it to be a success when both classes have really struggled. The AI field will follow a minor power to weight change if it is phased in and announced properly.

 

4th, My offer to all of you is this, 3 classes.

1. AIX reined in to allow people to run bigger power & tires & such. Without having to be so loaded.

2. AI as it is with fewer body mods & a minor power bump (8:1). We can talk about ABS if we have to.

3. AI Challenge (formerly CMC2) which would allow for all of the current cmc cars plus some new ones (GTO T’Bird etc) and some of the previous limited prep AI cars that don’t want to chase the new AI cars can back up a bit. On a side note the V6 versions of the Camaro & Mustang fit this class too. (cool new cars)

 

Robin Burnett

+1

[WacoRacer]

1st, WOW where did this come from? This is the tail wagging the dog. If Nasa has a vision of a new class then great but don’t do it at the expense of an existing class.

 

2nd, THE AI RULE SET IS WORKING!! Where are the complaints coming from? All I have heard is the idea that the S197 is better than the GM cars because of the abs. This doesn’t warrant another class. If our (AI) goal is to evolve with the times then a minor PtoW change may be needed, but lets not work in a vacuum lets consider CMC (as a whole, combined to 1 class) and AIX which has been failing because the X ='s $$$. The only way AI2 maxes any sense is as a replacement for AIX. Where are all of the cars for this new class?

 

3rd, The CMC split experiment was a huge mistake lets not do it again in AI. I hope that the CMC world doesn’t claim it to be a success when both classes have really struggled. The AI field will follow a minor power to weight change if it is phased in and announced properly.

 

4th, My offer to all of you is this, 3 classes.

1. AIX reined in to allow people to run bigger power & tires & such. Without having to be so loaded.

2. AI as it is with fewer body mods & a minor power bump (8:1). We can talk about ABS if we have to.

3. AI Challenge (formerly CMC2) which would allow for all of the current cmc cars plus some new ones (GTO T’Bird etc) and some of the previous limited prep AI cars that don’t want to chase the new AI cars can back up a bit. On a side note the V6 versions of the Camaro & Mustang fit this class too. (cool new cars)

 

Robin Burnett

+1

+2

[Aaron B]

1st, WOW where did this come from? This is the tail wagging the dog. If Nasa has a vision of a new class then great but don’t do it at the expense of an existing class.

 

2nd, THE AI RULE SET IS WORKING!! Where are the complaints coming from? All I have heard is the idea that the S197 is better than the GM cars because of the abs. This doesn’t warrant another class. If our (AI) goal is to evolve with the times then a minor PtoW change may be needed, but lets not work in a vacuum lets consider CMC (as a whole, combined to 1 class) and AIX which has been failing because the X ='s $$$. The only way AI2 maxes any sense is as a replacement for AIX. Where are all of the cars for this new class?

 

3rd, The CMC split experiment was a huge mistake lets not do it again in AI. I hope that the CMC world doesn’t claim it to be a success when both classes have really struggled. The AI field will follow a minor power to weight change if it is phased in and announced properly.

 

4th, My offer to all of you is this, 3 classes.

1. AIX reined in to allow people to run bigger power & tires & such. Without having to be so loaded.

2. AI as it is with fewer body mods & a minor power bump (8:1). We can talk about ABS if we have to.

3. AI Challenge (formerly CMC2) which would allow for all of the current cmc cars plus some new ones (GTO T’Bird etc) and some of the previous limited prep AI cars that don’t want to chase the new AI cars can back up a bit. On a side note the V6 versions of the Camaro & Mustang fit this class too. (cool new cars)

 

Robin Burnett

 

 

+3 makes sense