Jump to content

What Would AI2 Have Looked Like?


tacovini

Recommended Posts

Pantera1889

 

Afterall, Scott Pruett just won the Rolex 24 hours. In the winner's circle, someone asked Scott what he wanted to do next and he said, "Go racing with NASA so I can win a $6 trophy!"

 

j

 

 

Thanks alot for popsting that!!!!!

I am watching the 24hrs in delay and came in to check this post during a commercial!

Way to ruin the ending for me!

;/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • robbodleimages

    25

  • D Algozine

    16

  • Tommy55

    9

  • nape

    9

Sounds good except this won't meet the implied intent of the proposed change of having pro race teams join us at our events with no/limited mods to their cars.

 

Afterall, Scott Pruett just won the Rolex 24 hours. In the winner's circle, someone asked Scott what he wanted to do next and he said, "Go racing with NASA so I can win a $6 trophy!"

 

j

I don't believe that is the intent. I think allowing them in has already happened (race ABS, $6000 trannys, wind tunnel designed aero) I think that the intent is how to roll it back a little.

 

On a side note I would love to see a dyno of a restricted engine that has an improved torque curve? Before and after would be great. My experience is that restrictors really jack up a torque curve.

Link to post
Share on other sites
for the record i am in favor of king robin's proposal(isnt it supposed to be hood, not king?). so, +22.

 

i dont think the conflict has ever been about horsepower, btw.

Rob you said in another post that it wasn't about ABS, please enlighten us?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mystic_Cobra

Afterall, Scott Pruett just won the Rolex 24 hours. In the winner's circle, someone asked Scott what he wanted to do next and he said, "Go racing with NASA so I can win a $6 trophy!"

 

DAMN!

Haven't you heard of a DVR? You just ruined it for me. Guess I should have stayed off the forums til I was done watching.

Link to post
Share on other sites
robbodleimages
for the record i am in favor of king robin's proposal(isnt it supposed to be hood, not king?). so, +22.

 

i dont think the conflict has ever been about horsepower, btw.

Rob you said in another post that it wasn't about ABS, please enlighten us?

 

wow....i was way wrong. imagine that? the list is posted above and is extensive. abs is prominant.

i should learn to keep my fingers shut. its a bad habit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
just a reminder. this AI2 thing very likely has nothing to do with ABS.

You say this, then you say it is not likely about the HP to weight soooo what is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here is my 2 cents.... After sitting on the sidelines and reading all this,

First of all, very well said Robin and Dave.

I think we should fix a couple things in AI and keep it that way. It is a perfect series that just needs a couple minor tweaks to get it back where it needs to be. If the big boys want to come and play with us grassroots racers, they need to play by our rules. The rules are setup now to easily accommodate them. i don't think we need to make any big changes to the current rule set. maybe just enforce them a little more. If we need to change to 18'' wheels so be it. Don't create another class for it. we can make small adjustments. ABS: not enforceable, not allowed. Allowable ABS 200 lb penalty. We need to adjust for the new cars, but we don't need to change the rules to allow a couple pro drivers to play. We are grassroots amateur racing. If I had the money, I would be racing with the pro's. They are not changing the rules for me that's for sure. I think we have a series that is very attractive to a lot of different racers. Let's keep it that way. Keep it affordable, fun, grassroots racing. When I hit the lotto, you will see me hanging out with Scott Pruett. Until then, let me have fun racing at an affordable level with awesome people that share the same passions as me. just my 2 cents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
robbodleimages
just a reminder. this AI2 thing very likely has nothing to do with ABS.

You say this, then you say it is not likely about the HP to weight soooo what is it?

 

its not about abs, but it is. its not really about horsepower either. i see an objection from some of our gm friends, but not limited to them, who are being vocal about the list of rules allowances given to fit the current ford platform. its about a package of things and a continued evolution in that direction that upsets and alienates a competing group of our friends here.

 

if it were just abs or just horsepower, i dont think there would be an issue. for me? i dont care bupkus about horsepower. my car sits with a street exhaust, mufflers and all and meets ai specs. i am fine with that. to make more hp, i would have to spend some money on exhaust. its not a big deal, but its unnecessary for me to enjoy.

 

abs is more important to me for the same reason. its on the car. it works. i dont have to mess with it. with this car and its computer to disengage the abs, i would have to disengage the entire brake system at the computer. that means i need a new brake system to get the bias to work correctly and so forth. thats just me though. i point this out to say that its not really about any one thing.

 

its about the complete package and the future direction of the class.

 

is that a better answer? of course its also just my opinion. i carry no weight and my opinion is of no value. i am just part of the conversation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Red Tornado

Ok watched daytona and lefy after finish of race but if SP said that everyone should be saying???"My God NASA has arrvied!!!"

 

Ok looking at my post and after reading others I still vote yes but up CMC2 and move AI o higher power to weight. And oh yes is anyone else want to run real race tires with real money support??? Hello USA and hoosiers?? Can we ask them what they would do??

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you guys hadn't made last minute ridiculous changes and screwed up AIX to satisfy just a couple people, your AI2 stuff would basically fit in the old AIX. I still don't get the reason for the changes with no warning, debate or fact finding. Again, we already proved that a 500hp car could be just as competitive against 800hp because the tire limit was the regulating factor.

 

Paul Brown

AIX #96

WC GTS #50

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still a yes. Bump the cmc classes into AI. AI2 move the HP to say 7:1 with a new spec tire (Hoosier) and wider wheels. Leave any abs system in play.

 

Build your car the way you want to the rules, use your driver talent and lets get to racing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am still a yes. Bump the cmc classes into AI. AI2 move the HP to say 7:1 with a new spec tire (Hoosier) and wider wheels. Leave any abs system in play.

 

Build your car the way you want to the rules, use your driver talent and lets get to racing.

 

I guess I don't see how this brings more cars to NASA, basically it eliminates Cmc, creates an AIX light robbing cars from an already small AIX field. What is the upside I must be missing it. I just don't see the data behind most of this. Do we have a lot of AIX cars running that are really just AI cars that couldn't meet the current rules for some reason. I just don't see them or for sure have seen no marketing data to support this direction. It may exist but it has not been shared.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I am against any concept which involves AI2. No need to muddy the waters any more than we already have. So in general, another vote in favor of Robin's plans.

 

I am generally against power:weight ratio changes, but I'm open to a small one if it's really necessary. Maybe a half point in three years, with another half point three years after that? But someone needs to look at the OE horsepower and OE weight and make sure it's really needed to attract these new cars. The newer cars are so much heavier, and there is no rule that says you NEED to lighten the crap out of the car. Don't lighten the crap out of the car then complain that you can not make the power:weight ratio without a restrictor. That's poor car building and poor planning - nothing more.

 

I have been a proponent of per-component weight adjustments since I talked about the idea two years ago, and officially submitted as a rules change... twice. There are other places that this simple concept can settle down the massive debate over classic cars vs. modern hi-tech cars vs. super-high-dollar builds. ABS systems of any kind, Remote Canister shocks (or any shock with more than 2 external adjustments), 18" wheels (because that allows the larger brake systems, or you could penalize based on rotor diameter or caliper cost), and 10" wide wheels should all be considered for this style of rules.

 

Attached below is a snippit from my rules change proposal from 2009.

 

Many of these rules proposals (ABS systems, 14” brakes) have root in the same basic argument – an argument about which of the following is more important to the series…

(a) keeping the existing older cars competitive, avoiding rules creep, and encouraging new participation among older-chassis’ed cars (which tend to dominate HPDE competition).

–or-

(b) making it easy for newer cars bought at full price off the showroom floor to compete as-is, and accommodating their inevitable constant creep of power, chassis, and technology.

..in reality, both are critical, and neither should be ignored.

 

For most of these rules issues, there are three simple approaches which can be taken…

(a) Screw the existing competitors operating on tighter budgets (and discourage new competitors which are operating on tight budgets) by opening up the rulebook to allow all the technology that the newer cars bring. This puts the older cars on a competitive backslide – inevitably making them obsolete soon – and/or requires those cars to constantly be updated with expensive hardware in an attempt to keep up.

(b) Screw the new guys with the deeper pockets by requiring them to remove much of the additional technology their cars come with stock. This could become more and more of an issue as more and more “new” cars enter the series, but generally this kind of change is relatively inexpensive (compared to updating other cars with the hardware).

© Put penalties (in the alternate proposals given below, weight penalties) in place which equalize the playing field, allowing older cars and newer cars to compete on level ground. In reality, this option still gives the advantage to the newer cars because they have the option whether they want to accept the weight penalty or disconnect / remove the technology in question.

 

Option © adds complexity to the series, but it’s easily managed. Windshield AI decals given out in tech would itemize the weight “penalties”, making other competitors quickly aware of what competitors are making what trade-offs. But option © will maximize participation in the long run, by not leaving anyone out in the cold. For simplicity, I’ve left all penalties at 100#. I’d strongly suggest keeping all the “penalties” the same, but the exact number could be less or more.

Called each 100# adjustment a "point", "credit" or whatever you want. On your window sticker you declare how many points you have before going through scales and dyno. Very simple. Want to run a transmission that is beyond the cost (still syncronized and non-sequential though), sure - just take the +1 point. It allows each person to make their own decisions about what makes sense and what doesn't, while still being open to new competitors who may have already made those decisions.

 

On other random notes, allow equal trackwidth for all cars, have a minimum ride height that keeps cars from dragging on the ground, and encourage more v6 participation into CMC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bump the cmc classes into AI. Build your car the way you want to the rules, use your driver talent and lets get to racing.

So your saying I should have to move my $5K CMC car to AI? A car w/ a $1700 motor, junk brakes and $200 shocks (each). A car that has won dozens of regional races over the years, a Regional Championship, 2 National Championships, 3 Class Enduro wins and 2 of those were Overall wins. I should be forced to move up to do what? Falsely inflate AI car count? Be happy to be running mid pack? Completely re-create my car to be competitive? A car that cannot make the current power to weight ratio even w/ my restrictor plate pulled?

Think about what your asking and try to tell yourself it is not a stupid idea.

We just enjoyed a season opener this past weekend w/ 14 CMC cars. That is w/ 5 or more regulars missing the event that pretty much never miss an event. We could have 20 CMC cars easily and we have about 25-30 CMC cars in this region. We have at best 10 AI cars. Perhaps AI should be pedaled back to CMC? Surely that will never happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
robbodleimages

i am just fine with the idea of component weight adjustments as long as they are comprehensive. remote cannister shocks cost weight. carbon fiber aero is free. abs costs weight. lightweight body panels are free. doesnt seem fair to me.

 

if mods cost, then mods cost. fair is fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On other random notes, allow equal trackwidth for all cars, have a minimum ride height that keeps cars from dragging on the ground, and encourage more v6 participation into CMC.

It has to be legal before it can be encouraged. And I have been asking for just this for 5 years. 4th gen V6 cars are dirt cheap. V6 5th gen's make great CMC2 numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you guys hadn't made last minute ridiculous changes and screwed up AIX to satisfy just a couple people, your AI2 stuff would basically fit in the old AIX. I still don't get the reason for the changes with no warning, debate or fact finding. Again, we already proved that a 500hp car could be just as competitive against 800hp because the tire limit was the regulating factor.

 

Paul Brown

AIX #96

WC GTS #50

 

Paul, I understand your point.

Not an AIX racer, but like you, I figured that the equalizer was the limit of DOT tires.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bump the cmc classes into AI. Build your car the way you want to the rules, use your driver talent and lets get to racing.

So your saying I should have to move my $5K CMC car to AI? A car w/ a $1700 motor, junk brakes and $200 shocks (each). A car that has won dozens of regional races over the years, a Regional Championship, 2 National Championships, 3 Class Enduro wins and 2 of those were Overall wins. I should be forced to move up to do what? Falsely inflate AI car count? Be happy to be running mid pack? Completely re-create my car to be competitive? A car that cannot make the current power to weight ratio even w/ my restrictor plate pulled?

Think about what your asking and try to tell yourself it is not a stupid idea.

We just enjoyed a season opener this past weekend w/ 14 CMC cars. That is w/ 5 or more regulars missing the event that pretty much never miss an event. We could have 20 CMC cars easily and we have about 25-30 CMC cars in this region. We have at best 10 AI cars. Perhaps AI should be pedaled back to CMC? Surely that will never happen.

 

What he said! You guys leave CMC alone...we're doing just fine.

 

Sidney Franklin

Midwest Region

CMC2 #64

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem at all with 18" tires and 14" brakes, if you wanna haul all that weight around go ahead.

 

I think the reason they are here is clear, the new cars come with them. Let it be.

 

14" brakes are just extra weight in an non Race ABS car, you can only slow down as quickly as the tire will let you, and with out ABS I can lock up the tires all day with 12" stock camaro brakes in a 3300# car.

 

Race ABS is an advantage, it just is. And since we can't police it, all ABS has to go. And since the existing racers bitched enough Todd was forced to leave it in AI. Reasonable people realize that it has to go, so a second class is hatched as a way to address the problems that cannot be addressed with the existing class.

 

I HATE HATE HATE adding anymore classes, EVER, it is a terrible idea. And what is Todd going to do, this has to be addressed!

 

On a side note I think it is funny that a lot of people want to run all this aftermarket stuff and then get pissed when us GM guys want to run a little on our motors! We run STOCK LS1 motors with headers that need to be choked down to run anything less than #3300? What gives? We are in this for the noise right??

 

CMC got a little more power, why can't we? A lot of them screamed that the sky was falling and look where most of them ended up? CMC2 where the extra power and speed was! In todays day and age it is way easy to make 8.7 to one in these cars. The stock ones are pretty close out of the box, why choke them down?

 

Cody Powell

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a series that I'd love to compete in some day (99 camaro SS). For right now, I'll stick w/ my leMons racing.

 

Here's my take as a prospective newb to AI:

 

Why not allow an AI2 class to get traction, but only for the newest gen of pony cars? this way, if a newb w/ a 2011 camaro wants to join in, but doesn't want to downgrade power, or whatever may be illegal in AI, they can still come race. It may be in small groups, but if it's mostly people who are new to the series, it adds to the total # on track. The #s will increase over the seasons, and hopefully, you have equal amounts in each class.

 

 

When I'm at events, the thunder group is always the one that I make sure to watch.

 

be safe, and i'll see you at the track.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather see NASA take a step back and combine some classes. (AIX & ST1) (AI & ST2?), PT & others . The PT classes averaged 3 entries last year at Nats. TT does it by points (ala Scott Whitehead?) There must be a way to combine some of these. The problem I am hearing is that the contingency (what little there is) and racing gets diluted. Lets fold some classes together. Let the vettes & vipers in AIX and use (weight, tires, compounds) as an equalizer, same with AI. The germans are doing it to a point, but have 5 classes, same with honda, 5 classes. Maybe we could fold some of these 48 classes together? Nah, probably not. Just a wacky thought. Carry on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt

 

First, welcome to AI and thanks for the input but I want to use you to make a point, not jumping on you buddy.

The new cars are in no way too powerful for AI as the rules stand. If and when the power to weight changes it changes for all of us. The common misconception is that this (AI2) is about the "modern" cars but it is truly about transferability. Some people want to run in multiple classes so they want the rules to conform to those other classes. What I find funny is that these other classes (World Challenge) are a moving target, at the whim of the SCCA. Will we have to move too? Let’s set our rules for us and if these other cars don’t want to conform put them in ST2 or AIX.

 

Let me know if you need anything for that SS Matt.

 

Robin (Ford Guy)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would rather see NASA take a step back and combine some classes. (AIX & ST1) (AI & ST2?), PT & others . The PT classes averaged 3 entries last year at Nats. TT does it by points (ala Scott Whitehead?).

First off - what? Where's your data to support that

There must be a way to combine some of these. The problem I am hearing is that the contingency (what little there is) and racing gets diluted. Lets fold some classes together. Let the vettes & vipers in AIX and use (weight, tires, compounds) as an equalizer, same with AI. The germans are doing it to a point, but have 5 classes, same with honda, 5 classes. Maybe we could fold some of these 48 classes together? Nah, probably not. Just a wacky thought. Carry on.

Careful bringing that up / pointing things in that directon. PT, ST, and SU can accomidate any car without any ruleset tweaks, so quite honestly it makes more sense to axe classes like AI, CMC, GTS, HC, etc if we need to have less classes (which I do agree with that sentiment).

Link to post
Share on other sites

ken,

 

TT classes are rated by points, see tt ruleset. I was referring to combining classses using points as backhandedly suggested by Scott

PT classes averaged 3 or 4 entries at last years nats, see last years results on mylaps.

 

Everyone wants great racing and contingencies. If you look at lap times, many classes are close. There are some problems with differences in handling versus power when looking at just lap times, so you need to look at more factors. But look at a results sheet from most regions. Some classes would fit well together. I agree the PT classes are already there, but American Iron, CMC, Spec Miata, spec 944 sound so much better than PT-whatever. PT classes are hard to define and know what they are just by the class name. Maybe that is some of the problem. Vette Viper challnge sounds much better than ST1. Fans know what they are seeing. oops. I mentioned fans. my bad. never mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Careful bringing that up / pointing things in that directon. PT, ST, and SU can accomidate any car without any ruleset tweaks, so quite honestly it makes more sense to axe classes like AI, CMC, GTS, HC, etc if we need to have less classes (which I do agree with that sentiment).

 

That would KILL NASA! AI/CMC guys would go run with Northeast Iron, Asedan/ITR, or some other V8 Pony car class. GTS would all go back to BMWCCA or PCA. HC would disolve back to SCCA IT or other groups. NASA's popularity is due to the Registered/Trademarked classes that are unique to NASA. Ken, I'm going to say it again and get another nasty email but here it is "PT is a catch all class and will never be popular." The fact is there are racers that want to play with something a little different and this class gives them a place to run.

 

Getting this thread back on track...This is about AI, leave PT and CMC out of it.

 

Thanks,

 

Sidney Franklin

CMC2 #64

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...