tacovini Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 TO: ALL AMERICAN IRON RACERS It’s that time again… In order to get the new 2012 AI Ruleset out in a timely manner, we need to have all of your change requests/comments/suggestions by 10/24...and earlier is better! We will avoid numerous, drastic ruleset changes in any given year, however, over the course of the next 3 years need to work toward cost containment, car count…and get back to basics to achieve our end goal. I don't foresee us backtracking on any recent rules changes, nor do I see us taking on any major changes for 2012. Suffice to say that we WILL NOT be considering a power change for AI or AIX for 2012. I see three of our biggest challenges as 1) Tires...which we only provide input on 2) Parity between older and new cars and 3) clarity of purpose in the rules So...If you have a Rule Change Request (RCR) for the AI Leadership Team’s consideration, please submit it to me ([email protected]) with a cc: to your regional AI series director. (If you don’t know who your regional AI series director is, look in the back of the current American Iron ruleset.) RULE CHANGE REQUESTS (RCR) MUST BE SUBMITTED IN THE FOLLOWING FORMAT TO BE CONSIDERED: --- 1) Name / Region / Car # / Contact Info (email or phone, etc) --- 2) Rule reference # (ex.- Rule 3.2 – Title, Part, section…) --- 3) Recommended Revised Wording --- 4) Reasoning for change MUST include at least 1 of the following: ---------->a) Willl decrease series cost because… ---------->b) Will increase series growth because… ---------->c) Will improve competition because… ---------->d) Will provide more clarity because... HINT – Requests which score points in all categories will have better chances of being accepted than those which score points in 1 category (or worse yet, go against the reasonings above.) So…If you genuinely feel as though a series rule change should be considered in the interest of the series, work with your regional series directors. They will represent you in October at the decision table. This approach is far more effective than a 9 page internet forum rant attempting to rally the masses to take up their swords & torches and march into town. I’m available after workhours & weekends if folks want to discuss something over the phone or email, however, please work closely with your regional AI director as much as possible. Let the fun begin!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucebyerly Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Todd, If you don't get the tire thing under control then you won't have to worry about the rest. It will be Spec Boss Mustang presented by Hoosier Tire. Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
47car Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Yay for Silly Season!! My turn to get silly..... Todd knows about my rule change request but he doesnt know how you fellow racers feel about it so please feel free to give it the nod or the poo-poo. I have heard that it is in the poo-poo catagory right now so hopefully you guys will be OK with it and possibly give it a little momentum. We are beginning another 69 mustang Harbinger build that I would really like to race in AI with you guys. it will be very similar to our proto Harb but it will be powered by the new Boss 302. We have been getting a fair amount of interest in this new combo we are putting together so I think we will be building alot more of these which could end up in AI. The problem is that to fit a coyote style motor in an early mustang, the shock towers need to be trimmed by a couple inches on both sides which as you know is a big no no with the current rules so here are my requests....... Rule change #1: Allow ONLY PRE 71 mustangs to trim the shock towers just enough to clear a Coyote engine. The SLA we use on the Harbinger cars is the same geometry as the SN95 mustangs so there will be no suspension benefit there over the newer mustangs. rule change #2 allow the early mustangs to also run the same rear shock mount location as the Fox and up mustangs. The early mustangs have an angled and inboard shock mount which IMO is inferior to the the newer mustang location. a) Willl decrease series cost because… It will allow the early mustangs to run the cheaper coyote motors. 12K for a solid race motor is a pretty good deal. I have not found anything close to that price for a RACE SBF. b) Will increase series growth because… it will spark more interest in running early mustangs in AI. I believe this combo will be competitive and I think our videos of it spawn more guys to run early mustangs in AI and help to build the overall hype of AI. c) Will improve competition because… It will level any advantages that some people believe the Coyote motor has over the older motors for the older cars. The older mustangs are already aero challenged so any little bit will help. Thanks for your time. Let the nodding and poo-pooing begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edhunter Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) I'm OK with cutting the shock towers a bit to fit a bigger engine... I don't see that's any advantage one way or the other, so fair is fair in my book... Seems the ABS debate is a done deal, so I won't bring that one back up... For the record my Fox doesn't have it. I have the OPTION of adding it if I want to, so I'm not going to bitch about it... I would suggest making the chassis rules equal across the board. We have (maybe soon?) an equal tire across the board. We have ABS rules across the board - can run it if you want, or not. Wheels are equal, brakes are equal, shocks and suspension are open. Ride height is fixed across the spectrum of cars, power to weight as well. Aero (based on shape of car) is what it is based on the chassis - not easy to change (I do think I'd like to lower my roofline a few inches though!). Within each mfg family, any car can have any modification any other car can have, as far as I can tell. Every else is equal EXCEPT TRACK WIDTH. This should change - I should be able to run the same track width as a late model IF I want to. Keep the same rules for fenders covering the tires, etc., if you allow me to widen my fenders -- not just add flares. I see no benefit to restricting those of us with older chassis to maintain a narrower width, just so they look "normal". That went away with wings and such. I don't think anyone will argue that a wider track width provides benefits... Give me the OPTION just like ABS and let me (the financier/builder/driver/whatever) decide if I want to do it... a) Decrease series cost by reducing the (perceived?) need to move to a newer chassis to stay/become competitive.... b) Will increase series growth by making older (cheaper, more available) chassis attractive to perspective racers... It'll also give those of us that like to tinker something else to work on! c) It'll improve competition because we have a single rule set to build to... d) It'll provide more clarity because.... it just does! What's clearer than a single rule set?? Or just make the wider cars run really skinny tires to match the fox track widths... that'd work too! Ed Hunter NASA-MA AI #215 Edited October 7, 2011 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNAKBITN Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 X 2 on the track widths Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmy70go Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 @Ed, You might just be a genius! Well said. X 3 for the Ed Hunter rule change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshallmosty Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 I proposed the same track width change mid-year this season. I'm all for an AI "max" track width. If you "want" to be maxed on all four corners, fine. If not, that's your choice too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbodleimages Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 if the new car required an extended track width, why would there be a requirement to restrict the other cars to a narrower number? that seems like a given that the number just gets extended for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svttim Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 if the new car required an extended track width, why would there be a requirement to restrict the other cars to a narrower number? that seems like a given that the number just gets extended for everyone. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quick35th Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Todd, If you don't get the tire thing under control then you won't have to worry about the rest. It will be Spec Boss Mustang presented by Hoosier Tire. Bruce I guess I wasn't the only one that noticed how 99% of the AI field at Nationals were '05-up mustangs. The entire time I was thinking where did all the fox bodies go and SN95s. Only two GM cars in the entire field. Quite frankly if the battle for the lead wasn't so fun to watch it would have been a very boring race to watch. Shane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbodleimages Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 just from watching great lakes/midwest region videos from mid ohio you can tell those regions have largely evolved to the new equipment. the majority of the ai field at the nationals were from the local regions. also, the last fox body car was built in 1993 the newest of those cars are 18 years old now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizlbits Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 also, the last fox body car was built in 1993 the newest of those cars are 18 years old now. Actually the old fox body was made until 2004. I calculate that to be 7 years. So everyone with a 2004 or older should sell them? What a re you saying here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbodleimages Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 maybe i am missing something, gris. the fox body mustang was sold 1979 thru 1993. the sn 95 chassis was introduced in 1994. that car was built til 2004. where am i wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizlbits Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 79 through 2004 if you look at the frame and underneath, it's still a Ford Fairmont. SN 95 was not much different if you tear into them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbodleimages Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 then we are talking about two different things. the poster asked where the fox body and sn95 cars went. i answered. the platform is the same, but the body and the age of the cars are different. right? do you know of anyone racing a fox body car that is actually on a 2000 or newer platform? those cars that are 1993 and older are old. thats what i was saying. i dont see the argument. the bottom line is that the local regions to mid ohio are 2005 and newer heavy. the nationals grid was local regions heavy. thats what happened to the older cars at the nationals. if the championship race were held in texas, the grid would be heavily older stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Seems the ABS debate is a done deal, so I won't bring that one back up... For the record my Fox doesn't have it. I have the OPTION of adding it if I want to, so I'm not going to bitch about it... AI #215 What if you don't race a Mustang, then how does the new Ford Racing ABS get retrofit into anything GM or Dodge ? Its not an option for everyone, besides do know whats involved in retrofitting the system to a pre- S197 Mustang car? It can be done, but it's not a simple bolt on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 1) Tires...which we only provide input on 2) Parity between older and new cars and 3) clarity of purpose in the rules I suggest upper management provides the masses with a clear view and direction of the series, so we can better understand exactly what the intent is and where the series is heading. This will help considerably with those of us considering rules modificaitons. Perhaps some of us are just in the wrong series. As I read #2 above, I'm completing confused. Nearly every rule change in the last 5 years has been to accommodate new cars, specifically the new Mustang. So why ask for ways to create better parity in old and new cars. Start by undoing all the changes that were made for the new Mustang. Very few have the time, skills and budget to develop a race car better then what Ford Racing is building. The rules have been adjusted to allow the Ford Racing proprietary cars/parts. I believe it would help to know exactly what the series represents and intends to be in the future. This will help clarify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edhunter Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Seems the ABS debate is a done deal, so I won't bring that one back up... For the record my Fox doesn't have it. I have the OPTION of adding it if I want to, so I'm not going to bitch about it... AI #215 What if you don't race a Mustang, then how does the new Ford Racing ABS get retrofit into anything GM or Dodge ? Its not an option for everyone, besides do know whats involved in retrofitting the system to a pre- S197 Mustang car? It can be done, but it's not a simple bolt on. Do I know what it takes to put it in? Not exactly, but it can be done. At least in a Ford. Do I wish the series didn't have it at all? Absolutely... Interestingly, I was checking out a buddy's C5 race corvette this weekend at VIR, this car ran the 24hours at Daytona. I noticed he had the ABS unit under the hood, so I asked about it. He said it was stock, had a simple toggle switch on the dash that lets him turn it off. So you can't tell me it'd be difficult to to eliminate ABS in the series... MHO, not bitchin'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
47car Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I also agree with the same max track width for all cars. So all you guys are ok with allowing the pre 71 mustangs to trim the shock towers to fit a coyote? I assume that the lack of response (1 person) is because nobody really cares either way correct? Can I get some nods or some "nobody give a rats ass about your silly shock tower mods on some jalopy you got" Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantera1889 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I don't give a rats ass about your silly shock tower mods on some jalopy you got! Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Todd, If you don't get the tire thing under control then you won't have to worry about the rest. It will be Spec Boss Mustang presented by Hoosier Tire. Bruce It is unfortunate, but AI is definately looking like Spec Boss Mustang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nape Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I also agree with the same max track width for all cars. So all you guys are ok with allowing the pre 71 mustangs to trim the shock towers to fit a coyote? I assume that the lack of response (1 person) is because nobody really cares either way correct? Can I get some nods or some "nobody give a rats ass about your silly shock tower mods on some jalopy you got" Thanks. As long as I get a shock tower allowance. The new Mustangs with remote reservoir shocks get to put holes in the shock towers so their canisters can pass through, the pre-71 Mustangs want to clearance the towers for Coyote clearance, can I get an allowance to cut on mine so I can run some stock GM stamping A-arms that will increase my wheel base within allowable AI limits? Slippery slopes ahead... Here's my rules request: Stop giving allowances and make everyone build to a rule set. Oops, sorry, that would make sense and people couldn't spend $100,000 to come in and race for plastic trophies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantera1889 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote="nape Stop giving allowances and make everyone build to a rule set. Best idea I've heard thus far!! Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nape Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Here's what happens when I write a PM reply after a few beers and think it's a good idea to post on the board: The biggest beef I have with the new Mustang is the ABS that will save you from damn near any mistake and the T56R (or whatever it's new name is). In a GM platform, it's more or less impossible to get the ratios in that trans unless you buy one and modify your car to make it fit, or you go back and run an old 4 speed. The old 4 speed works, it's what I run, but most people don't understand or can't build a package that makes it work well. That and the expensive price tag that used to be illegal until a couple weeks before the 2009 Nationals when Todd issued a rules change that made it legal. I don't mind rules evolution, but it seems like most of the "old school" competitors build to the rules, and the "new AI" guys want a rules change to allow the latest and greatest. So, we end up with a car that's behind the curve due to trying to play by the rules instead of trying to re-write them. Unlike the "new AI" crowd, we can't afford the latest and greatest and have to plan expenditures like the ABS and T56R years in advance. My racing budget for an 8 event season is about the cost of a T56R. ABS is a fucked up deal. GM has nothing to compare to Ford. People say to use the Corvette stuff, but that just means they haven't ever even thought about retrofitting that system. Different diameters front and rear fucks it up right off the bat and the tone rings are the same tooth count so the only way to think about making it work is to have custom tone rings in the rear, aka a non-player unless you have access to CAD software and a good machinist. You don't need to have ABS to run well in the class, but then you have to be able to drive competitively for the full race without major mistakes. ABS sure helps mid-packers run at the pointy end and guys who run at the pointy end look like Superman. I don't want the new Mustangs to leave, I just want them to quit getting any allowance they need to run top of the line shit. No car is ever a class killer if you work hard enough against it. If any of the GM guys want to pick my brain, PM me for a cell phone number. You can do it too. I ran the 3rd fastest time of the Championship race with a car with dead (as in NO compression) front struts and a transmission falling out of it (two cross member bolts fell out mid-race). This stuff isn't rocket science, but most make it out to be that way. This is AMATEUR racing for plastic trophies. I guess you can still be an amateur with a $100,000 race car, but I can think of better ways to go racing with $100,000 then NASA. So, I get a little fired up. The draw to the class for me was to be able to build a car that could run up front for little money. Most of the people in the class didn't know anything other then Maximum or Griggs when I started, and if you take a bit of time, read a few books, apply a few brain cells, make a few things, you can surpass them in 1-2 years. So, the ability to spend money was of no attraction to me. It was the exact opposite. Go fast as hell on the smallest possible budget. I know I can build another Top 5 Nationals car for about the cost of a Boss 302 crate motor and a T56R. Oh well, if I had that budget, I'd light mine on fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundialracing Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 It took longer than I thought for the wallet racing sheit to start again........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts