Rules Silly Season- Closed!

[robbodleimages]

Conversely, why can't the new cars comply with the previous rules?

 

in many cases its because the tooling and engineering of a new platform may sit marginally outside the current rules set. when the 2005 mustang came out the only track friendly brakes that would mount on the chassis were 14". because of that the only track friendly wheels for that chassis were 18" wheels. even with the narrow ra1 toyo the car needed an extension of the specs to work.

 

my limited understanding of race engineering is that the 14" brake is an advantage in endurance racing only. that in fact the greater rotating mass is a disadvantage.

 

if nasa had decided not to adjust the rules for the new mustang for the available aftermarket track parts, the cars would have all gone to another class.

[47car]

Corey,

 

Thanks for posting the Outlaw rules again. I had a couple of questions now that you have a season nearly complete. You said the top 3 cars were within 0.6 s. What were the make/body type? All S197s?

 

Also, on the HP/TQ ratio. Is it equal between the 2? Only HP? Or do you average both to get your "target"? We are running pushrod, stroked FRPP Boss blocks in both the Fox and the S197. They are torquey motors and even with restrictors and cams, it is tough to get HP=Tq.

 

Lastly, since you are going to Data Aq systems instead of the dyno, do you have good data to show consistency across varied conditions, tracks, engine configs. I think the systems are consistent on the same car, under similar conditions. I haven't seen anything posted that they are consistent across varied platforms, conditions, days.

 

Thanks,

 

J

 

The top three cars from last weekend were 2 Foxes and my SN95. We normally have Ross Murray with us in a pushrod S197, Rob Capetz in a mod S197 and Ryan walton in another Fox as well. Usually, the five of us are running pretty tight and competitive. Rob has just started and is still getting his feet wet.

 

Right now we are only worried about HP since that is the only number Traqmate will give us. At the moment it appears that traqmate is much better at measuring the power of a car on track than the Dyno but we are still learning.

[marshallmosty]

Conversely, why can't the new cars comply with the previous rules? Rules creep is killing the series formula when pro teams and Factory backing get involved.

 

 

Marshal, while we LOVE your idea to do ACTUAL TESTING of theories, we aren't quite sure the car/driver you have chosen is ideal. (find a better Stig)...or the track for that matter which has ALL straight line braking zones prior to slow 2nd gear turns. Find someone with a lot of S197 experience under their belt (Wayne Manor would be great as he owns a 302S car) and not a car that routinely gets beat by CMC2 cars. However, why test at all? Ford felt compelled to build better units than the stock ABS for a reason, and spent a ton of money doing it. They are better. Pretty simple, but complicated because there aren't other easily obtained options for ALL of the other platforms Racing in this series. The rest of us are faced with R&D time/expense to figure out how to catch up when the real issue at hand is purchasing a used 05 GT brake module and putting it in whatever S197 shows up at the track. Cheap.

 

While we (two AI cars in this household) like the idea of leveling the field on track width, it would honestly cost us a fortune in wheels and hubs to SAFELY get 2" of track width...not to mention body work to cover it. How about doing what CMC does and give weight breaks to the older chassis? So with a weight break, then penalty for ABS, our cars stay the same as rules dating back to 2005...ready NO COST!

 

Look to other series that are being affected by newer chassis and follow what they are doing....as in making the new cars comply with the old rules or penalizing the newer cars with weight.

 

AI Rules set 2007.1 FTW.

 

Here is a data point for you. Last weekend at a 24 hours of lemons event, we had 5 former AI racers in a huddle asking why we weren't racing AI anymore. Hands down was "I don't want to have to buy a Boss 302S to go race anymore!"

 

Also, "cost containment" does not translate to buying a turn-key $80,000 race car with $2,000 sets of tires or requiring any car more than 6 years old to spend 1000's of dollars to remain competitive. It means SPENDING LESS MONEY!!!!! If that goal isn't going to be the #1 point going forward, I believe Mr. Algozine is correct that this may not be the right series for some of us. Clear intent will go a long way in helping many of us make up our minds to stay or go.

 

Just a racing girl's opinion!

 

Misty,

I completely understand all your points. Regarding the brake testing, it will be straight line only testing over one 90-0 stop. The conception at the moment is the "Race" module can destroy anyone going into the braking cones. A 90-0 stop should show the same thing, if that truly is the case. Unfortunately I cannot replicate every scenario being we only have one S197 in our region and nobody else stepped up to do this testing. Therefore, we do the best with what we have, which is more than has been done to date. The relative speed of the car has no bearing on how the ABS will work between the stock HCU and stock module and the GT500 HCU and FR500S module. If the track is dry, we test dry. If it's wet, we test wet. I can't control all of that, but we will gather SOMETHING that we can use to steer the rules in the right way.

 

Regarding having to spend mega bucks to go racing, it's not for everyone. That's why there is ChumpCar and Lemons. There are a bunch of sandboxes to play in. Unfortunatley (if you want to look at it that way), Ford did WAY too good of a job with their stuff. At the end of the day though, it's a steel box with a track width and wheelbase, and suspension that can go MUCH crazier than what Ford put in it from the factory. There is no reason why any platform, built to the AI maximum ruleset would be demolished by what Ford sells for the street. Hell, you could damn near copy the Ford design for the S-197 if you want to.

 

Also, just curious, but which racers were you talking to? Obviously 2 of the 5 were you and Matt. I'm just curious who else was in the discussion. You can send me a PM if you want.

[RichardP]

it will be straight line only testing over one 90-0 stop.

 

 

I would be shocked if there was much difference between the systems in straight line braking. I'm glad you are testing but I don't see any use in that. The advantages of the "better" systems lie elsewhere...

 

You also generally can't test no abs braking in newer cars by unplugging the fuse. The computer is needed to control the brake bias.

 

 

Richard P.

[D Algozine]

OK, so Im a bit new at this so Help me out. I go to to the AI rules and I read:

2. Intent

The American Iron Series Rules 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 vendors. 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.

 

Here where Im confused

 

So, Ford Racing, an aftermarket tuner, does exactly this and should be penalized for it? Why?

 

Good question, is Ford Racing an aftermarket tuner or an OEM? If its an aftermarket, then by rule 7.8.6, their braking system is illegal.

"7.8.6 Non-OEM ABS units or ABS units not available for public commercial sale are prohibited."

If it's an OEM, then "Factory" doesn't fit the Intend of the AI mission statement. I'm guessing it's both, depending on which ever allows the new stable of purpose built race cars into AI.

 

For some reason the statment about being commercially for sale somehow makes it ok. Never understood that one. It only bolts onto one car, who cares if we can all buy it, only a few can use it.

 

Warning I'm repeating: Regardless of OEM or Aftermarket, the whole issue is that the rules were changed and specifially written to allow just that one system, and yet still if you read the entire "Brake" rule section, it contradicts itself. For reasons that most of us don't know, it doesn't appear to be getting bumped out. So, it should get a significant weight penalty. It should swing the otherway, and give the older cars consessions. The newest cars are clearly better suited and designed for racing.

[D Algozine]

it will be straight line only testing over one 90-0 stop.

 

 

I would be shocked if there was much difference between the systems in straight line braking. I'm glad you are testing but I don't see any use in that. The advantages of the "better" systems lie elsewhere...

 

You also generally can't test no abs braking in newer cars by unplugging the fuse. The computer is needed to control the brake bias.

 

 

Richard P.

 

I agree, straight line braking is not an accurate measurement of the major benifits of that system. If you think the system was designed to prevent lock up, then you're very wrong. I'm pretty sure there is data from Nationals, regardless watch video's, including in car of both racers with it and without.

[svttim]

OK, so Im a bit new at this so Help me out. I go to to the AI rules and I read:

2. Intent

The American Iron Series Rules 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 vendors. 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.

 

Here where Im confused

 

So, Ford Racing, an aftermarket tuner, does exactly this and should be penalized for it? Why?

 

Good question, is Ford Racing an aftermarket tuner or an OEM? If its an aftermarket, then by rule 7.8.6, their braking system is illegal.

"7.8.6 Non-OEM ABS units or ABS units not available for public commercial sale are prohibited."

If it's an OEM, then "Factory" doesn't fit the Intend of the AI mission statement. I'm guessing it's both, depending on which ever allows the new stable of purpose built race cars into AI.

 

For some reason the statment about being commercially for sale somehow makes it ok. Never understood that one. It only bolts onto one car, who cares if we can all buy it, only a few can use it.

 

Warning I'm repeating: Regardless of OEM or Aftermarket, the whole issue is that the rules were changed and specifially written to allow just that one system, and yet still if you read the entire "Brake" rule section, it contradicts itself. For reasons that most of us don't know, it doesn't appear to be getting bumped out. So, it should get a significant weight penalty. It should swing the otherway, and give the older cars consessions. The newest cars are clearly better suited and designed for racing.

 

 

I would call it aftermarket and as such, I have no issues with it being disallowed. In my febile mind, the issue is bigger than the SN197 and that is where NASA needs to find a balance. To penalize ABS, something that is in every car that hits the road, regardless of manufacturer results in stagnation of the class and turns it into a vintage class. You are going to see all manufacturers comming out with new technology that may make its way into the class. At the same time, allowing very expensive one off parts is a very slipery slope. I dont envy NASA becasue honestly, not everyone going to agree with whatever decision they make.

 

I can say this, I have been on track with my SN197 with the likes of TJ. At the time, I was a bit underpowered, I would say, significant as stated above. I was not competitive. If that becomes the case, I certainly will consider a move to a class or body where I can compete. I understand the frustration with the exception for the one system. But be careful not to make arule for one or two drivers that get significant seat time.

[rpoz27]

 

Also, just curious, but which racers were you talking to? Obviously 2 of the 5 were you and Matt. I'm just curious who else was in the discussion. You can send me a PM if you want.

 

There have been 24 True AI cars that have taken a green flag in TX events since 2005...that does NOT include CMC cars classed as AI, AIX cars, the Colorado boys, Kali cars or any other regional racer that may have joined us. There are currently 6 active cars in TX, 4 of which are rookies or in year 2 of racing. Imagine if we could get all or even half of those racers to pull their cars out of mothballs!!!! Then AI might be fun again!

 

It truly seems the main issue at hand is that every region has a different agenda and cars built along those lines. Sure there are the "have's and have not's" but the line is mostly drawn between each region. Nationally, it seems everyone is against the S197 and Ford's "factory" involvement...oh, and we can't run $175 Nittos because of the contract with Toyo. Maybe Corey is onto something with the Outlaw class afterall?

 

Oh...and Dave for Pres!

[marshallmosty]

Imagine if we could get all or even half of those racers to pull their cars out of mothballs!!!! Then AI might be fun again!

Misty,

Belive me, I'm trying my best here in TX to bring them back out. I've talked to a handfull, but can't get a hold of everyone. However, not every car WOULD come back. Some were only 1-2 races and haven't shown back up again. I'd say our "core" group could grow by 6 if the "veterans" would come back. Life changes a lot in 6 years. Priorities change (marriage, babies, divorce, finances, aging parents) it all weighs in MUCH MORE than everyone realizese. Much more than whether a shoo didly didily ABS unit is legal or not, so please don't try an paint that picture as the reason why we don't have 25+ AI cars in our region.

 

At least we still have growth to replace those who "choose" to leave.

 

Texas is a "right to race" state. You can choose to leave at any time, with or without reason.

[marshallmosty]

it will be straight line only testing over one 90-0 stop.

I would be shocked if there was much difference between the systems in straight line braking. I'm glad you are testing but I don't see any use in that. The advantages of the "better" systems lie elsewhere...

 

You also generally can't test no abs braking in newer cars by unplugging the fuse. The computer is needed to control the brake bias.

 

Richard P.

 

Richard,

From what I heard from the CMC-2 Nat's race is the top S197 cars had just pulled their fuse. I might be misinformed, but they seemed to stop just fine, based on the Data Aq information I've seen.

 

Also, the straight line braking is what most people mention. It was "Dean Martin was going a full braking marker deeper at Miller", or "Wow, so and so is really late braking the other guy".

 

I understand there are release characteristics that straight line testing obviously won't evaluate, but at least we are gathering something. If the straight line braking shows domination of the "race" module, it's moot on whether we really need to do full track testing to compare the other portions of the system.

 

Trying to squeeze this in at the end of an already full racing weekend day is hard enough just to get the commitment from all parties to do straight line braking.

 

My .02.

[D Algozine]

it will be straight line only testing over one 90-0 stop.

I would be shocked if there was much difference between the systems in straight line braking. I'm glad you are testing but I don't see any use in that. The advantages of the "better" systems lie elsewhere...

 

You also generally can't test no abs braking in newer cars by unplugging the fuse. The computer is needed to control the brake bias.

 

Richard P.

 

Richard,

From what I heard from the CMC-2 Nat's race is the top S197 cars had just pulled their fuse. I might be misinformed, but they seemed to stop just fine, based on the Data Aq information I've seen.

 

Also, the straight line braking is what most people mention. It was "Dean Martin was going a full braking marker deeper at Miller", or "Wow, so and so is really late braking the other guy".

 

I understand there are release characteristics that straight line testing obviously won't evaluate, but at least we are gathering something. If the straight line braking shows domination of the "race" module, it's moot on whether we really need to do full track testing to compare the other portions of the system.

 

Trying to squeeze this in at the end of an already full racing weekend day is hard enough just to get the commitment from all parties to do straight line braking.

 

My .02.

 

It's good that you are taken time to perform a test. My point is that this system and other race systems like it have huge advantages in corner entry, as well as bumps, hill crests, off camber., etc... Certain corners, that a mere mortal may trail brake, can be threshold brake all the way into the apex. With a properly set up car, and driver, that is a huge advantage. That's what I mean, when I say, watch video and check the real race data.

Good luck, I hope it goes well

[Cheyne]

On my 2011 Mustang if I pull the fuse for ABS it causes the system to completely fail. This includes brake bias. We found out at the SCCA Runoffs when we were having problems with ABS and wanted to try to eliminate ABS. We put the stock controller back in, put the fuse back in and unhooked the left front ABS sensor. This caused ABS to not work and I didn't have to remember to turn off traction/stability control. Personally I prefer no ABS, but this is the first car I have raced with it and I'm not used to just standing on the brake pedal and I also hate the feel or lack of feel in the brake pedal.

 

Cheyne

[Red Tornado]

I always still default to page one and purpose of series- aftermarket and factory support and area for them to develop and test parts.

 

So why would we want to stop that??

 

I go back to no changes and solve tire issue quickly before end of Dec!!!

[tacovini]

Interesting read and a fairly active week! October is when everyone's blood gets pumping. I appreciate everyone keeping it relatively civil. (Call me anytime, Dave A.)

While this thread got up to 7 pages, I think the number of rules change requests (RCRs) to date is up to 5 coming from 4 people.

 

Regarding ABS testing, I can assure you it is among the top things to look at. As discussed, we've already done some limited testing with a professional driver. As Marshall mentioned, we'll continue some data gathering and hope to use the same pro driver. We also have data from a handful of cars from this year's National Championships and I'll be interpreting that with a host of other people.

 

We've got to evolve to remain relevant guys. Anyone else catch this segment of The Car Show? (Pretty entertaining & eye-opening, if you're of my age.)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLD-ibf7l6k

 

See any parallels???

I want to hear your thoughts...

[stevepoe]

CRAP,,,,,,I'M GETTING OLD

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64GyuozXtnQ

 

 

 

I'll say it again. EVOLVE OR DIE . something eastman kodak should have thought about.

 

I have a 2011 mustang v6 "stock" 260 rwhp 7200 redline ..wtf ???? Seriously though .

 

with cmc going to a one class format next year those guys in older fox mustangs are going to get smoked if all they get is a hp bump. with new technology out of control in the automoive industry crap is obsolete pretty fast.

 

new mustang 2015 irs and probably ecoboost. boss killer ? and that will probably be out early /mid 2014

 

MERGE AI AND CMC into one banner and make a few classes in that banner.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Guest

[Jim P.]

We've got to evolve to remain relevant guys. Anyone else catch this segment of The Car Show? (Pretty entertaining & eye-opening, if you're of my age.)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLD-ibf7l6k

 

See any parallels???

I want to hear your thoughts...

You have shattered two of my childhood icons! I will never be able to look at a Ferrari or Delorean again without laughing!!!

[D Algozine]

Interesting read and a fairly active week! October is when everyone's blood gets pumping. I appreciate everyone keeping it relatively civil. (Call me anytime, Dave A.)

While this thread got up to 7 pages, I think the number of rules change requests (RCRs) to date is up to 5 coming from 4 people.

 

Regarding ABS testing, I can assure you it is among the top things to look at. As discussed, we've already done some limited testing with a professional driver. As Marshall mentioned, we'll continue some data gathering and hope to use the same pro driver. We also have data from a handful of cars from this year's National Championships and I'll be interpreting that with a host of other people.

 

We've got to evolve to remain relevant guys. Anyone else catch this segment of The Car Show? (Pretty entertaining & eye-opening, if you're of my age.)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLD-ibf7l6k

 

See any parallels???

I want to hear your thoughts...

 

I saw that episode, I thought it was interesting, but I wasn't that suprised. Keep in mind that was just straight line speed. Run some timed laps on a race track and some braking tests and I think it would be more relevant. Besides the Delorean was a dog from the day it rolled off the line. I know there are many engineers on this board. , proper tests that are accurate, repaetable, reliable, with a control, and accurate interpretation are key. I assume that's the goal for us, as well.

One last attempt of repeating myself. The "evolve or die" is relevant, but evolve with what? Factory built race cars? Impossible. You'll never be able to keep pace with factory race cars, literally. It's insane to think that an idividual or a small race shop or an aftermarket provider will be able to develop cars that can compete with a multi billion dollar international manufacturer. Evolve with OEM street cars, makes more sense, and is a challenge in it's self. The Mustang Challenge was a factory backed race series, and unfortunately, it didn't last. I'm guessing the factory pulled their support (money), but I really don't know the story. It happens. So, if the series becomes dependent on Ford Racing, it will start to lose control. Do we really want to become an extention of a Mustang only version of WC or Grand AM. Again, if so, then it's not for me.

Chris I still haven't found anywhere that sites "factory support" as one of the missions of AI.

[Cheyne]

CRAP,,,,,,I'M GETTING OLD

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64GyuozXtnQ

 

 

 

I'll say it again. EVOLVE OR DIE . something eastman kodak should have thought about.

 

I have a 2011 mustang v6 "stock" 260 rwhp 7200 redline ..wtf ???? Seriously though .

 

with cmc going to a one class format next year those guys in older fox mustangs are going to get smoked if all they get is a hp bump. with new technology out of control in the automoive industry crap is obsolete pretty fast.

 

new mustang 2015 irs and probably ecoboost. boss killer ? and that will probably be out early /mid 2014

 

MERGE AI AND CMC into one banner and make a few classes in that banner.

 

Here is my dyno sheet for my 2011 Mustang V6. All that has been done to the engine is remove the CATS and mufflers. The rest is stock. It has a 3.31:1 diff. Ford's Performance Kit installed including the struts/shocks. On 17x8 wheels with Hoosier A6's at the Runoffs I ran a 2:39. Under the SCCA rules my car is 3575lbs, but I have to carry 35lbs of lead to make weight and this is with a 300lbs driver. I also haven't removed everything I could under the SCCA Touring rules. I figure the car could get to 3500lbs with no problems.

 

[stevepoe]

Dave , sorry I don't buy it "factory race car" my car is nothing special. the cage was all done outside of ford for ford and it's basic at best. it's not like they are some sla ,3rd link through the floor with extended wheel bases .

 

They are stock mustangs with some better bushings and a good shock spring package. ok maybe ford did a little wind tunnel testing with them for a aero package .

 

you talk like the cars that are running in our series that came from ford are some multi million dollar investment from ford. They are not some alms,trans am,rolex gt , WRC car that requires a ton of setup or special parts on them.

 

 

 

I wish pat lindsey was racing his old fox hatch again cause if he was nobody would be talking about factory built race cars with racing abs.

 

also a little blue fox coupe mustang that can down right haul the mail when it gets sorted out.

[D Algozine]

Dave , sorry I don't buy it "factory race car" my car is nothing special. the cage was all done outside of ford for ford and it's basic at best. it's not like they are some sla ,3rd link through the floor with extended wheel bases .

 

They are stock mustangs with some better bushings and a good shock spring package. ok maybe ford did a little wind tunnel testing with them for a aero package .

 

What street car did that ABS come from? It didn't, it came from one of the Race cars. Personally, my real issue is the ABS. Besides the car already has advantages, such as wheel base, wheel width, solid chassis, and well engineered stock suspension. The trans is just unnecessary BS. Although it does provide nearly perfect close ratio gears and the price tag is insane, it's the way it has been handled, that is very wrong. So put that GT ABS version back in, and I think that is fair. Although personally, I don't feel ABS belongs in our series.

It's pertty obvious that the likelyhood of the race system getting pulled is slim. Many reasons, I'm sure. But, the arrangments and relationship with Ford Racing is likely the top of the list. So, I agree with Chris G, give a weight penalty.

100 lbs for real OEM systems and 200 lbs for the race version. No idea how they will police it, but hopefully someone else does.

[47car]

Dave , sorry I don't buy it "factory race car" my car is nothing special. the cage was all done outside of ford for ford and it's basic at best. it's not like they are some sla ,3rd link through the floor with extended wheel bases .

 

They are stock mustangs with some better bushings and a good shock spring package. ok maybe ford did a little wind tunnel testing with them for a aero package .

 

What street car did that ABS come from? It didn't, it came from one of the Race cars. Personally, my real issue is the ABS. The trans is just unnecessary BS. Although it does provide nearly perfect close ratio gears and the price tag is insane, it's the way it has been handled, that is very wrong. So put that GT ABS version back in, and I think that is fair. Although personally, I don't feel ABS belongs in our series.

It's pertty obvious that the likelyhood of the race system getting pulled is slim. Many reasons, I'm sure. But, the arrangments and relationship with Ford Racing is likely the top of the list. So, I agree with Chris G, give a weight penalty.

100 lbs for real OEM systems and 200 lbs for the race version. No idea how they will police it, but hopefully someone else does.

 

Yes! the race ABS need to be removed or penalized! I also agree with Steve in that other than the drivetrain and ABS, these new cars are nothing to be afraid of.

[stevepoe]

you have no data to even cry abs . just because it says "race" ? hell ,for all we know it could be worse for our cars given it was calibrated for a certain race compound tire and brake compound.

 

did you know this ?

The boss s comes with the exact same trans that is in a factory gt500 street car ? It's also the same trans found in the fr500s. street version right out of the box. They cost about $3000 new and can be bought used for less then 1500 if your thrifty.

 

you guys cry fowl on the boss r1 box like it's the standard box everyone is running. I have not seen one boss r1 out on the track with us yet. The boss s cars owners that run the r1 box chose to because they wanted to and paid extra for it cause it didn't come like that form ford.

 

also this Factory backed thing.......... If ford racing showed up at American Iron unloaded with a crew, engineers, and hired guns then I could see it being factory backed.

 

I will agree that maybe nasa needs to keep it in check somehow on all cars being able to be competitive. Not sure how that can work but I have a suggestion. I wasn't a big fan of it but I can see how it works after watching it . "rewards weight" like in wc.

 

Say american iron add a rule that every car must have a weight box in the passenger floor area and every driver must have 300lbs of weight with him at the track or have access to it or he doesn't race the next race if he can't install the rewards weight. make it a standard mounting system And location whatever it may be. You WIN a race you get weight put on you from your region director. say 50lbs Win again 50 more lbs. and on if needed. You start finishing outside the top 3 and that weight comes out in certain pounds. Win 4 races and you got 200lbs and it keeps being added to you don't win in your region.

 

 

 

I found this picture of Paul Browns car and rewards weight. seems easy to police and would go in after dyno and weight checked from the win. All that would be needed is the ai director making sure that weight was installed.

 

???? thoughts ?

 

Edited October 14, 2011 by Guest

[kbrew8991]

How would that work for Nationals? Plan to finish 4th in each qual race so you get weight removed and then go for it in the Championship race?

[stevepoe]

Ken,

 

I'm not 100% sure how it works but it must to some degree or wc wouldn't be using it . I know we have a few guys on the boards that run or ran wc that could chime in.

 

I know PB is on the boards every now and then.

 

maybe base nationals rewards weight on how many regional wins you had during the season ?

 

Hell I don't know it was just a thought that I think could work for us.

 

this could also help as keeping pro drivers from running away with everything if they showed up . or least make them work a little harder.

 

Dave the reason the fr abs is legal is because you can't tell it apart from any other abs module.

[D Algozine]

Dave the reason the fr abs is legal is because you can't tell it apart from any other abs module.

 

 

Yah, I remeber that from years ago, when it first showed up. Seems a pretty silly way to make something as important as this legal for such a silly reason. My simple answer, then and now, is get rid of them all, but that has been shot down repeatedly for years. Quick off the top of my head answer, all S197 ABS modules will be considered to be the "race version" unless it has been verified in advance, by Ford/NASA tech officials as a stock OEM unit. Put "NASA" engraving on it to authenticate. Unless the case can be taken apart, then I got nothing.

It takes some coordination and lead time, but I assume it can be done. No official markings, then it's considered the race version. Then it can be deemed illegal or get a weight penalty, which ever is decided. Again, just brainstorming, I'm sure something can be done. It just takes the motivation and some lead time and leg work. Some how Ford has to konw which is which. How do they do it? Don't say a sticker either, because then that's just too easy to fake. Needs to be fool proof, and not side stepped by......lets say one of the engineers that designed the damn thing.