Can we come play?

[Cobra4B]

If you look at the title of the series, it doesn't even fit, regardless of everything else... What is actually "iron" on a vette? Aren't they made from primarily carbon/fiberglass/aluminum?

 

Just sayin'

Pushrods and leafsprings should fit right in. Greg said so long as we run the Steeda Grand-Am wing we're legal for AI now.

[bluefirepony]

From the ST forum - figured we could keep the discussion in the OP's thread

Let c5s run in AI then. All we have is ST.

Brian - maybe take it up with AI leadership. One would think a Corvette is definitely American Iron/Fiberglass Maybe with some kind of a power adjustment you guys could run with them.

I made a post about it and it was largely ignored. They told me to go run CMC if I wanted "cheap" racing. I told them pushrods and leafsprings have to count for something.

25 comments (albeit you made quarter of them) and a thousand views is not ignored. I think you got a reasonably attentive response.

Here's my take: AI needs a stable ruleset for the next several years to grow and that has been a challenge with the cars spec'd in as it is. IMO AIX is where new cars should be classed to see how they can be folded into AI - and CMC for that matter. If that had been done with the S197, I would have had a place to play, NASA AI/CMC could have taken a hands-on year to see what was what and I am pretty sure that the S197 would have been introduced to AI the next year or two with changes socialized and accepted over a couple of hands on seasons.

CMC, mabe never.

 

Everyone got all flustered when the S197 was factored in dealing with wheelbase, ABS, and a host of other issues and it was just a next gen Mustang.

My objection to including the 'vette (C5 now, C6 slippery slope later?) is that it will be a significant disruption to the ruleset over the subsequent 2-3 seasons for a couple of reasons including:

1) NASA has an incomplete sport design for AI/CMC - that leaves a lot of loose ends to tinker at without a design rule to justify the tinkering...hate to bring it up but the dash rule is an example. That tinkering generates a lot of noise and takes away time and energy needed to focus on more important issues.

2) The ability to manage parity via the ruleset becomes that much harder - its a factor of the differences between the cars and IMO AI leadership is having a hard time just with the cars already written in - the S197 gets a weight penalty after several years of being in the rules just for running stock ABS because NASA can't tell the difference btw it and the FR500ABS. The current GM vs Ford partiy discussions are endless..the 'vette would add to that.

3) The AI community has little institutional knowledge of the C5s - I guarantee that will result in sloppy homologation. The second a rule that currently favors a Camaro/Mustang is touched there will be an uproar that will translate to knee-jerk responses, ruleset tweaks, people leaving the series...its happened before.

4) AI is a pony car series not a sportscar series. This is actually my biggest objection and I really expected NASA AI leadership to stop this talk given this baselilne since it is a cornerstone of the AI/CMC sports design AFAIK ("Welcome to the home of the National Auto Sport Association (NASA) Pony Car racing series, the American Iron Series and the Camaro Mustang Challenge"). You can rationalize that the brand of the series won't take a hit bringing the 'vette in but you can no longer call it a "pony car" series and that would lose a lot of unrecoverable marketing heft.

 

IIF this needs to happen I have two suggestions (well I have more but these two are serious).

First, if you want to run AI, build/buy and AI car...there are many on the market all over the country and I think we'd all like to see those cars back in the series.

Second, establish a parity ruleset external to, but aligned with, the AI ruleset, and have the drivers that want to be homologated into AI, run that ruleset in ST for a couple years. That allows AI to run for a couple years without any interuptions, and qualifies interest enough to justify significant changes to AI. If there are just a couple regional then that certainly does not make sense for a national series...if there are 1 or 2 per region for a couple years...and a decent number nationally, then proceed.

Check back at the end of each year and see how that went. If my #1-3 have been addressed after a couple years, then run that ruleset in AIX so that it can be tested against AI/CMC track competition. Best case all is thumbs up and the homologation starts in 2016. I personally think there will be more tweaks before the AIX merge but who knows.