Jump to content

2013 Rules Change Requests (RCRs)


tacovini

Recommended Posts

TO: ALL AMERICAN IRON RACERS

 

It's that time of year again. For 2013, rules consistency is king. We made some fairly large changes this year to help equalize the field. Rather than introduce more major changes or whipsaw existing rules, it is our intention to make as few changes to the existing AI & AIX rules as possible to allow further development of the cars. Aside from a few necessary clarifications, we expect the review period to be quick and the new rules out soon. (Despite what the naysayers and poopstirrers say, we've got a good thing going and we are growing!)

 

To achieve this goal, we need to have all of your change requests/comments/suggestions submitted by 10/24 (my birthday).

 

As with last year...

 

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.)

 

I’ll collect all change request submissions, review them with the AI Leadership Team and we’ll capture which ones are accepted, rejected & implemented and why.

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.

 

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.

 

Things that are currently on the table:

1) Need to clarify the wing & aero rules and clean up the wording.

2) Need to provide a consistent scale/dyno process from region to region (again...an annual favorite!)

3) Need to further evaluate non-S197 Mustang competition (esp. GM & Dodge)

 

Things that are NOT on the table:

1) Corvettes

2) Toyo RR slicks

3) Large changes to existing rules (we're not going to revisit brake sizes, wheel sizes, dashes or limits to AIX HP)

 

This is serious shat!!!

(Stay Civil my friends.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • robbodleimages

    29

  • D Algozine

    18

  • UBR

    13

  • marshallmosty

    9

3) Large changes to existing rules (we're not going to revisit brake sizes, wheel sizes, dashes or limits to AIX HP)

 

 

Deleting the dash rule would be a "Large change to existing rules"???

 

 

Richard P.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If an existing rule doesn't meet ANY of the specified criteria below, can with have it stricken?

---------->a) Willl decrease series cost because…

---------->b) Will increase series growth because…

---------->c) Will improve competition because…

---------->d) Will provide more clarity because...

 

The DASH rule increases cost, can not be attributed to any growth, has nothing to do with competition (except for the ultra competitive dash contest at nationals) and didn't clarify anything. In fact made the rules more unclear requiring a revision every year since introduced.

 

Do I need to fill out a form for this one? Or do you have it?

 

j

Link to post
Share on other sites
marshallmosty
We are building an AI car based on current rules. Thank you for consistency!

David,

Looking forward to seeing you back out there with us!

Link to post
Share on other sites
firehawkclone

This leadership team needs to be made up equally of all mfg's. the rules have been groomed perfectly to favor one mfg since the start of AI. The corruption forming the rules have killed all other mfg from ever wanting to run in AI.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
This leadership team needs to be made up equally of all mfg's. the rules have been groomed perfectly to favor one mfg since the start of AI. The corruption forming the rules have killed all other mfg from ever wanting to run in AI.

Will Stukus running a VERY fast and well developed 4th Gen Camaro in the SE must have missed that memo...

 

Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites
firehawkclone
This leadership team needs to be made up equally of all mfg's. the rules have been groomed perfectly to favor one mfg since the start of AI. The corruption forming the rules have killed all other mfg from ever wanting to run in AI.

Will Stukus running a VERY fast and well developed 4th Gen Camaro in the SE must have missed that memo...

 

Ed

Same old attitude around here. Lets point out one GM guy doing well. I did very well myself one year, it doesn't change the facts.

 

Equal representation on this leadership team.

Link to post
Share on other sites
robbodleimages

wondering why there are no 5th gen camaros running ai? they came out in 2009. by 2008 we saw plenty of the new mustang. it would be a more interesting conversation if there were a fair number of current platform gm racers in the mix.

Link to post
Share on other sites
marshallmosty
wondering why there are no 5th gen camaros running ai? they came out in 2009. by 2008 we saw plenty of the new mustang. it would be a more interesting conversation if there were a fair number of current platform gm racers in the mix.

 

Rob,

In talking with guys familiar with the GM's, they indicated that the rear shock mounting/geometry is horrible from the factory and the only way to make it "right" will violate the rear shock mounting point so it's not legal for AI..

 

Just my .02 from a conversation I had over a year ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
robbodleimages

i have some access to the stevenson grand am camaros and the team. the feeling i got in general was that its a whole lot cheaper to race a corvette than a camaro. its a shame.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob,

In talking with guys familiar with the GM's, they indicated that the rear shock mounting/geometry is horrible from the factory and the only way to make it "right" will violate the rear shock mounting point so it's not legal for AI..

 

Okay, so how much would they need to move it to make the GM competative? 2 inches? 6? I find it hard to believe that moving a shock mount point will make that big of difference, but fill out a RCR and who knows. TJ and Will Stukas are pretty fast. I followed Will a bit through the twisties at M-O and he looked as fast as the Fords, and TJ is as fast as anyone (Except the freak of nature Dean Martin).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 5th gen is a tank, not worth spending a ton of money on when the next re-design is going to be a ton lighter.

 

If I was going to spend a huge pile of cash, why not just buy a Mustang that's a proven package? That way you don't have to spend a few years beating your head against the wall doing R&D and asking for RCRs to get competitive.

 

I do think it's funny that there are no Grand-Am Camaro allowances being proposed by the leadership for when those cars are "retired", considering they were throwing rules changes around like frisbees for the "retiring" Pro series Mustangs a few years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TJ- I think the RCR's is more about making current cars (gen 4) that people already have competative. I agree the Gen 5's are tanks that need a lot of money to be competative with the off the shelf Mustangs. We all know that we can't give up our babies that we have been racing with for years. My old AIX car is still going after 15 years. Damn, 15 years. I am getting old.....

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
robbodleimages

tj, i'd be stunned if someone bought one of the grand am gs camaros and was not accomidated. the issue that there are few of those cars none to my knowledge have been presented for ai play.

 

ive seen one wc spec version that was testing for the march wc opener at road atlanta this past march. he ran st2 as i recall.

 

honestly, ive thought about it. my crew chief/race mechanic/race partner works for stevenson and if one of their cars were for sale, i'd be in a great position to get and use one. but i would be able to buy at least two Boss 302S cars new for what one used GS car would cost me.

 

again, i am certain that if a gs or world challenge gts camaro was presented for ai competition, it would be accomidated in every way beyond power to weight. do you think differently?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

As I've said in various conversations I've had over the years, until GM management decides to get on board and support/help the Camaro guys at the amateur level, it's gonna always be an uphill battle for the Camaro. GM has the Corvette and Cadilac and IMO, thats where they spend the money. Ford has the Mustang only (basically, you know what I mean) and this is what they've done. Good if you're a Ford guy, bad if you're a GM guy. And I hate it but that's just the way it is.

 

When we point out specific drivers who are running a GM platform succesfully, it's because there aren't that many AI GM's running and when there are guys who are successful, it just illustrates it can be done within the rules. Wheeler, Stukus, TJ and others have proven it can be done but I'm sure it's definitely more of a struggle and probably more expensive but it is what it is. I don't buy that it's simply the AI ruleset that is keeping the GM guys away...

 

Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites
When we point out specific drivers who are running a GM platform succesfully, it's because there aren't that many AI GM's running and when there are guys who are successful, it just illustrates it can be done within the rules. Wheeler, Stukus, TJ and others have proven it can be done but I'm sure it's definitely more of a struggle and probably more expensive but it is what it is. I don't buy that it's simply the AI ruleset that is keeping the GM guys away...

 

Ed

 

The word your searching for is frustration. It would have definately helped the casue if GM put some resourses toward road racing the F body over the years. But AI certainly tipped the rules to the new Mustangs, which just made it worse.

Sure there have been a few F bodies that have "at times" run close to, or even with, some of the new cars, but only in limited situations, and not consistantly.

Part of the frustration comes from the tail wagging the dog. It appears that AI has nearly become the newest version of the Mustang challenge. There are less and less diehard, non S197 cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
robbodleimages

i would think that age has to be a factor in the dwindling gm car count. isnt that just a fact of life?

there are fewer old mustangs as well and generally those cars are replaced with newer mustangs when

they get worn out.

 

in nasa se will and landon runs camaros and win most of the races. races that have several ford racing mustangs

on the grid. my understanding is that will is moving to a corvette soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
i would think that age has to be a factor in the dwindling gm car count. isnt that just a fact of life?

there are fewer old mustangs as well and generally those cars are replaced with newer mustangs when

they get worn out..

 

I'm sure that has contributed to the shortage of "other" cars, also.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, I disagree with this...

 

Sure there have been a few F bodies that have "at times" run close to, or even with, some of the new cars, but only in limited situations, and not consistantly.

 

I'm putting on my flame suit for this one...

 

As one of the front running GM guys, I'll say that the S-197 is just a superior platform that has more support from the OEM and aftermarket manufacturers. S197 guys can take their pick of aftermarket or Ford racing parts; BOLT them on their cars, and run up front. It's that easy.

 

Us F body guys have no support from GM, and very very few aftermarket road racing parts. All of the tubular suspension pieces are made for drag racing and will fail on a road race car. The aftermarket rear suspension bits are actually worse than the factory (again, made for drag racing and increasing anti squat with no regard to anti lift). No bolt on shocks that are worth a crap. No bolt on aero bits are available either. Bolt in transmissions have terrible ratios. So basically, to build a front running F body, you cannot buy parts and bolt one together. You actually have to build and fabricate the car. But, I don't see why that's a bad thing...after all, this is a very open rule builders class...right? If you don't want to try and BUILD a better car than the next guy and just want parity...then go run CMC, not AI.

 

All that said. I don't see how the rules offer the S197 any real advantage. Everything they can do, F bodys can do. Yes, they have a better ABS module available, but they also get penalized for using it. Other than that, it's all equal and fair game in my book...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what to say. Will you did pretty well at the month before nationals and leading up to the big race. Tj in his firebird is almost always faster then the rest of the ai field and I've seen Dave A run pretty well in his firebird also.

 

what is up with that ?

 

I also think that you may want to consider your just being out drove. Take a look at the driving resume at some of the top s197 drivers as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definately not looking for a heated discussion, just some observations.

Steve is also correct, there are some damn fine and accomplished racers with some great resources, campaigning the new mustang.

Will hit it on the head, also. You can buy a new mustang from Ford and go racing, or very easily buy a few parts and bolt them on, and the result is an awesome, well desgined, purpose built race car. And the rest of the field doesn't have that luxury. Nope, not the fault of Ford, but go back to the when the new mustang first came out to play in 06, and look at the rules that were changed in order for parts of that car to be AI legal (nope, not going to list them, it's been beat to death for the last 6 years). Prior to its arrival, several items were not legal. Call it progress, call it evolution, call it unfair, call it what ever you want, but it wastn't necessary, the car would have still been killer under the old rules. But, the perception was and still is, buy/built a new musatang, its simple and its proven, which makes perfect sense. Which leads to part of the frustration for some of us, along with other things that have been listed in this thread.

It is what it is, but it has turned into a parade of new mustangs, which kind of sucks. I would have thought the AI directors would have done the exact opposite, and trired to stem the tide of new Mustangs, as diversity is much cooler and more interesting, but....not the case.

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

×
×
  • Create New...