Suggested rule changes for 2017

[RGSarsfield]

There are a couple of things that I think should be considered for 2017 American Iron:

1- change ride height from 5" to 4". Many of the newer cars and suspension systems are designed to function better at a lower height.

2- for those of us who have worn present engines beyond their functioning life, the present crate engines exceed the hp and torque limits of the present rules without significant down-tuning., so increase the weight/hp and weight/torque limits.

3- given that the GM and Ford engines have very different torque and hp curves with higher torque to hp from the GM engines and the opposite from the Ford engines, why not have a weight / (torque + hp) average? This would allow the different marque engines (and cars) to demonstrate their strengths and weaknesses in various segments of tracks and different track configurations overall.

I'm certain other racers have more ideas whereby to improve competition but this may be a beginning to update the dated rules/limits.

Jerry Sarsfield

[Marshall M.]

Jerry,

If you want to put each one of your requests in the following format and email it to your regional director (email info is at the back of the AI rule book), we can have them evaluated since we are now in the rules review/adjustment season.

 

Name:

Region:

Contact:

Class:

Rule #:

Recommended Changes:

Reasoning:

How I feel this will help the series:

[nape]

There are a couple of things that I think should be considered for 2017 American Iron:

1- change ride height from 5" to 4". Many of the newer cars and suspension systems are designed to function better at a lower height.

2- for those of us who have worn present engines beyond their functioning life, the present crate engines exceed the hp and torque limits of the present rules without significant down-tuning., so increase the weight/hp and weight/torque limits.

3- given that the GM and Ford engines have very different torque and hp curves with higher torque to hp from the GM engines and the opposite from the Ford engines, why not have a weight / (torque + hp) average? This would allow the different marque engines (and cars) to demonstrate their strengths and weaknesses in various segments of tracks and different track configurations overall.

I'm certain other racers have more ideas whereby to improve competition but this may be a beginning to update the dated rules/limits.

Jerry Sarsfield

 

Just a data point from the "vintage" side of the fence.

 

1. I'm at 5" and I clobber the oil pan on everything. Pan is dented to hell and the skid plate is almost ground through. The next time the engine comes out, it needs a new pan and skid plate. If we go to 4", we have to start looking at dry sumps. I'm not interested in either (4" RH or dry sump).

 

2. The quick and dirty way for carb guys to knock HP out is a throttle stop. With drive-by wire cars, you may want to look into having the ECU only open the throttle 80-90%.

 

3. In my opinion, with the amount of drive line tuning (transmission/final drive) allowable in AI, torque is pretty much irrelevant. I likely make the least amount of torque in the country (300 ft-lb) and I couldn't care less. Everyone wants to focus on the engine package, but there is no reason to build a torque monster unless you want to leave it in 4th gear and never shift (which would actually work at some tracks).

[brucebyerly]

There are a couple of things that I think should be considered for 2017 American Iron:

1- change ride height from 5" to 4". Many of the newer cars and suspension systems are designed to function better at a lower height.

2- for those of us who have worn present engines beyond their functioning life, the present crate engines exceed the hp and torque limits of the present rules without significant down-tuning., so increase the weight/hp and weight/torque limits.

3- given that the GM and Ford engines have very different torque and hp curves with higher torque to hp from the GM engines and the opposite from the Ford engines, why not have a weight / (torque + hp) average? This would allow the different marque engines (and cars) to demonstrate their strengths and weaknesses in various segments of tracks and different track configurations overall.

I'm certain other racers have more ideas whereby to improve competition but this may be a beginning to update the dated rules/limits.

Jerry Sarsfield

 

Just a data point from the "vintage" side of the fence.

 

1. I'm at 5" and I clobber the oil pan on everything. Pan is dented to hell and the skid plate is almost ground through. The next time the engine comes out, it needs a new pan and skid plate. If we go to 4", we have to start looking at dry sumps. I'm not interested in either (4" RH or dry sump).

 

2. The quick and dirty way for carb guys to knock HP out is a throttle stop. With drive-by wire cars, you may want to look into having the ECU only open the throttle 80-90%.

 

3. In my opinion, with the amount of drive line tuning (transmission/final drive) allowable in AI, torque is pretty much irrelevant. I likely make the least amount of torque in the country (300 ft-lb) and I couldn't care less. Everyone wants to focus on the engine package, but there is no reason to build a torque monster unless you want to leave it in 4th gear and never shift (which would actually work at some tracks).

 

Totally agree.

[Jack Hidley]

I would not lower the minimum ride height. It becomes much, much more expensive to make a 1979-2004 Mustang work at a ride height below 5". An S197 Mustang is already quite a bit faster, than the 1979-2004 Mustang. Lowering the minimum ride height will just give a financial advantage to the newer cars. If the older car can't afford to run lower also, then it is at a speed disadvantage.