PDA

View Full Version : October- 2008 Rules Comment Period



Todd Covini
10-01-2007, 11:30 PM
AI and CMC national directors are open to hearing your rules input for the 2008 season. Feel free to:

a) post here
b) send a note to any of the Texas AI/CMC Directors (Landrum, Donovan, Fernandez, Covini
c) send a note to National Directors JWL for AI or Tony G. for CMC.

In any case, we'll expect to review/discuss proposed changes nationally and come out with the 2008 rules next month for both series.

Fire away with those comments/suggestions/revision ideas!!!

-=- Todd Covini

chris-CMC#35
10-02-2007, 01:15 PM
Todd,

The proposals are already coming fast and furious, which is good.

My request is simple: leave things alone for the SN95s. If there are proposals to permit changes, modifications etc on Fox bodies to address this alleged parity issue, I'm fine with that, as long as the changes bring Fox to SN95.

DO NOT make changes which force SN95s to do some kind of backdating.

thanks,
chris

Todd Covini
10-02-2007, 10:12 PM
As folks are writing in comments, opinions, bitches, suggestions etc. at breakneck speeds, I'd like to step back for a moment and just mention a few things:

Process
Philosophy
Principles
Problems

(I was going to say "intent" but that's sooo passe'.)

1) Regarding Process, Al Fernandez will be doing his best to capture all of these CMC rules suggestions and as he's done in previous years, compile a spreadsheet with the recommendation, reasoning, any tech, and final decisions. For CMC, it does help if we email him directly, but I think many of the directors here and on the CMC website are following along and making sure Al's got them all for when the series directors weigh in on them later in the month.

For AI, JWL is doing the same so you can provide him with your AI comments directly, or on the NASA Forums or here, but it certainly helps to provide the Texas Directors with your input here (or via email) so that our Texas input can be heard on the National round table (and we can push for it if there's buy-in!)

2) On Philosophy & Principles...in any rulemaking, we've got to first stick by our overarching principles. If a rulechange unnecessarily adds cost or complexity, then there better be a good reason to consider it. Philosophy can change a bit over time, but should never do so drastically. An example of this would be in the early days of CMC, many of the racers drove their cars to the track. Over time, that changed to most of them being trailered, but the majority of the racers still didn't do their own wrenching. We now have ground up CMC shells being built. These changes in demographics have to be considered in rulemaking without compromising our philosophy, principles or recruiting.

3) Problems...is an easy one. In the past year, If we've had problems with a given rule, or a given platform, or a given person's interpretation...then a rule change should fix the problem so as to fit within the overarching series process, philosophy and principles set above.

Another note I'd like to make is that, contrary to what some of us might believe, the AI/CMC world does not necessarily revolve around Texas. (Even though we have the National CMC Champion here.) Foregone conclusions we may have made here in Texas or even at Nats may not necessarily be the case in other regions. As such, input from our fellow series directors is important in the big picture and has to be considered.

With that, I'll show you my cards as to what I see the principles should be coming into this silly season:
FOR CMC
a) KISS Principle- Minimize the # of changes as much as possible
b) Further evaluate & homogolate the CMC2 cars
c) Further evaluate our roots and minimize rules creep
d) Further evaluate differences in platforms and models to ensure parity
e) Other (just in case) :wink:

FOR AI
a) KISS Principle- Minimize the # of changes as much as possible
b) Further differentiate AI from AIX
c) Let AIX be Extreme (my opinion)
d) Begin to trend AI backwards to a halfway point between CMC & AIX.
e) Minimize the perception and/or reality of AI costs
f) Other (just in case) :wink:


With that, I think you'll likely find that whatever outcomes there are, it will likely line up with most of these principles. Other national directors may have 1 or 2 principles to add, but I think those will likely cover them.

-=- Todd

Al Fernandez
10-02-2007, 10:41 PM
Very well said Todd, I agree on all points. Get those suggestions in guys, but please try to do some of the homework. In other words, instead of saying "fix rule x" try to say "change these words to those words and here are the reason why 1, 2, 3, etc. That will help a LOT.

AI#97
10-05-2007, 02:54 PM
Todd, I will go ahead and add to your AI list... Engine manufacturer MUST match chassis manufacturer. Keeps the spirit and INTENT of mustangs competing against Camaros especially when Fords aren't allowed to use NON OEM ford blocks...in my mind this backs up the INTENT that the motor must be OEM to the Chassis brand.

After spending $40k in motors just at nationals, I am sure Patrick L. will vehemontly fight this input but I think moneybags can afford it.

Also, I am in support of losing NON FACTORY front fenders which are NOT steel. Bumper covers should be open as well as splitters. Leave the composite fenders and roofs to AIX.

Mustangs to be allowed 73.5 inch track width...Should clear mildly modified factory fenders.

Not too many other "wishes"...the rest is pretty simple.

RichardP
10-05-2007, 03:12 PM
Mustangs to be allowed 73.5 inch track width...Should clear mildly modified factory fenders.


Mildly modified factory fenders would cover half of the tire at that track width when you are talking Fox Mustangs. That's the whole reason we are where we are with the fender rules. Equalizing the track width between the Fox and SN95 (since they are basically the same car otherwise) means the Fox fenders don't work anymore.

Richard P.

AI#97
10-05-2007, 04:58 PM
Mustangs to be allowed 73.5 inch track width...Should clear mildly modified factory fenders.


Mildly modified factory fenders would cover half of the tire at that track width when you are talking Fox Mustangs. That's the whole reason we are where we are with the fender rules. Equalizing the track width between the Fox and SN95 (since they are basically the same car otherwise) means the Fox fenders don't work anymore.

Richard P.

It's AI.....bolt on an SN95 nose to a fox!!! Might look crappy but it's likely more aerodynamic AND would cover the tires!!! :lol:

Wonder how much would be a direct bolt on....?

Rob Liebbe
10-31-2007, 08:56 AM
As far as SN95 fenders on a Fox body goes, the SN95 is wider at the front of the doors than a Fox. A lot of it would bolt together at the radiator support and top of fenders but the back of the SN95 fender would stick out. It would look like an air extractor. When Ford was developing the SN95 cars, the "mules" were 92 Fox coupes with a fiberglass SN95 nose bolted on. The fender to door size difference was handled by moulding the fiberglass to transisiton from wide to narrow. Some of the ealry 96 Cobra "mules" were on the 92 coupe bodies. I remember one that I drove had a 4.6 4valve, 6-speed close ratio transmission, and a 4:10 axle. It was kinda like driving a sport bike the way you had to shift it so quickly. It was also light and very fast.

Back to work.

Rob Liebbe
10-31-2007, 08:59 AM
I get so easily distracted.. My original reason to look at this thread was to inquire about allowing solid engine mounts in CMC. I'm looking to improve the durability of the mounts. Please pass this question along to the right people.

GlennCMC70
10-31-2007, 09:06 AM
Rob - i tried this one a couple years ago. best we got was to allow Poly mounts. that was cause LT1 4th gen mounts were around $100 a pair, poly was $50. i'm all for it, but we have to make sure solid mounts are available to all platforms.
shoot your request to Al very quickly, as i think the 2008 rules are ready for release in a few days.

AI#97
10-31-2007, 09:13 AM
Daron and I discussed sending in a last minute "hell no" to the 18" wheel allowance for AI...who do we need to send that to?

thanks.

Todd Covini
10-31-2007, 09:29 AM
Got your "Hell No" input Matt and provided it.
Looks like it isn't going to make a diff though.

-=- Todd

PS- Regarding the "who do I send it to" question...look at my initial post/instructions here. :wink:

AI#97
10-31-2007, 10:30 AM
Got your "Hell No" input Matt and provided it.
Looks like it isn't going to make a diff though.

-=- Todd

PS- Regarding the "who do I send it to" question...look at my initial post/instructions here. :wink:

I think we were looking to escalate and use an educated "horseshit" comment to voice our outrage as it seems that they keep talking about bringing the cost of AI down and yet they do stupid stuff like this. Seriously, how many S197 cars are racing in AI? 4 or 5 nationwide? So we create a rule that now opens up the flood gates for cost on ALL AI cars to remain competitive just to accomodate 5 cars that ARE MORE EXPENSIVE to build to start with! I don't really see a lot of guys going out and buying 12 new 18" rims and paying the Extra $100 per tire right out of the gate but I guess I just see it as a way for Patrick Lindsey to spend more money! :lol:

I suppose it doesn't really matter anyway, it will only take a $20 RFA on him next year for me to win Nationals!! :wink:

marshall_mosty
10-31-2007, 11:14 AM
I suppose it doesn't really matter anyway, it will only take a $20 RFA on him next year for me to win Nationals!! :wink:

Okay, I'm dumb... What does that mean? Request for Arbitration?

GlennCMC70
10-31-2007, 11:46 AM
how big of an advantage do 18" wheels have over 17"?

AI#97
10-31-2007, 12:04 PM
I suppose it doesn't really matter anyway, it will only take a $20 RFA on him next year for me to win Nationals!! :wink:

Okay, I'm dumb... What does that mean? Request for Arbitration?

Thought it was "request for action"....after all the hubub about his Audi and it NOT passing the dyno...no way the AI car is legal! :wink:

Glenn, I would imagine it would be the same as going from 16" to 17" rims. Granted you would have to rethink springs, shocks and tire pressures but what you are opening the door for is 14" brakes on all cars which would then be a HUGE change.

I guess I should also preface this by saying I am ok with the rule if it ONLY applies to S197's so they can have safe brakes IF they can't get the weight of the cars down economically. Allowing it across the board for all cars doesn't make sense because you just immediately put the S197's at a disadvantage again and emptied everyone's wallet if they want to remain competitive. :? If this is a trend for AI rules, I give it 3 years before budgets in AI start matching A-sedan or even T1.... :(

To me, it seems NASA aspires to lose the look of grassroots racing and become a big PITA.... Let's keep it simple...?

RichardP
10-31-2007, 02:00 PM
how big of an advantage do 18" wheels have over 17"?


That’s an interesting question. I don’t pretend to have a clue what the answer is and some very expensive testing would likely be required to answer the question. New spring and shock settings could be required to fully take advantage of the differences. (Of course the likely answer will probably be: “It depends.”)

For the current RA1 tire, the specifications of the 17 and 18” tires are pretty close with the 18” tire coming out a bit heavier even with less sidewall. With the tire being the major component in rotational inertial (not only does it weigh more than a wheel, it is of course at a larger diameter), the 18” setup could be at a slight disadvantage with an equivalent wheel.

There is currently no suitable 17” tire listed for the new R888 tire to do a comparison. I’m going to be really bummed if the new tire is required at some point and there is no suitable 17” tire produced.

Any advantage might depend on what wheel width they select for the allowable 18” wheels.

Regardless of reality, the perception is likely to be that 18’s are an advantage and are required if you have any desire to be competitive. A hint to this is the way you phrased your question. You didn’t ask “if” the 18's were an advantage, you asked “how big.” I see this as a pretty serious cost escalation and a negative for the series.

One other possibility is that the hot setup might be found to be 18” on front and 17” on rear. The short sidewall in front would give a crisper turn in and more precision while the larger sidewall in the rear will help with putting the power to the ground. I believe some autocrossers have found this setup to be helpful. This would be really cool. Not only would we find that we needed expensive new parts but we would also no longer be able to rotate tires to increase tire wear… :roll:


Richard P.

GlennCMC70
10-31-2007, 02:27 PM
your right Richard. i intended to say "is there an advantage" and not "how much". my bad.
i for one do not see an advantage if the only change is diameter. things change when overall width and stuff like that changes. i think you shouldnt worry too much about it untill the 18's show to be better.

if this is to help out the '05's, is it not possible to have those guys use a smaller set-up from another platform? or let them have the 18's but put a little weight on them for it?

AI#97
10-31-2007, 03:00 PM
your right Richard. i intended to say "is there an advantage" and not "how much". my bad.
i for one do not see an advantage if the only change is diameter. things change when overall width and stuff like that changes. i think you shouldnt worry too much about it untill the 18's show to be better.

if this is to help out the '05's, is it not possible to have those guys use a smaller set-up from another platform? or let them have the 18's but put a little weight on them for it?

I have been informed the 08 AI rules are to be released tonight.... I will probably break my tradition and read them before I start speculating. I spent an hour on nasaforums today in the AI section and couldn't find any "leads" to where 18" wheels will be allowed so I probably need to ask Daron where he saw it so I can do more research into the potential rules change. One thing I do know is that I might get a surprise on the allowable engines section.... :?

oz98cobra
10-31-2007, 03:04 PM
My understanding is that this propsed change is so that those building an 05 Mustang based AI car can use one of the many "off the shelf" 14" brake kits - which if so then I think this rule change is somewhat premature.

The big advantage of 18" wheels is that we could now fit 14" rotors with ease - and this is a big advantage - perhaps not so much as it will reduce stopping distance greatly, but it will certainly help reliablity which has been an issue lately in AI because of the proliferation of fancy front aero devices that are hindering brake cooling.

So this could be a good thing right - allow 18" and therefore bigger brakes and drivers will have a way of solving brake cooling issues? Well yes but the probelm is that it is essentially a rule that is going to disadvantage the majority of exisiting racers to benefit a very small few right now. It would be much better for this to be a propsed rule change for 09 or 2010 to allow people to budget and plan ahead.

oz98cobra
10-31-2007, 03:07 PM
And Glenn, yes it is possible to source decent 13" brake kits for the 05 Mustang - no problem at all.

And Matt, I heard it from our local directors who have seen the proposed new rules.