What are we waiting for?`

[King Matt]

Leaving CMC alone will be a good thing for the medium term. But allowing CMC-2 to encroach into AI will not be a good thing for either class. If NASA is smart, they will take CMC-2 and merge it into the AI structure as an entry point to that series. There will still be confusion about CMC vs. AI, but at least CMC as it currently exists can be left to live out its life expectancy, which hopefully will be a good long while. I think NASA would ultimately like to see the name go away and all our cars be merged into AI.

[jeffburch]

Why do they want the CMC name to go away?

jb

[King Matt]

Because of the dilution and potential confusion caused by pony cars running in similar classes with different names. Think of GTS or Honda Challenge. If all the V-8 pony cars ran in an AI 1-2-3-4 class structure, that might actually make some sense.

[GlennCMC70]

just my thoughts here.

JWL is the AI head honcho - he likes AI.
Ryan F is a big fan of Honda Challenge (think H1-H4).
both of those guys are big wigs at NASA HQ.
the thought of AI1-AI4 is appealing.
remember HC is a MAJOR class in Cali - where NASA HQ is located.
they see sucess in HC, and want the same sucess for what is known as AI/CMC. Todd Who has always treated AI/CMC as a sister series and for good reason - we both complemet the other. i'm sure JWL sees the same thing.

[King Matt]

It's an unfortunate reality that in certain regions there is an adversarial relationship between AI and CMC and participation between the two classes is viewed by some as a zero-sum game. You guys in Texas seem to be the group that displays this tendancy the least, but in the east it's especially true, and the west coast doesn't seem too far behind. Here in the Midwest we see the potential to grow both CMC (as a rules concept more than a name) and AI through integration, which is why we had proposed creating our own class and moving ahead together. I don't think that's going to happen now, but I do think it kick-started a re-examination of what was happening in CMC, and I know for a fact that our proposal is what spurred NASA National to get much more involved with the ongoing discussions.

[GlennCMC70]

Matt King saved the world.

[King Matt]

Thanks for finally noticing. :wink: If we'd just sat around bitching on the CMC forums we'd all be banned and running AI Light in 2010.

edit: I'm not looking for credit or praise. There were many people who had a hand in turning this around: JB, Glenn, Dave Royce, JWL, and the many others who made their opinions known publicly and privately. It's still not a perfect system, but hopefully we made a forceful enough statement to take back our class.

[RagingAardvark]

If all the V-8 pony cars ran in an AI 1-2-3-4 class structure, that might actually make some sense.

Didn't this cause plenty of issues when TransAm was run in a similar fashion for a few years in the 80s? At least one of the classes was eliminated after only a year or two, right?

If done right, I don't see an issue with it. Mostly I just want to keep racing our American V8. don't make us go Spec Pinata

[GlennCMC70]

If all the V-8 pony cars ran in an AI 1-2-3-4 class structure, that might actually make some sense.

Didn't this cause plenty of issues when TransAm was run in a similar fashion for a few years in the 80s? At least one of the classes was eliminated after only a year or two, right?

If done right, I don't see an issue with it. Mostly I just want to keep racing our American V8. don't make us go Spec Pinata

in a way, we already have it. CMC (AI1), CMC-2 (AI2), AI (AI3), AIX (AI4).
the thing is, i dont want to change the legal platforms allowed in CMC(2) just be cause AI does no matter what we call ourselves. example, if you have a GTO, the lowest class in the AI series you would be able to run would be AI3 under the proposed rename.

none of this stuff is on the table as of now, its just a bunch of stuff being asked between a few directors now. i'm not a big fan of it, but i do see where it makes sence.

[GlennCMC70]

wasnt this thread about when the 2009 rules were going to be out?

did we answer that question well enough?