October- 2008 Rules Comment Period

[Todd Covini]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.