Jump to content

2005 Mustang


mwilson7

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • mwilson7

    17

  • Grizlbits

    12

  • bdkline

    8

I have no bone to pick with national as I realize that these types of situations are hard to deal with but we are commited to having the car done and on the track in May.

Barry

AIX66

 

That kind of attitude just doesn't cut it. If you continue to be civil and realistic about your expectations of an amateur racing series you will be banned.

I'm sure anyone interested in building an 05 would have wanted all the details about 6 months ago. I can't see how that could have happened. Does Ford send out pre-production cars to all perspective racing series? Does NASA/AI have the time, money and personnel to tear down a car and determine it's strengths and weaknesses? How much will the aftermarket companies contribute? It makes perfect sence to me that there will be a significant lag time in getting all the detailed data, and making some hard decisions. Anyone who wants to get a jump, would have to be willing to gamble.

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair Dave I do know that Ford racing would have provided a lot of the dimensional questions if someone would have asked. I know for a fact that other series did ask and were given information. One could also contact MVMA and for less than $20 (I believe) you can get a complete technical breakdown of the car. That info has been available since August. I don't believe the aftermarket has any say in how the rules are written. At least that is the impression we have been given.

 

I do totally agree with your statement that those building 05's right now are definitely gambling and will be making changes once the cats out of the bag. Unless they are good at sandbagging.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave,

I'm not quite sure that ranting and raving about the lack of direction would be productive. As you pointed out, this is an amatuer series and nobody has any money at risk except the person building the car. I am building an 05 because I wanted to. The 05 rules were available in Nov. and they have been posted on the shop wall since then(along with the rule books for 3 other sactioning bodies). If queries to national have not come back as quickly as we had hoped,you can stop construction or make an educated guess and proceed.since national makes decisions by commitee(they have said as much on this forum) it will take time. Anyone with any experience always keeps one eye on an alternative venue to compete in(there are many available that will welcome this car with open arms). As for being serious, the budget for this build would purchase a new Panoz GTS or possibly a new Radical DSR. Believe me, we are dead serious.

Barry

AIX66

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look everyone, CHILL OUT! The only real unknown issue with the 05 is track width. The ride height spec is the same for everyone, the power to weight will not change, tire width and brand will not change, wing rules will be the same, I can go on, but I think you get the point. I suggest slapping on the appropriate rim size for the class you are running in and it will probably be legal. If you don't try to make it super wide the car will be fine (most likely - assuming you don't go nuts in grey areas). You guys all need to be realistic. It is NOT NASA's intention to make a car illegal. Use your best judgement, don't go nuts, and your car will probably be plenty legal. You guys are getting way out of hand here.

 

Things that will make you illegal are pretty much the same for any car. That list would include: frame notching, illegal cage, etc. If you have specific questions during your construction of the 05 (or ANY other car) you can post them here, or e-mail the directors, JWL, or Ryan and the issue will be discussed between the directors, and you will get a decision a short time thereafter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave,

I'm not quite sure that ranting and raving about the lack of direction would be productive. As you pointed out, this is an amatuer series and nobody has any money at risk except the person building the car. I am building an 05 because I wanted to. The 05 rules were available in Nov. and they have been posted on the shop wall since then(along with the rule books for 3 other sactioning bodies). If queries to national have not come back as quickly as we had hoped,you can stop construction or make an educated guess and proceed.since national makes decisions by commitee(they have said as much on this forum) it will take time. Anyone with any experience always keeps one eye on an alternative venue to compete in(there are many available that will welcome this car with open arms). As for being serious, the budget for this build would purchase a new Panoz GTS or possibly a new Radical DSR. Believe me, we are dead serious.

Barry

AIX66

 

Barry,

I think you may have missed my point. I was attempting to be sarcastic. As Chris stated above, a level head and a conservative approach makes perfect sence. I get frustrated reading about people flying off the handle and being negative. I was applouding (sp) your realistic and level headed approach.

My statement about the aftermarket may have been incorrect. To clarify, there most likely will be some adjustments to any 05 Mustang specific rules once more are build and raced. Just as I would expect with the GTO, if anyone starts racing it. This would be necesary to level the field,not unlike Grand Am.

Mark, I was not aware that the technical info for the 05 has been available prior to it's release. Perhaps someone should have notified National.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark, I was not aware that the technical info for the 05 has been available prior to it's release. Perhaps someone should have notified National.

 

I will point out again that the only real issue is track width. The issue we are discussing (between the directors) is the tire, wheel, brake and coilover clearance. When there are aftermarket suppliers for these components, it must be researched how they fit. It depends on the level of calipers (stock, Stoptech/Brembo, etc) we should allow them (bigger calipers get wider & wider). The rims and offsets available are another consideration. You need to put the combination together, with camber, etc and come up with a decision. The Ford specifications will not help much here people, most the components in question are aftermarket!!! Patience, as I stated before, is required so the directors can make the corrrect decisions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm sure a lot of you (me) would like this to have been done sooner, with the "intent" of our rules, it's going to take awhile. If we were more like GA where the cars seemed to be "spec'ed out", it would be easier for the directors. Because out series is based off the aftermarket, they need to be physics and figure out what would be available in future like wheels, brakes, suspension pieces, etc. My hope is that the rules will allow the GA cup car to run as is while still within the Hp/tw rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I will point out again that the only real issue is track width. The issue we are discussing (between the directors) is the tire, wheel, brake and coilover clearance. When there are aftermarket suppliers for these components, it must be researched how they fit. It depends on the level of calipers (stock, Stoptech/Brembo, etc) we should allow them (bigger calipers get wider & wider). The rims and offsets available are another consideration. You need to put the combination together, with camber, etc and come up with a decision. The Ford specifications will not help much here people, most the components in question are aftermarket!!! Patience, as I stated before, is required so the directors can make the corrrect decisions.

 

So are you saying the moving the fuel tank more than 12" away from the stock location is not going to be an issue? If this is indeed the case is it safe to say that moving the fuel tank in the fox cars up to a saddle tank arrangement in the rear seat is okay?

 

The rules list no provision for the 05 moving the fuel cell but you are seemingly saying that there is no problem. Can you clear this up?

Link to post
Share on other sites
So are you saying the moving the fuel tank more than 12" away from the stock location is not going to be an issue? If this is indeed the case is it safe to say that moving the fuel tank in the fox cars up to a saddle tank arrangement in the rear seat is okay?

 

The rules list no provision for the 05 moving the fuel cell but you are seemingly saying that there is no problem. Can you clear this up?

 

I knew this was coming, I just wasn't sure if it was going to be you or Wilson. No, I will not clear it up, but I am sure JWL will have a technical bulletin soon. I will also point out that noone has specifcally asked JWL or the directors with a proposal for an alternative placement that I have seen yet. I have only seen general statements by people who aren't running 05's. (Barry hasn't asked or submitted an alternative yet) Doesn't the Ford manual have the specifications and locations for alternate fuel cell locations? I thought not.

 

Barry, if you are not bored of all this chatter in this thread, and you have an alternative location, please post (or send it to JWL or any of the directors if you would like to keep it private).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they are. The saddle fuel cell originally proposed proved too expensive, among other things.

 

Peder & Chris - Can you please both drop me an E-Mail off line. I can't seem to find your E-Mails. swhiteh3(at)ford(dot)com.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you saying the moving the fuel tank more than 12" away from the stock location is not going to be an issue? If this is indeed the case is it safe to say that moving the fuel tank in the fox cars up to a saddle tank arrangement in the rear seat is okay?

 

The rules list no provision for the 05 moving the fuel cell but you are seemingly saying that there is no problem. Can you clear this up?

 

 

I was going to let this go, but I'm just too stupid. This is the kind of sh** that is counterproductive. Everyone knows why there is a 12" rule, but now that the 05 has the tank under the back seat, it makes sence (to me) that this will need to be reviewed for the 05. There is a degree of comman sense that makes is clear to me. I would think that anyone building an 05 car would inquire about the proper location for a cell, becasue the stock location is drastically different in the 05.

I don't think the game of "guess what's wrong with this car" is at all helpful. Questions or comments are great, but the rest of the bullshit is getting old.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, didn't you get your coffee this morning?

 

Chris, you (and others) have asked to be sent private emails with questions in this and other threads. I find this to be a bit ironic because that is exactly where we did last year and it bit us in the ass. I thought the point of this message board was to air all the tech questions/answers so that everyone is kept up to date on rulings.

 

Before anyone jumps down my throat again remember that there are many issues with the MY05 Mustangs that are simply not addressed by the current rule set. Some of these will lead to a competitive edge (it is racing after all) based simply on the architecture itself and some will be based on how you can build this car. What I truly hope does not happen is that people build a well thought out competitive car and then are asked to change it because the current rules don't address any specifics during the initial build of the car.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Before anyone jumps down my throat again remember that there are many issues with the MY05 Mustangs that are simply not addressed by the current rule set. Some of these will lead to a competitive edge (it is racing after all) based simply on the architecture itself and some will be based on how you can build this car. What I truly hope does not happen is that people build a well thought out competitive car and then are asked to change it because the current rules don't address any specifics during the initial build of the car.

 

So, what is your specific question? Or do we have to play "Guess what's illegal with this car?" again. I am tired of that game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, what is your specific question? Or do we have to play "Guess what's illegal with this car?" again. I am tired of that game.

 

I don't have a specific question just yet, i am not building a car. If I were building a car I would have plenty.

 

Try not to sound so pissed chris, it doesn't suit your well tempered personality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris(and all)

I stated previously that we had moved the fuel cell to the rear of the car. I would not run a car that has fuel that close to the driver and all that bulkheads do is make the fuel come at you from 10 different directions instead of 1 big place. The fact that fuel cells have not been required in AI has always bothered me in that a punctured POS oem fuel tank is a danger to other drivers as well as the driver of the leaking car. I did not request a ruling on this item because I would rather run the car in unlimited than compromise anyones safety.I have been on fire twice in my racing "career" and do not wish to repeat. Now that I am getting old and slow, my golden years would be better spent not in the burn unit.

On the track width issue, I have been in touch with national but have not received an answer. We are building the car as narrow as possible( given an 11" rim) but don't have a definitive answer yet. The rear end was being fitted this am so an answer from our end is likely by weeks end.

Barry

AIX66

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris(and all)

I stated previously that we had moved the fuel cell to the rear of the car. I would not run a car that has fuel that close to the driver and all that bulkheads do is make the fuel come at you from 10 different directions instead of 1 big place. The fact that fuel cells have not been required in AI has always bothered me in that a punctured POS oem fuel tank is a danger to other drivers as well as the driver of the leaking car. I did not request a ruling on this item because I would rather run the car in unlimited than compromise anyones safety.I have been on fire twice in my racing "career" and do not wish to repeat. Now that I am getting old and slow, my golden years would be better spent not in the burn unit.

On the track width issue, I have been in touch with national but have not received an answer. We are building the car as narrow as possible( given an 11" rim) but don't have a definitive answer yet. The rear end was being fitted this am so an answer from our end is likely by weeks end.

Barry

AIX66

 

Barry, I completely agree with you on the cell location and I would do the same thing. I only hope that the rules are brought up to date (for the entire car) before the first event so that it's legal when you show up and you are not told the day of the race that there is an issue with the cars legality.

 

I really can't wait to see what you come up with.

 

BPT

Link to post
Share on other sites
All the corvettes in WC that I have seen have the fuel tanks located in the same place as the factory car. Under the drivers seat area just like the new mustang, if not closer. That being said I would probably put it in the rear as well.

 

Now to ease the tension, flying lawnmower:

 

http://www.3d-nut.com/videos/skycutter40.wmv

 

Keep in mind that there is an inherent advantage of having the fuel cell directly behind the driver (in the OEM location) in the 05. Because of this, if someone were to go to the effort of mounting it there they would immediately have a leg up over ever Fox mustang built today. Just another advantage that the 05's will have if done that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
All the corvettes in WC that I have seen have the fuel tanks located in the same place as the factory car. Under the drivers seat area just like the new mustang, if not closer. That being said I would probably put it in the rear as well.

 

Now to ease the tension, flying lawnmower:

 

http://www.3d-nut.com/videos/skycutter40.wmv

Not that I am against moving the fuel tank. The AI ruleset is somewhat like "Suicide." It may not be painless, but it does bring on many changes and, I can take or leave it if I please.

With the disclaimer out of the way, I would say that unless you removed a good deal of rear weight from a 2005 Mustang, placing the fuel holding device behind the rear wheels will create a rear biased race car.

 

Vageli, that flying lawnmower of yours kicked ass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the disclaimer out of the way, I would say that unless you removed a good deal of rear weight from a 2005 Mustang, placing the fuel holding device behind the rear wheels will create a rear biased race car.

 

You are VERY correct Cosmo.........

Link to post
Share on other sites

After sleeping and losing some of the effects of scotch, I just wanted to say that I hop nobody is offended by my last post. It's just the chorus to the theme song of MASH. I really don't know what relevance it has with anything we're dealing with here, but I just watched the movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...