Neil B. Posted January 10, 2002 Share Posted January 10, 2002 Why was the camber limitation removed from the rules? This has been an important rule from the beginning to equalize the cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted January 10, 2002 Share Posted January 10, 2002 Starting in 2002, the camber limitation was removed for the Camaros. - Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil B. Posted January 10, 2002 Author Share Posted January 10, 2002 I understand the limitation was removed. This was an important limitation to keep the Mustang competitive with the Camaro. Limiting the Camaro to 1.5 degrees negative made these two cars absolutely even with comparable drivers in each. Why the rule change? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 Whoops, my fault. I parsed "why" as "when". I don't know exactly why we did. I think Tony / Jeff / Don can probably answer the best. Hopefully one of them will jump in here with some info. - N Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Trask Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 The reason that the camber limit was removed was that it is to hard to measure. The Camaro's have a hard time repeating camber after use. Same would be true of the Mustang. Camber on my dad's car was always set at between 1.2 and 1.4. Problem was that after a race, the camber would grow by .2-.4 degrees. Not good, but a fact of life in a hot race car. It was felt that a well driven Camaro with any camber setting was the equal of a well driven Mustang. As always, we reserve the right to take it back. It's worth a try and it will make the series easier to tech. Hope to see you all at California Speedway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMCRacerChico Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 I completely agree with Neil....the camber rule for the Camaro has always been at the foundation of balancing the two cars. But I do also agree with Jeff, it has always been a difficult rule to enforce. But I am still waiting for someone to technically explain to me how a Mustang is superior to a Camaro so that the Camaro needs more camber?? Is it the narrower track?? The 1978 Fairmont Front Suspension? The binding unpredictable 4 link rear? The worst front/rear weight disturbution? The higher center of gravity?? I think a better option is to allow the Mustang to balance this change by allowing the use of a torque arm on the Mustang. This would essentially give the two cars exactly the same rear suspension geometry. Two lower arms, torque arm and Panhard. Really more than any decrease in lap times.. The real advantage of a torque is it would make the Mustang a much easier car to drive at the limit. Really it would drive much more like a Camaro. And realisticly would the fastest Mustang drivers be any faster....not as much as you might think. Really it would mostly give the midpacker Mustang driver a more stable handling car that would not only be more enjoyable but safer to drive fast. And I can hear Jeff Trask saying already... "I like being able to hang my Mustang out on the edge of control" And it is wonderful how well you do it!! But in the history of CMC only a few have demostrated the ability to drive as fast in Mustang as in a Camaro. And of course nobody would have to install a torque arm if they are more comfortable without it. It is funny how we have a perfect examples of how the torque arm doesn't make a Mustang some sort of rocket ship. In SCCA American Sedan the Mustang gets to use a torque arms and if anything the Camaro is still a slightly better car in that series. Another example is the last CMC event of 2001.. Tony's new American Car had some sort of engine problem so on the Dyno it made only CMC levels of power that weekend... right around 225 horsepower. That car has a torque arm and it was running right with all the other CMC cars that weekend. And I am sure Tony would agree how much more stable that car drives than his other Mustang?? So I would rather save the extra cash and not pay to run TV races!! And put that towards the one time cost of a $500 torque arm for a Mustang. Since my membership on the CMC board of directors was terminated for this year... why I am not sure? I will still continue to be an advocate for the Ford camp. So I will be hoping to get thoughts from other Ford drivers and move towards lobbying for rules that will be fair for all makes in CMC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 Chris, Forget the torque arm,its too expensive and CMC does not want to incur anymore cost to race..remember we don't even allow headers due to cost. We will watch what the camaro's do this year,but I don't think it will be a issue. As you know there were only a hand full of Mustangs out this year,and we kicked those Camaro's butts( now I'm going to get it),so maybe this will work out just fine. I like my torque arm in the A/I car,but the CMC car is very fast and stable without it. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMCRacerChico Posted January 12, 2002 Share Posted January 12, 2002 So if our goal is to reduce all possible costs then why spend several hundred dollars more to race on TV??? Drives costs go up and we have no REAL sponsors to advertise for anyway. And also why are we allowing extremely expensive late model cars? If our real goal was to reduce costs we should not allow 1993-97 Camaros or 1996-2002 Mustangs. So a one time cost of around $500.00 for a torque arm to keep the Mustang competitive would blow out the budget but buying a new expensive Camaro that now gets to use a car with. 350 V8 Engine 6 speed tranny stronger unitbody arm front suspension wider track more aerodynamic body Keeps the costs low?? But if I want to run the best car Ford makes the new Cobra. I can buy a brand new 2002 Cobra for what $35,000 ... but I am NOT allowed to use any of Fords newest good stuff on that car the IRS rear suspension or the 4.6 32valve all aluminum engine. So the GM guys get to use every new trick part GM puts into the Camaro but Ford guys aren't allowed to use any Cobra or Cobra R parts?? Is that fair?? And additionnally Tony are you telling me if you, Jeff Trask, Johnathan Bombarito started driving Camaros in CMC you and them would all get beaten by whatever Mustangs are left?? )~ LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted January 12, 2002 Share Posted January 12, 2002 Chris,let me answer a few of your concerns here. The late model cars are not extremely expensive.I bought my 95 Mustang GT complete with motor, trans, rear, with a perfect body for $2,890.I have seen several more perfect ones for 3-5k.So for 10k you can have a brand new late body Mustang/Camaro sitting in your garage. If you want you can buy Tims 95 Mustang GT that is 90% complete for $8500. I have had 11 emails back to me regarding the (POSSIBLE) TV coverage,so far 10 positive and your one negative which is fine.I only posted it to find out if anyone would be interested. Several times I have driven behind and in front of Don Trask's new Camaro(and we all know Don kicks ass),and I can see no advantage on what he is driving in. No cobra's are allowed,so forget the 2002. The 4.6 Mustang Motor is a Dog! Don't worry about the Camaro's having the advantage,they don't. Just come out and have fun with us this year,we miss you! Thanks, Tony Guaglione CMC Chief Director Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Garten Posted January 13, 2002 Share Posted January 13, 2002 I applaude the individuals who put the 2002 rules together. They thought of everything that may cause a problem with a car (i.e. HP, TQ, Weight, Camber) and set perameters to allow it to compete in the CMC. Please not another year of who has the most advantage, Ford or GM. Would the most successful ford drivers be that much better in an open camber GM car. I do not think so. I have driven both cars and I find both have their advantages. Good luck to everyone in 2002. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted January 13, 2002 Share Posted January 13, 2002 This is club racing guys. We don't have the luxury or doing day long back to back test days to see how changes affect cars (although, that might be a neat idea if we could ever get everyone together and run some kind of decent test day, but I digress). Is removing the camber limitation from the GM cars going to give them an advantage? I don't think so, but the only way we're going to know is to try it out. If it gives the GM cars too much of an advantage, I'm sure we'll adjust the rules back. As for allowing a torque arm on the Mustangs, thah opens up another can of worms for the GM cars. If you are going to allow a torque arm for the Mustangs, I would argue that you would need to allow the same thing for the GM cars. I really don't want to put a $500 torque arm on my car, it would mean that I'd have to respring the rear, and then spend a day doing test & tune trying to resetup the car again. Like Jeff said, we're going to watch this and see how the no camber restriction works this year. If it doesn't work, I would hope that we put the camber restriction back on the GM cars. As for the newer cars. Nobody has shown up with a new 4.6L Mustang yet, so really, we have no way of knowing how that car is going to do in CMC do we? As for the 5.7L '93 - 97 Camaros - I've run behind and in front of Don Trask and IMHO, his car doesn't have an advantage over the earlier GM cars and Mustangs. As long as the poewr / weight ratio is kept in propotion to the current CMC cars, I think we're OK. Yes, the car has an aero advantage, but the only track that might make any difference at is going to be Willow Springs and we only run that track once a year. FWIW, I ran behind Don Trask an entire race at Willow Springs. I could put about a car length on him by the end of the front straight (A yellow flag at T1 prevented me from actually passing him). - Nick Camaro #45 (hey, it moved under its own power today!) - Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil B. Posted January 14, 2002 Author Share Posted January 14, 2002 We'll see how the new rule works. I just don't want to go down the A-Sedan path where it takes all sorts of mods to get the Mustang to run with the Camaros. It's cheaper to slow the Camaro down than speed the Mustang up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted January 14, 2002 Share Posted January 14, 2002 I agree with you. I'm not intersted in pouring cubic dollars into my car. The lost cost is what attracted me to CMC in the first place. - N Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted January 14, 2002 Share Posted January 14, 2002 You guys are right...there is one thing that I will make sure of and that will be to keep CMC what it is. We will stay hard to the rules!We don't ever want CMC to go like A/S did. We will watch the camber change this year and evaluate it with everyone later in the year.If we have to change it back we will. ( OK Camaro drivers,no dogging it). Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Garten Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 Can somebody go back and calculate the number of Mustang wins vs the number of Camaro wins? I think it would nice to know what make has dominated the class since we are looking at the car and not a specific driver. Reverting back to limiting the Camaro's is fine if the advantage is apparent, however a rule should not change during the season. If this was thought out originally, which I think it was, then evaluate it at the end of the season like all issues should be addressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Donahoe Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 I`m with Neil On this one, AT the dead fish dinner it was discussed and determined that the camaro possible would not get more camber based on camaro wins, the fact it cannot be measured effectively at the track is bogus. I can eye ball any car and be with in 1 degree. Why open the camber on the camaro all the way, Why not a 1/2 degree`grace. Of course the camaro will hande better with more camber. Any car will!! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Trask Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 Season Champions: 1996 J. Trask (Ford) 1997 J. Trask (Ford) 1998 Ben Pfaff (Chevy) 1999 J. Trask (Ford) 2000 Greg Righetti (Chevy) 2001 John Bomarito (Ford) The reason each of these drivers won this series is a combination of factors. Those factors are 1) Showing up at nearly every race. 2) Driver skill (whether in a Camaro or Mustang, I would bet the outcome would not have been any different). 3) Finishing consistantly. I believe that the wining should stop. Come every weekend, start and finish as many races as you can and finish consistantly in the top five and you will win CMC in 2002. (And yes, you can finish consistantly in the top five, even a Mustang.) The question is will the winers show up? I'll be at California Speedway, will anyone else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Pryor1548534703 Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 It's amazing how money and racing advantage can spark a discussion...personally I doubt the camber change is even going to be detectable in the results with the Ford vs. Chevy win column. I've always believed you had to look at the middle of the pack to see how most rules work. The guys that win the races are usually going to be two or three that win 80% or more of the races. These are racers who have both driving and racing talent as well as car preparation at the top level. In CMC I believe there are five drivers that could take either a Chevy or a Ford and still win. Once we get past the top tier of car/drivers I believe we'll see how the rules affect the majority of the drivers. The CMC rules have been developed to a very equal point in car preparation for the average low budget racer and I believe the past year has shown an equal mix of racing between Ford and Chevy. The rules work as they are. I believe that changes such as more camber for the Chevy won't make much, if any, difference for the mid-pack driver, but it may save his tires for an extra race or two and make him more comfortable in the car with better steering response. The KEEP IT CHEAP rule, unwritten is the best one for the series. If want to tinker with your car, then run American Iron. Keep CMC as it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Pryor1548534703 Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 It's amazing how money and racing advantage can spark a discussion...personally I doubt the camber change is even going to be detectable in the results with the Ford vs. Chevy win column. I've always believed you had to look at the middle of the pack to see how most rules work. The guys that win the races are usually going to be two or three that win 80% or more of the races. These are racers who have both driving and racing talent as well as car preparation at the top level. In CMC I believe there are five drivers that could take either a Chevy or a Ford and still win. Once we get past the top tier of car/drivers I believe we'll see how the rules affect the majority of the drivers. The CMC rules have been developed to a very equal point in car preparation for the average low budget racer and I believe the past year has shown an equal mix of racing between Ford and Chevy. The rules work as they are. I believe that changes such as more camber for the Chevy won't make much, if any, difference for the mid-pack driver, but it may save his tires for an extra race or two and make him more comfortable in the car with better steering response. The KEEP IT CHEAP rule, unwritten is the best one for the series. If want to tinker with your car, then run American Iron. Keep CMC as it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 Richard,Jeff, Your right the camber wont make a difference,and if it does....well I guess I'll just have to switch to a Chevy again!!Just kidding,get a grip! Next subject please, Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil B. Posted January 16, 2002 Author Share Posted January 16, 2002 I'm glad I was able to stir the kettle a bit. Looking forward to mixing it up with you this year. I'll be in a Ford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 Neil, you troublemaker you! - Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.