Jump to content

2003 rule proposals wanted..


Recommended Posts

Folks -


We, the directors, have received NO suggestions for rule changes for the 2003 season from anyone. We have kicked around a few proposed changes that we are looking to implement in next year. For the most part they are either safety related or are clarifications of existing rules.


However, we would like to hear from everyone else. If you have any changes you'd like to see in next year's rules, please speak up. I will be bringing a draft copy of the 2003 rules with me to Sears Point for us to look over. If you'd like to have your suggestion considered for inclusion in the 2003 rules, please get them to me in the next two weeks.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Neil that the 1.5 negative camber on the front equalizes the Mustang/Camaro competition. I've run with all different camber settings on the front of Camaros over the past 12 years, from 0 in Showroom Stock, to 3 degrees in Firehawk and these cars are quicker the more negative camber in the front. Our Laguna comparison lap times were approximately half a second a lap quicker with 2.75 degrees neg compared to 1.5 neg camber...and the tires held up better after 20 minutes, so there was a long race advantage, too. I don't know the history of why the Camaros were give the free camber, but I do believe there is a competitive advantage. If it is agreed that the Camaros and Mustangs are currently equal in competition then there is no need to change, however, if, as several Mustang drivers have proposed, the equality has changed and the Camaros have gained an advantage with the camber increase, then the rule should be returned to the 1.5 degree spec in favor of competitive equality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Thanks,this is what we need to hear from you.

The more I hear, the better the possibility of a rule change.so the out spoken ones will win.

Any other thoughts,or other ideas?

How about letting factory look aftermarket hoods in?

There are some manufactures that have hoods for less than half the price of the factory ones.The after market ones would have to be OE look.

Also we will be requiring windshield tabs/clips next year as a safety item.

Come on.. anymore ideas??


Link to comment
Share on other sites

re: other changes:


Here's what's being kicked around right now:


Safety Items:

windshield clips will be required in 2003.

On Off switches will be required in 2003.


Other items:

Allow screw type / externally ajustable spring mounts on 2 of the 4 corners of the car.


Re: camber rule...


I get better, and longer tire wear out of my front tires now. I don't run anywhere near those kinds of camber #'s that Richard is talking bout. I run about -2.00 to -2.25. Anymoer and the car wears the inside too much. The main thing Iv'e noticed with the the camber restriction being lifted is that my car doesn't kill the outside edges fo the tires.


With that said, the logic behind removing the camber restriction was that Jeff and Don found it too hard to enforced. They found that the camber reading would be different on a car before and after a session and they felt that it was very tough to enforce that rule.


Speaking as a competitor, I don't see how the camber rule has hurt the Mustangs (please, feel free to disagree with me here, I'm just speaking my opinion). Ducharme won two races last weekend, Stowell and Pfaff qualified up front this past weekend. Stowell has qualified and run up front all year. I don't see the Camaro's running away from everyone here....


re: aftermarket hoods -


The more I think about it, the more I think I'm OK with allowing aftermarket hoods (and only hoods), with just a few stipulations:


1. it must be a factory appearing hood (eg - no big block hoods, or cowl intake hoods).


THe logic behind this proposal is basically a money thing:


Under the current rules: the late model Camaros can only put a genuineGM SS hood on which is A) just bout impossible to get unless you can come up with a VIN for SS that was wrecked and needs a new hood, or you get one from a junkyard and B) is prohibitively expensive in comparision to cheap aftermarket hoods.


The late model mustangs face the same deal int erms of putting a 'glass Cobra R hood on, the ford motorsports piece is expensive in comparison to the aftermarket parts.


I tend to think that as long as the hood is stock appearing and is made of fiberglass (no carbon fiber, etc) and is commercially available (eg - no one off hand laid hoods), we should allow them.


Thoughts / Comments?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding camber settings, it appears that the Mustang is at a disadvantage when it takes an inverted race for one to finish in the winner's circle (with Camaros that started at the back of the pack breathing down the neck of the Mustang). Qualifying times are not likely to show the disadvantage a Mustang will have during a race. One or two hot laps of similar pace can be run in both cars, but the Mustang will have a harder time sustaning this pace during a race.


So are you considering lexan windshields as well as fiberglass hoods?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: window clips, why? how many front windshields have popped out in the past 10 years?...the rear windows just shatter in an accident, clips or not...not an expensive item to do but unnecessary


battery/ignition kill switches...a good idea as this allows corner workers to disable the ignition/engine in the event of a crash...specific locations should be designated for class uniformity and ease of location by corner workers


aftermarket hoods, fenders, etc...who cares if they are not OEM as long as they look OEM..and the cost is always way, way less


as a class I think safety is paramount and even if NASA or SCCA do not require it..yet...how about a mandatory head and neck restraint system? The Hutchens device is around $450 and the HANS for club racers is about $900....much cheaper than a lifetime of assisted care as a paraplegic...or funeral expenses....we have mandated suits, helmets, belts, cages, etc. for safety...since there have been several deaths this last year in SCCA due to lack of HANS devices, this is a real concern...my HANS device is on order...I value my quality of life more than $900...how about you?


sealed engines....the 230hp/300torque dyno readings are a joke...seriously, how many cars out there haven't been tweaked a bit since passing the annual dyno check...if you're serious about CMC as a truly horsepower retricted series you need a sealing system similar to the SCCA Spec Ford Racer system done by the dyno shop....any savy CMC guy can add 15-20 hp to their car in 30 minutes in the garage...a sealed engine,computer, etc. will insure that the car on the grid has the horsepower it was dynoed with...and yes, these seals are tamper proof as 800 spec racers have proven...if you break the seal to work on the engine (such as Tony does every weekend it seems) you would be required to have it redynoed and resealed....right now the engine is the big weekpoint of rules enforcement in this series...everything else is easily policed.


ram air....I've noticed that nearly all the 3rd generation Camaros out there have cut out the baffles in their air boxes just below the dual air filters...as far as I can tell, this is not allowed by the rules and it definitely adds considerable airflow/horsepower....so how about a clarification on this...cut the air boxes or not.


inverted starts...lots of fun but CMC is getting much more serious with racers looking for points and championships...with fewer cars on the grid it wasn't hard to work through an inverted grid, but with over 20 cars and more promised for the 2003 season, the inverted grid, in my opinion, should become a thing of the past. The danger of new drivers in the front and fast drivers coming through the back in a short 15-20 minute race is a recipe for disaster and bent fenders and potential wadded up race cars...we are not pro drivers and do not have the judgement or ability to know when to restrain ourselves and the greater numbers of drivers in the races create a volitile, unsafe racing environment....of all the rules to change in 2003, this is the one I feel the most strongly about....qualifying is important, it sets the grid and pits equal cars against one another in the race...no matter where you are in CMC you have someone to race against....if a driver wants the fun of coming through the field, then let them start last by choice, but don't keep the inverted starts as a policy...if you want to run open track, then run the HPDE sessions...but if you want a legitimate race...keep it straight with qualifying determining the grid positions.


adjustable spring/ride height adjustments...this is another cost increasing item and should not be allowed...third gen Camaros have done well without it...you just have to choose the correct springs and there is lots of data out there.....adjustable springs allow at the track tweaking and changes and I see CMC as a spec series that seeks to have a driver come to the track and race as-is...don't add items to the series that put the average racer at a disadvantage both cost and experience wise...if I bring Matt Adams to a race and have adjustments available to me on the suspension I guarantee you that we'll find a quicker way around the track (yeah, I heard someone out there saying, put Matt in the car instead of me)...but to me this complicates the series by opening the door to more expense and tinkering.


negative camber rule...I agree that "at the track" measurements are flawed...I'm not sure how to enforce this except to do what SCCA used to do and that's build in a competition allowance...if the spec is 1.5 negative, they would allow up to .5 degree in either direction....but if you measured at 2.001 you were DQ'ed....and you need a consistent measuring standard surface.


My basic idea about CMC is to keep it cheap and simple...emphasize safety improvements and restrict any competition "improvements"..rp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traditionally, no rule changes were allowed that increased the cost of competition. Fiberglass hoods and weight jacks fall into this category because it is a competitive advantage to have them. It sounds like it might make sense to allow aftermarket reproductions of the '82 Cross-Fire Injection hood, the late model Camaro SS hood, and the '95 Cobra R hood since the OEM pieces are already legal and more expensive than an aftermarket piece (this, of course, puts the Fox Mustang at a disadvantage because there is no stock appearing 'glass hood available). Aside from the obvious performance and setup benefits, what's the rationale for the weight jacks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue of camber changing during a race is legit, although my camber settings never moved during a race in 4 years of racing. Pre-race verification with a Smart Camber gauge might work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, this looks like some great imput and discussion, keep it up guys. I'm really glad we can discuss and debate this.




Neil you hit my logic on the head regarding the hoods. However, I don't see your point about the Fox body's being at a disadvantage. There isn't a fiberglass factory hood out there for them as it is so how does allowing non factory hoods for cars that already have factory glass hoods available put the Fox body at a disadvantage? The proposed rule change doesn't take away anything from the Fox body, and it doesn't give anything to the other cars (3rd gen, 4th gen and SN95) don't already have.


Brian - I'm not suggesting anything having to do with lexan windows at all. The hood bit is just a cost savings thing (see Neil's post).


Richard -

Windshield clips are a cheap common sense safety item. It took me 60 min at the track to install mine with a cordless drill, a screwdriver, a hacksaw at the SCCA event at Sears a few weeks ago. They are also required as part of the SCCA GCR if I recall correctly.


As for the on-off switch, I'd rather just have it installed per the GCR and leave it at that. I don't think I want to get into specifying where safety items like that should go. That's what the GCR is for, IMHO.


As for the weight jacks -

We can already do at the track adjustments today Richard. We are already allowed to shim the springs, and I'm sure that many people do. The 4th gen Camaros already use Coilovers (and have to or have custom springs wound). The proposal is that we allow people to install a $50 - 70 set of weight jacks on one end of their car or the other. The main purpsoe of this is to provide people with a quick way to adjust the suspension (which we can already do now via a more cumbersome method of shimming the springs which if you ask me is more expensive in the long run if you calculate in the cost of getting the shims along with the time and labor involved with adding and removing them). The other reason, which was the original driving reason for this rule proposal coming along in the first place was that the 4th gen Camaros use adjustable coilovers already. There is a rule in place to limit the height differences between the two sides to within +/- a certain distance. I want to do away with that rule so there's one less thing for us to police which makes things easier for the folks in Impound (Hi Sam!). Its a $50 - $70 piece.


I disagree with you on the inverted starts. I love them and I bet you that most of the CMC drivers like them to. Last year when I was starting in the back of the pack, I loved inverted starts, they gave me a chance to run up front and race against the front runners which gave me invaluable experience. The new folks this past weekend all said they liked them. It gave them a chance to run with people in traffic and gave them an opportunity to learn more, which they all liked (guys step in here if you feel I'm wrong).


As for motors, that's just another set of enforcement headaches that I dont' think I'd want to get into. How do you seal the motor, what do you seal on the motor (valve covers, fuel pressure, exhaust?)


After swapping back to the stock chip, I had the car dynoed and it hasn't been looked at since. I don't feel that my stock powerplant is down on power in comparision to any of the other front running cars so honestly, I don't feel like anyone's monkeying with their motors.


Airboxes - if people are cutting the bototm of the air baffles out and in my opinion, that is considered ram air and is therefore illegal under the current rules. FWIF, my car does not have those baffles removed, nor have the other TPI cars I've looked at.


Hutchins and HANS devices:

I really do not want to get into the realm of requring safety gear that is not required by the CCR. I think there may be a liability exposure if we require safety gear that's not required by NASA already, however INAL (I am not a lawyer). If you want to see Hutchins and HANS devices required, lets lobby NASA to have them required in the CCR.


Camber limitations:


Ok, I'm still not in agreement with putting the -1.5 camber limitation back in, but I'll shelv that point of view for a minute here. Let me address enforcement:


If we go ahead and measure everything pre-race, what's to say someone doesn't adjust their camber back out after inspection? I know that its possible to adjust the cabmer on a 3rd gen with just 3 bolts and a quick tap of a hammer or screwdriver (there are other ways to adjust camber with these cars as well). I don't think you can realisitcally enforce pre-race camber checks.


If we go ahead and measure things post race and have a camber range, how do we know how much the camber on each car is going to change, so I know roughly where I should star wiht my camber settings? Should I spend money to do a test day and burn my tires, fuel and time sorting out how the car behaves?


Now, let me take my position on negative camber back off the shelf. I honestly don't think there have been enough front running mustangs campaigned this year to tell whether the camber limitation has upset the balance. As for the inverted start helping a Mustang win, lets go back and look at how close Ben (Camaro) and Sam (Mustang) ran back at T-hill (the race before they bumped). Those guys were out front and GONE. They ran the whole race nose to tail. Also, take a look at how well Ben did in the first race on Sat. He ran in 3rd or 4th in the middle of the pack the whole race and was bumped on the last lap and slipped to last place. If I recall correctly, he was putting in competitive lap times the whole race. Heck, Sam's mustang runs up front almost ever race. Lets look back at CA speedway, Jeff Trask in the Musturd and Sam in his Mustang both ran up front. The finish to the 1st race of the season, if I recall correctly, was Camaro (Campbell), Trask (Mustang), Steel (Camaro), Stowell (Mustang). Both Jeff and Sam ran up front all weekend.


Now, with that said all I've driven are Camaros. I haven't driven a Mustang in CMC trim. If someone wants to lend me one for the upcoming Sears Pt event in nov, I'd be more than happy to give one a try so I can get the perspective of the other side of the house (so to speak).



I would like to broach another subject:


How bout allowing different carb jets for the carb folks so they can tune their carbs a bit better if they want? The way I see it would work would be that the jet sizes you are using in your car are listed on your dyno sheet. If the carb jets are pulled and they are not the same size as what is listed, it'll be considered an infraction.


Fuel pressure regulators should be continued to be allowed for the injected cars, but like the Carb cards, the fuel pressure should be noted on teh dyno sheet and if its checked at the track to not be in compliance, it would be considered an infraction.


Fuel Pumps - one fuel pump. Period. For cars with the stock tank, the fuel pump stays in factory location. For cars with fuel cells, the pump may be external. Only one pump may be used in all cases.


Thoughts / Comments?


- Nick

(Ok, my fingers hurt from typing all of that up)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! What a thread.


I love the inverted starts, especially the one where I started in the middle last week and the fast guys got a good start and the slow guys a slow start and we went a couple of laps 4 deep and 4 wide. Now it is probably a miracle that we didn't have contact but that must have been a real trip to watch from the grandstand.


BTW, all the smart efi tuners say the adjustable fuel pressure makes no difference in open loop (non wide open throttle) and very little difference in open loop if the adjustment is a couple of psi diff. It has become a "yesterday" mod. The explanation of which is way too long for this forum.


Heck, I can't get but 1.6 degrees negative. So it could be a -4.0 degree rule but since 4th gens can't use camber plates we don't get there from here.


Now if I could only find where I could lose the 300 lbs that I am overweight I could worry about some of this esoteric minutiae.


Also I really have never felt that I have seen any car pull on my from hp only, nor do I feel I have ever been able to do the same to anyone else. It seems like the cars are incredibly well match from a straight line perspective. Car set up and driving skill are different things however. That makes a difference and that is how it should be!



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent!! I'm glad that we are getting some input.

We will always be running the CMC inverts 50% of the time,and qualifying will always be run with the respected races, as we have been doing the entire year.

Inverting has taught me to be a better driver,a better passer,and has also been the most fun part of racing in CMC for me.

If your always out front,then how good can you drive in traffic,or how good can you run inches away from your competitor if you never have the chance??Inverts are here to stay.

Camber, I'm not sure people are winning or losing races because of it,but we will listen to everyone's comments.

Hoods,we also will listen to comments on this.

Safety devices,your on your own here, I wear the Hutchins device and love it, and won't race with out it..but its a personal choice.

Nick is right, its easier to get a $40 kit to weight jack a few corners than what we do right now with shims,so I am all for it (super low cost,easier install with no fuss).

As always, the main thing here is to make sure cost is at a minimum,changes are only for clarifying or updateing as the new cars come in,and keeping the CMC focus which is of tons of fun with the lowest cost possible.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the hoods - low cost is better


I am torn on the adjustable weight jacks - Richard has a good point about costs and the series - you may look at adding an aditional weight penalty for the newer Camaros to offset their adjustability.


Inverted starts are a great way to increase everyone's skills - yes it is scary to be a novice up front with a bunch of crazy CMCers battling for points coming up behind - but it makes people faster by keeping everyone packed up for a little longer! I plan on inverting all of our Indiana/Ohio CMC starts - of course with one car that won't be much of an issue yet!!


Camber - I like the idea of limiting the Camaro camber - but of course I drive a Ford so I am biased

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Nick for bringing up the carb jet changes! I had not brought it up recently for fear of wearing out the subject, however, I made it pretty clear to the rules commitee that I would be writing up a proposal for this come December. Several of us running the carb cars suffer from significantly lower hp and tq and agree that we need smaller jets to remedy this problem. As long as we note on our dyno sheet these jet sizes we are using, like Nick suggests, and we are within HP and torque limits, all should be good. This way we can tune our carb cars to get parity with the the TPI set-ups. Thanks for your consideration on this proposed rule change. I think it is in keeping with CMC's low budget philosphy to keep the carb cars competitive.


As for the other rule changes, I like the on/off switch and windshield clip idea. Safety devices like the HANS or Hutchens should be encouraged but not required.


Caster camber keep as is. I do not see solid evidence the Camaros have a significant advantage over the Mustangs in terms of our racing experiences. I remain open that is a possibility, however, we need to see evidence in our racing group. This is going to be hard to prove because of the many other variables at play, driver skill, etc.


Inverted starts: I believe in them! I am learning a lot from them. I do see Richard's point about rookies getting overwhelmed. I think if anyone feels overwhelmed, there should be no problem with them starting from the back of the grid.


Aftermarket hoods: ok if they are not much higher cost than stock.


Great discussion guys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a clue how to tune a carburetor, but jet changes for a carb car wouldn't upset me so long as it is what was on the car at the dyno session. Use of the chassis dyno solves lots of ills. Yes someone can cheat, but if they do we will all know sooner rather than later I would guess. The corollary of that is chip tuning changes which is an EFIs cars "jets".


I understand we had a couple of chips that had the wrong part nos. It is not the part nos that determines what is in a chip. It is the code. Most chip tuning is for part throttle operation. At wot the computer does not compute other than feeding in its one wot table since the current generation of sensors don't work (or at least aren't accurate) at the richness you will run at wot. Analogous to jet changing. However it is not something I would care to argue about because darned near any stock chip table will work with the amount of hp we run and in fact tuning would probably take you the wrong way. But if it is in when the car is dynoed than what it does shows the easy way....on the dyno sheet. So whether or not chip or jet changes are allowed the dyno sheet will show the results. And if folks are at all concerned about either; we can simply keep the "no change" rule. So I have no preference either way.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carb Jets - The rule is 230hp/300lb. Why no jet changes if jet size is documented?


Fuel Pumps - Stock or replacement. Original location. Why do our stock motors need anything else? Do the carb cars require different pumps?


Hoods - If it looks stock and the hood was fiberglass from the factory, it should be legal. This way, the '82-'92 Camaros have the Cross-Fire hood, the 4th gens have the SS hood, and the '95 up Mustangs have the R-model hood. If you've got an older Mustang, live with the steel stocker, they're $50 from any wrecking yard.


Camber - Anyone got lap times from qualifying and races this year?


Weight jacks - Adjustable spring perches add cost and open the door for geometry changes. Spring spacers are legal and cheap. A Landrum-style adjuster is also an option if you must. How many people are currently corner weighting their cars anyway?


Rearend - No non-stock diffs should be allowed even if they retain stock mounting points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil -


The current rule says "stock jets" which is whatever the carb came with. Some cars have a problem running with the stock Holley Jets. The thought is, if we allow the carb cars to change jets, its OK as longa s they are under 230 / 300 and the jets are the same size as what is on their dynosheet.


Fuel Pumps -

Carbs can either run mechanical fuel pump on the block or an in tank pump. I belive that depends on the year of the car. I think you and I are in agreement with regards to the fuel pumps?


Hoods -

But the Cobra R and SS hoods are ludicrously expensive. Why not offer a stock looking alternative (heck, I wouldn't mind if we listd the legal part #'s to keep the costs down and even.)?


Camber -

I was supposed to have kept qualifying and lap records but I did a horrid job of it. I'll see what I can dig up, however we basically all went faster this year than last year. I'll see if I can't dig up any #'s from last year and this year (Maybe Todd if he's reading this, could dig up some #'s from last year?).


Rearend - What do you mean by diff - the axle housing or the actual posi unit? I would prefer to go with the rule we have now and to.


- Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jets - I agree jet changes should be allowed, but you've got to run what's been documented on your dyno sheet. Same goes for timing (must have a permanent timing marks on the balancer)


Fuel Pumps -

I agree cars should run either mechanical or electrical pumps in the stock/unmodified location.


Hoods -

Reproduction Cobra R, SS, and Cross-Fire hoods sound like a good idea. I like the idea of listing suitable part #'s. No aftermarket-style hoods should be allowed (cowl induction, Cervini's Mach I style, ZL1, etc. etc.)


Camber -

Were top Camaro and Mustang qualifiers within 1 second of each other at every track this season? What's the win/loss record for Fords/Chevy's this year on non-inverted starts?


Rearend -

Specifically, I'm proposing no 9 inch Ford or 12 bolt Chevy rearends. You must run the housing that came with the car but you can update/backdate i.e. '82 - '92 Camaros can run a Dana 44 and all Mustangs can run an 8.8 rear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m all for all for keeping our racing: safe, affordable and competitive.


Head restraints should be encouraged not required. If we really want to make things safer let’s toughen our requirements for incoming drivers and let’s penalize(send home) anyone who gets out of hand.


I can support the use of reproduction fiberglass hoods as a cost saving idea.


On the competition front I fully support inverted starts as both a great learning tool and also as an equalizer. While on the equalizer subject, How about adding weight to the top finishers, say 100 pounds for the winner, 50 pounds for second and 25 pounds for 3rd. Yeah I know there are logistic and cost issues, but the closer the racing the better. The one thing we have to remember is that we are not only competing against each other, we are competing against other race groups and sanctioning bodies for new drivers and for fans.


Re-jetting carbs should be made legal and front camber should be left open. Making adjustable spring mounts legal is a good thing in my mind. With the progress being made by the 4th generation camaros it won’t be long before those of us with older iron will be at a competitive disadvantage.


One clarification I would like to see in the rules is in the braking area. We have a rule that allows PBR calipers in place of the stock pieces. I read this rule to allow corvette grand sport calipers so I checked with the scrutineers prior to spend the money and was told that grand sport calipers were a no-no. The rule was in place to allow mustangs to upgrade to Baer/PBR brakes. What gives the only differences between the Baer and grand sports parts are cosmetics and price. I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel that safe about running old clapped out rebuilt 1LE calipers that have been abused by the likes of us.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am so glad the subject of carb "tuning"finally was brought up. Been sitting back and have so far not thought any of the issuses has been that big of a deal. I am sure that all of us running a carb have been seeing not HP and TQ advantages but drivebility issues. With our car approx 7 hp loss on dyno hp turned into more than one second loss of lap time, that is loss of drivebility without having to chase expensive horsepower advantages. I realize that it will be really hard to "police" this issue but it is important for the growth of the series that you can actually build a CARB car and run it in SCCA American Sedan, not necessary as competitive as it gets..But you can still win..(Nick L).

I have been running F-bodies since 1988 and I have seen some pretty trick "stock" chips out there with correct part numbers and whatever. I was at Road Atlanta in 1993 as crew chief for the Pole position SSGT car at the runoffs..and we had an engine that would be technically speaking CMC legal including chip that with the right driver would blow any CMC car away and still pass dyno tests.. ( it passed the thorough SCCA teardown in the teardown tent. 10 hours of teardown..Stock car).

I am one of the few that has run both CMC and AI this year..AI has grown and I think it is doing great but I can not justify the money I have to spend to get my car competitive. I may consider just doing CMC next year if certain issues get resolved.. Let me put it this way...CMC is simply the most fun and most competitive racing you can ever do with a car for less than $10k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike read your question before I posted my reply.

GRAND SPORTS CALIPERS.. I been using them for two years on my AI car..No Performance advantage but gives me waaay more pad life due to no flex in pad..

And... Yes I do work for a Chevy dealer and I can buy them and sell them to CMC drivers outright for $150.00 each...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I take two months off and you guys go crazy. Well, I'd like to see mustangs allowed to have torque arms like the camaro guys. I have to agree the invert has been great for my driving. In the begining of the year I was a back of the pac driver. We started the invert thing and my driving has improved and I have moved to the mid pac. Yes, I feel there is some difference in the Chevy Vs Ford handling. I race a mustang and drive an 02 Camaro at work. The camaro handles better. I don't know if the torque arm will even things but it is start. Besides, all you camaro guys (and one gal) are requesting all these rule changes and I figure a Mustang guy should ask for something. See you all in November.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the input here.

I will be driving my new body Camaro next year for 50% of the time,and will be driving my new 95 Mustang for 50% of the time.This should show if any kind of car style has an advantage.I have driven both, and so far I can see no difference at all in my lap times.I checked and all the Mustangs and Camaros that I have had have been almost identical on the lap times.

Keeping cost down is the main focus.

We should have a great Meeting at Sears this year,as everyone can get involved.


Link to comment
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.

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...