Members Al F. Posted September 10, 2003 Members Share Posted September 10, 2003 So a lot of us sat around last saturday and threw out some thoughts about potential changes for next year. I thought that it might be a good idea to start a new topic/thread for each of these ideas. This way everyone can write in their thoughts, everyone can see them, and all the different topics would be organized. Good idea? Bad idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Good Idea: Here is what we talked about. 1)Battery re-locate..good for us,and cheap...I'm for it. 2)Headers..forget it, but come on people open up you exhaust!! 3)Adjustable corner weights on either front or rear..maybe at this point. 4)Points for attendance..absolutley! 5)One point for pole in qualifying..lets see 6)Radios...too expensive..too hard to get others to spot for you..forget it. 7)8 races per year..still seems to work well.80% throw outs Weights: Mustangs 3100, 3rd gen Camaros 3200, 4th gen Camaros 3350. 9) Weight penalties..do we want to increase them?? 10)Driver training at least once a year,for those who seek it. What else did we talk about? These are only my views,as the decisions will be made by all of us as a group. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady in Nomex Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Rev limiters: Nick brought this topic up as being a no-performance add-on and inexpensive engine saving device. Free jets for carb cars at Reno-Fernley: I brought this up to save us carb folks the expense of having to get a dyno done just to go to this track. At 4200 ft jets have to be changed from those used at the lower altitude tracks we race on. If you change your jets you must have a dyno sheet for those jets according to our rules. Since the carb cars are not going to have a great horsepower advantage at 4200 ft from using the necessary smaller jets we might as well save a few bucks. Drivers meetings: This was something I thought about after our pizza. This should be mandatory as important info is discussed and it is nice to see a face and associate that with a car. My first contact incident was with another CMCer who did not usually come to drivers meetings. As you can imagine our introduction was quite awkward. I feel the driver's meetings keep us from having incidents and are a great source of camraderie that other race groups admire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsim Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Great idea - I was thinking about this just this week... Weights - I for one would like to see the weights RAISED. How many people (really, I don't know) do we have even close to the limits? I think raising the weights by 50 pounds would help those of us big fellas over 200 pounds to be more even with the little folks, and those little guys would be able to add ballast (which would help THEM with weight distibution). Number of races - Eight events works good, I think. But just as Vegas is a struggle for the Nor Cal guys, so is Reno, Sears, and T-hill for us southerners. So we might not make all of them. Also, most times we have 3 races/weekend, but they're not guaranteed. So, I'd propose that a maximum of sixteen races count towards season end points. They would be the 16 best finishes over the year. This way, if we only got 2 races per weekend, all eight weekends would count. If we were to get 3 races per weekend, just over 5 events would cover us. Or even some mix in-between. Race locations - Sure, CMC started in NorCal, but there are a growing number of folks in the south. How about a definite 4/4 split between North and South? As for Tony's points: 1. Good Idea, let's have it moveable 2. I agree, no headers. Let's keep it cheap. 3. Do the 4th gens have adjustable front springs as stock? Maybe adjustable rears on 3rd gens? Again, I don't want to spend more $$, we're a spec class. 4. What do you mean "points for attendance"? 5. How about top 3 qualifyers 3-2-1 points? Added to race total at the end of the year? 6. Agreed - too expensive, but is there an advantage to them? Also, can we get clarification on 'data acquisition', and what is/is not allowed? 7. See above 8. Wrong way, I think up, not down. 9. That depends. How are they enforced? Is the weight penalty on top of the minimum race weights, or is there a weight ballast handed to a winning driver regardless of theie race weight? 10. Interesting thought. However, I for one would like to know more about each track we visit, especially the one's I either haven't been to yet, or haven't gotten right yet. How about someone that has 2 seats in their car (or can add one) signs up for HPDE group 4 every race weekend? And gives a 2 lap 'line demonstation' to anyone who wants one? 20 cars per weekend could split this $10 a piece, correct? That oughta do it for now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Al F. Posted September 10, 2003 Author Members Share Posted September 10, 2003 Excellent...I love a good argument 1. battery relocation - I'm all for it. Cheap to do, and a decent performance upgrade. 2. headers - I don't see a need. I do think all of you guys running mufflers ought to borrow my hack saw...unless you're struggling to make 230hp 3. Adjustable spring perches - personally, I don't see the reason why not to allow this on both ends. If you have a car without them, you can adjust pre-load with shims. This is cheap and effective. If you're building a new car, you can go either way. Building a new car with an adjustable system is not much more and you dont have to do it anyway. At the end of the day, a properly adjusted car is a properly adjusted car. Who cares if you use shims or turn a bolt? Besides, there are more choices in suspension pieces for Mustangs that have adjustable perches, so this would make it easier for people to choose Mustangs. In my opinion the pain in the ass is getting your car to a set of scales, not adjusting the corners. So, either allow easy adjustment, or make corner weighing illegal. 4. revamp points system - get rid of the need to finish half the laps to get points. My suggestion is that if you qualify, the worst you can get is last in the race, along with the corresponding points. 5. pole point - Yep. Lets get an incentive to not sand bag qualifying due to inverted starts 6. radios - I don't see this happening. $1000 is the cheapest I've seen and that's a whole lot of brake pads 7. 8 races per year - no opinion 8. weights - I wouldnt rush out to bump 4th gens to 3350. They'd be 250lbs heavier than Mustangs? That seems a bit much. Mustangs weighing 3100 might make them attractive enough over camaros. The perceived problem is that Mustangs are too slow, not that 4th gens are too fast. I'd say 3100, 3200, 3300. 9. weight penalties - raise it... 10. driver training - dont think this needs to be in the rules 11. rev limiters - absolutely, unless it involves an ignition box, aftermarket chip, etc. We'll need to specify how to limit the Rs. 12. free carb jets - within limits, say only for certain tracks as Nick suggested 13. mandatory driver's meetings - ok, but specify the time and place ahead of time (we all get a schedule in the mail ahead of time, Tony can say X o'clock at Y trailer in an email) AND the penalty for not showing (start last?) 14. bigger brakes - Come ON, I NEED bigger brakes!!! hahaha just kidding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 I love it...keep it coming you guys..great ideas..except for raising the weights..come on Brad these cars are already pigs!! Points for attendance means you make it to the starting line and your in for at least last place points.Currently you have to go 50% of the race laps. I like thw 3100/3200/3300 point that Al made. Julie/Al, great Idea on the CMC mandatory meetings at a specific time. Jets,good for only Reno..I agree. Again, the more we hear from you guys,the more we listen...to a point! Thanks!! Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmc38camaro Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 One thing I suggested Saturday that has not been mentioned yet is to remove the requirement that ballast must be placed in front of the rear mounting point of the passenger seat. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsim Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Yeah, I know they're pigs, but with our rules, you could say no miminum, but keep the allowed modifications as they are, and they'd be no change. To get down even CLOSE to that minumum, don't we have to have EVERY light part ever made (16# wheels, alum hood, fenders, bumpers, etc), remove brackets, glue, and everything else, AND diet down to 130 pounds? Want to keep the power to weith the same? Give us cold-air intakes, for another 5 HP. Now we can raise the weights 50 pounds, and keep the power to weight the same (actually better (13.82 vs. 13.91). When do the aluminum blocks and swiss cheese tubs get here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Al F. Posted September 11, 2003 Author Members Share Posted September 11, 2003 Come on Brad, its not THAT bad. I know there are several 3rd gens at minimum without going to radical extremes. I know Don and I are both close to minimum, and we both have plenty of stuff we can remove. Regarding weight penalties...I would suggest we specify that penalties go into effect the next racing weekend. Otherwise we all have to carry around lead blocks just in case, or be illegal if we're unprepared. That's extra expense that may not ever be necessary. Also, I would like to mark the cars that have a weight penalty on the outside. It'd be nice to have the reminder for tech, and for bench racing. You can then go bragging that the +100 on your windshield is 'cause you're sooooo good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[email protected] Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 What's with this 1/2 degree negative camber and toe-in for the rear of these live axle cars? My circle track buddies say this is a $4000 modification. This is NOT in the spirit of CMC. Dump this rule! I think the coil over adjustment is practical. If I can add spacers, why not make it easier. Battery relocation is cheap and effective. Let's show the world how fast CMC is! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToTheLimit Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 Meeting at the Pizza place was great and everyone had a chance to tell other drivers what they like and dislike. And we are the core of this series and most of us there show up at all the races and we should have a say in rules changes. The rules we have seems to be working really great since we are all so close and the racing this year is the best and closest ever in CMC competition and we need to keep the rules stable and firm with no major changes because thet would discourage anyone out there currently building a car. OK.. My thoughts. 1. Battery relocation..oh yes.I think we all agree on that one 2. Headers..No way..lets stay with where we are at on that one..BUT LETS GET LOUDER.. We took the muffler off for Sundays race at T-hill and felt great with more noise ( and some popping from exhaust from lack of backpressure) And just a comment..we took off muffler and melted part of rear bumper from heat from exhaust..oops 3. adjustable corner weights..heck yes..cheap to do and not really illegal with current rules ..just lots of more work to do it...one end of car..can be done for less than $50.00 4. Attendance points.. YES! 5. Pole point ..YES! 6. would love radios but will not push issue..( I have had mine for 10 years, no expense for me). As long as we are ok to use radios during test days I will be ok with that..And we need them for the Enduros 7. 8 races a year..4north -4 south - Will encourage drivers from both north and south to show up. 8. weights as suggested is good. Like to see review after every three race weekends. 9. weight penalties seems to be working ok this year..lets leave them there and review every three races. 10. carb jets..whatever..not many cars using carbs anymore..I do not plan to run carb next year and think jetting should be free.. the injected cars got basically "adjustable jetting" and as long as rest of carb is free of mods lets just use whatever jets.. 11. Mandatory and scheduled drivers meeting...PLEASE lets do it..I have missed meeting because I did not know we had one until someone told me... I would be so easy to say.".CMC drivers meet at Tonys trailer 15 minutes after first practice. " all the other groups have it on the schedule.. And if it is listed and you miss it..You start last.. ( Nascar does it) Per #81 (2003) #88 (2004 partial schedule) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Graves1548534707 Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 I agree on keeping the No Headers rule, but isn't there a way to "clean up" the insides of the stock exhaust manifolds that would add a bit more H.P. by making the air-flow smoother? I forget what the proccess is called, and have no idea how much it costs. Does anyone else know? Also, is there a way to get a little more back-pressure while running an open exhaust, to get back some of the torque-loss? (We're already running the 3" up and over the rear axle). Thanx, Esse' #81... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsim Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 Steve, see this thread regarding muffler removal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Ginsberg Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 I realize I'm in another region, but we utilize the West Coast rules. So, I'd like to comment/add to the list, if that's alright with the crowd. 1. Battery relocation - I vote an enthusiastic YES. 2. Stock exhaust/manifolds - yes, leave them stock. 3. Yes for adjustable spring perches. That still means no on coilovers, correct? 4. Attendance points - Yes. But clarification would be good - simply showing up, or having the car there too? Sounds silly, perhaps, but..... 5. Pole points - Yes. 6. Radios - no. 7. 8 race weekends - no comment. Texas is just getting underway. 8. More weight for the GM guys. j/k. Yes on weight reduction. 9. Weight penalties - make it necessary for the next race weekend. But, not increase the weights. 10. Could you qualify this please? 11. Mandatory driver meetings - yes. Mike Plum's comment about removing the weight placement requirement gets a yes vote from me. Also, could we add/make a slight change to section 8.35.9, subsection 5? Currently, it states: 5) The rear calipers must use a piston no larger than 40mm in diameter. I'd like to request the allowance of 1984-1986 SVO rear disc brakes. The rotor diameter is 11", but the caliper piston diameter is 54mm. That makes the caliper illegal. Since the intent of CMC is inexpensive racing, utilizing many stock/readily available parts, I believe the addition of SVO brakes meets that intent. There isn't a "performance edge" in using these parts, as a stock suspended Mustang can't get a great deal of rear brake bias anyway. Maybe it could say something like this: Rear disc brake setups allowed: a) unmodified 1984-1986 Mustang SVO 5 lug, 11" rotor, 54mm piston caliper rear disc. b) unmodified 1984-1987 Lincoln Mark 7 5 lug, 11" rotor, 54mm piston caliper rear disc. c) unmodified 1994-current Mustang 5 lug, 10" rotor, 40mm piston caliper rear disc. d) unmodified 1994-1998 Mustang Cobra 5 lug, 11" rotor, 40mm piston caliper rear disc. e) Any 4 or 5 lug rear disc setup, providing the rear caliper piston size is no larger then 40mm, and the rear rotor diameter is no larger then 12" as per section 8.35.9, subsection 3. Or something to that effect. Nothing drastic, not even a full rule change - just a clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsim Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 How about dedicated 'CMC official' dyno testing centers (one per region?), and sealed motors? Some weekend prior to the season starting, we'd have a 'dyno day' or days. We all get to run our numbers (and see the competition's, of course). After the pulls, any minimum weight penalties are assessed on the spot, to be added for race #1 (if over 230/300). Then the engines are 'sealed'. I'd suggest 1 each of the bolts for: IntakeExhaustTiming chain coverValve cover Any engine repairs (or mods) require a re-dyno anyway, right? So if the seal is broken on one or more of the bolts, a new dyno is required. See, I'm sure we could find somebody that would take $50 to say that 454 big-block has 230/300, maybe for another $20, they could give us a copy of someone else's graph as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmc38camaro Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 Steve, The process you are asking about is called extrude honing. An abrasive is passed through a passage at high velocity. Material inhibiting the flow is removed. The process in not really cost effective from my point of view. Headers would provide more bang for the buck, but I would vote against them. Now for something completely different... and I already know the answer is no way, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway. I'm a fan of light weight and one thing that would lighten all of our weights would be lexan windows. For between $500 and $600 we cut could our windshield weight by 60% and our back glass weight by 75%. There are also safety benefits and we may end up replacing fewer windshields due to rock damage. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToTheLimit Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 Mike I agree with you and like to see the lexan windshields and rear windows too but as of right now I do not think that is within the spirit of the CMC rules so I dont think that will happen..And I heard you mention Stack gauge/dash setup briefly too...Like it too..but we need to keep CMC where it is at..Lets not get this too crazy ,thats why I let my AI car sit in barn and collect dust this year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Al F. Posted September 15, 2003 Author Members Share Posted September 15, 2003 Mike...I tried hunting down that thought that lexan might be cheaper in the long run if you're replacing fewer windshields...but I don't think that will fly. It'd be nice though! Brad...I think you make some good points, but...I think trying to make everyone go to the same dyno shop would be a real pain in the you know what. The rules already state we have to use the same type of dyno, which I think is enough. Also, sealed motors only mean its more expensive to cheat, not impossible. I think the only way to ensure lack of tampering is stating a hefty penalty for cheating and randomly drawing cars to get dynoed. Breaking rules is a risk vs reward consideration though, and I'm not sure the current penalty is serious enough as written. Keeping 230hp is a fundamental rule in this class, and messing with that should bring about something more serious than just losing points. Sparklin...I think that rule is there to cover the factory range of camber on these axles. I know mine has about .3 and it certainly doesn't look like anyone's ever spent $4k on it...but that might be due to the pinion seal leak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExRacer Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Right now only Camaros can have the factory fibreglass hood. That's pretty nice for you Z28 guys, but penalizes the FBirds. Big exhaust sounds cool, batt relocation easy. My cage is a monster so I vote up weight or allow extra hp for weight by current hp/weight ratio. The math is easy and can be set at current ratios and lets us be safer without penalty in performance. I see lots of grandfathered small tube micro cages. Adjustable coils are good, announce CMC mandatory meetings at track, so no double-secret probation stuff . . Up an inch on front brakes guys, dicing is better in corners that way. Pig cars need brakes. Up one inch on wheels, wider tires. My car progress clunks along getting ready . . . (sigh) Even playing field is the goal, right guys? God I can't wait to get out there with everybody. This has been a goal since I first saw the CMC races over a year and a half ago! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Thanks for the comments everyone! Looks like battery placement is a go with everyone. Adj. Corners weights.. possible. Points for showing up and getting on the track...Yes its a go. Weight 3100 Mustangs/3200 3rd Gen/3300 4th Gen..looks good. Everything else..too much money and we just dont need any of it, but I'm checking on the Lexan windshields and if we can get them cheap,then we may talk about it. I want to keep it simple, with very few changes for next year. This series works so well the way it is now,that I really don't want to see much change,which in the long run keeps it cheap too. We will talk more at Buttonwillow. Tony Guaglione Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsim Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 After talking with Al (who did his best to tell me that raising weights was not the most logical suggestion), I thought I'd clarify my thoughts a bit. It seems to me that to make it near the minimums for 3rd gens, you need to have all the lightweight goodies - '82 hood, aluminum bumpers, hollow sway bars, GTA wheels, etc. To me, the 'problem' is the fact that these parts are limited editions (like ONE year's production of 1LE fiberglass hoods?), and are WAY hard to come across. While they might be affordable, they are too hard to find since we're required to use OEM parts, not (for example) an aftermarket fiberglass hood.. Since we're a 'spec' class, that's supposed to be 'economical', I find it tough to think that I need to keep spending additional dollars to get the last 100 pounds off the car. It's cheap to lose the first 100 pounds, but the cost just get exponential to the return after that. If we were capped at an easily attainable limit, costs are more likely to stay down. I'm just suggesting that the 'allowable' weight be that weight which represents a 'standard' car (non-exotic 1LE or Cobra), with ALL allowable 'removeable items' removed. Any additional expense items, such as lightened, hollowed, or other-wise 'exotic' parts (like an '82 Z hood) would only benefit the deeper pocketed folks that would rather go UNDER weight by adding these things, then relocating that weight to a more favorable place via moveable ballast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Brad, I had to run 40-50lbs of ballast in my 91 Camaro to meet the 3200lbs,and I had all the stock items in place..including a stock hood.Weight should not be a factor,and I know its not since we weighed all the cars at the last event and almost everyone was between 4lbs to 50lbs over...and some were 50lbs under! 3200 is very easy to get to for a 3rd gen, and I run 90lbs of extra weight in my current Mustang..again all stock parts included. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Al F. Posted September 17, 2003 Author Members Share Posted September 17, 2003 Well, that's all fine and good Tony, but you forgot Brad is a tubby biatch. Sorry, couldn't pass it up. Hey Brad, maybe you should fill your tires with helium. ok, ok, I'll stop. I do have one constructive thing to say...Since we're going to allow relocated batteries, how about not requiring "marine type" battery boxes if you run gel cells? SCCA allows this. Battery boxes are pretty dorky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Ginsberg Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Tony, have you looked at my request regarding the rear brake caliper size clarification? Opinions, suggestions?? Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Yes, I will bring it up with the other guys and will get back to you asap. Thanks, Tony 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.