Where we're heading

[Al F.]

Race season is over and we had a very successful year. We crowned new and repeat champions throughout our regions, and welcomed up and coming rookies. We had more drivers score points, even though in some locations average car count was down slightly, and started down the road of upping the performance envelope with the CMC2 cars.

 

It is exactly those CMC2 cars that I want to discuss further. When we announced the new class I think we made it pretty clear that we were doing this to allow the newer cars to play immediately while giving ourselves time to figure out how best to have what we ideally want: one big CMC group, not two.

 

It is our intent to have one CMC class, which means making changes to existing cars to increase their performance. The two most important aspects are timing (when we allow changes) and what parts to allow.

 

Lets take the parts first since that is easier. The wheels and brakes are a no brainer, you can see what the incremental specifications are in the current rules. Engine power is the key, and essentially it is our goal to create an engine “packageâ€, much like we have for spec carburetor packages, to allow the existing engines to get up to CMC2 power levels while maintaining CMC goals of value and durability. What we won’t have is a lot of open rules where suddenly CMC drivers need to become motor experts. We already have a class for that.

 

From a timing perspective, we really would prefer to let you, the CMC drivers, drive. The fewer CMC cars there are, the easier the change over will be. Therefore, we’ll keep an eye on the CMC/CMC2 split and when it feels right, we’ll pull the trigger. Directionally, and considering some regions are already as high as 60/40, that could be sooner than we originally thought. What we will most likely see is opening up the wheel and brake package one year followed by allowing the motor packages the following year. This will allow those of us that have to spend money to spread out the pain over a broader window of time. AS I said though, the timing is very much open at this stage.

 

We almost had to pull the trigger on allowing 17†wheels in CMC this year when rumors started surfacing that the new Toyos would not exist in 16â€. As it turns out, we know they will be so that is the reason we didn’t make a move for 2008. However, I think looking at car count it would be wise to expect us beginning to move towards one group by allowing the bigger wheels in CMC in 2009.

 

Thanks for listening,

[King Matt1548534716]

At the point that a new CMC class emerges, would it make sense to consider integrating it more directly into the American Iron structure? I know from talking with some national leaders that there has been some discussion in the past of creating an AI 1-2-3 structure like exists in some other series (GTS, Honda Challenge).

 

While I think there is a lot of value and history in the CMC name, it might make some sense to create a clear ladder of preparation that would be beneficial to both existing series. A more generic name might be more welcoming to new cars and participants. It also might be an opportunity to tweak the existing CMC formula in a way that will make it easier to equalize the various platforms.

 

Things like a 17-inch wheel rule, smaller spec tire, 13-inch brakes and a less powerful HP/weight limit all could be slotted into a fast, faster, fastest format under the AI umbrella.

 

As far as equalizing the existing platforms in CMC at higher power levels, maybe we can spec a cam or headers or weight breaks for certain applications to bring the power levels up. Now is the time to start doing some testing to validate these ideas.

[Tony G]

Matt,

That is what we have now with CMC and CMC2 ,like Honda Challenge H1 H2 H3 H4.

What I don't like about it is that you are only running against your class instead of everyone at once.

The beauty of CMC in the past is that you get to run against 20 plus cars all trying to beat you, now we have divided that in two, and we really want it back to one.

We will get there and we are working on it, but it will take at least this year to look into it all and see where the numbers sit with the cars.

There is no doubt that this is not going to be easy, and I see it as the most challenging thing we have ever had to deal with since the start of CMC, hence the fact that we take this very seriously.

We will get it done, but only if its right and we are sure it will work for everyone new car or old .

Tony Guaglione

[comeback kid]

Tony, Al, and Matt,

In between laundry loads tonight, I have done some research.

I would like to call you guys to let you know of some results and suggestions.

It would take me this side of forever to type it all out.

Basically The LS1 used in 2000 -2002 F-Bodies is still available through GMPP. The part number is 17801267. The price is $ 5,140.65 through Fagan Chevrolet, Janesville, WI.

Stock trim it comes in at 350 HP @ 6,000 RPM and 365 ft-lbs. @ 4,400.

The 1997-1999 LS1 registered at 320 HP and 330 ft-lbs. This version is not available.

The difference between the two is the cam profile, and either the exhaust manifolds, or the intake plenum, or both. Maybe some timing.

Ford Racing has engines available that are comprable in 5.0L and 4.6L formats.

Price ranges from $ 4,799.00 to $ 6,700.00.

The 305 would need to be modified to reach those numbers.

I'll Pm my phone number to you all if interested is discussing it.

[King Matt1548534716]

Tony,

 

I'm talking about merging CMC into the AI structure, not splitting it up into three separate classes. For example, the reworked CMC would become AI-1, existing AI becomes AI-2 and AIX becomes AI-3. It's all still a single class, just running as part of one bigger, combined series.

[Keith]

So to summarize Al's comments:

 

1) We are moving towards more elevated power levels (similar to the current CMC2 tables)

 

2) We will be looking for more weight as a result of #1 (I might be wrong here)

 

3) As a result of #2, we will allow bigger brakes.

 

4) As a result of #3, we will be allowing 17" tires to fit over those brakes (what about tire size?)

 

Is my summary correct?

[Al F.]

Keith, good summary. The driver for more power is the higher power of the newer cars and the limit to which they can be restricted down. You know by now we loathe to do anything that results in nothing other than everyone turning faster lap times. Number 4 would probably have happened sooner or later regardless. Tire size will continue as specified in CMC2. (that's one differentiator to AI: CMC runs narrower tires)

 

Matt, I can see your point. Its easier to say AI1 AI2 and AI3 instead of AIX AI and CMC. We could have that discussion at any time though. I'm pretty sure tacking that on top of this makes this even more difficult so all other things being equal I'd prefer to decouple those ideas.

[stevepoe]

I would like to say that I really Like Matt's Thoughts on this. I really like the idea of being part of a larger run group. In the Oh/Ind Region we only have about 6 cars running in cmc and no cmc-2 cars that I know of. Our AI field ranges from 10 to 16 cars.

 

I also think that larger run groups would be more attracting to spectators and new people thinking about getting involved with nasa AI/CMC .

 

I've had people ask me before why we don't run as a larger group.

[Sidney]

Would a 350 be allowed in a 3rd gen F-Body with the new power rules for 2009?

 

Sidney Franklin

AI #64

[Tony G]

Some answers;

We are looking at that option, a 350 in a 3rd gen.

Why any region would NOT run A/I and CMC together is just crazy and makes no sense at all, and I would like to know what region is doing this.

We have run CMC and A/I intermixed for years with FFR too.

We won't lose the CMC name and will not rename the classes.

Tire size is in the rules.

Thanks,

Tony Guaglione

[King Matt1548534716]

Matt, I can see your point. Its easier to say AI1 AI2 and AI3 instead of AIX AI and CMC. We could have that discussion at any time though. I'm pretty sure tacking that on top of this makes this even more difficult so all other things being equal I'd prefer to decouple those ideas.

Yes, they are separate issues, but if we are looking at revamping CMC into a single class in the next couple of seasons, I think it makes sense to look at doing both together if it makes sense to go that route. Sorting out the technical details to create parity between the multiple platforms and engine configurations is the hard part. Changing the name of the class is easy. We could do it right now by switching to AI 1-2-3-4 (AIX, AI, CMC-2, CMC).

 

I'm not sure I understand Steve's question, because other than at the Nationals this year, AI and CMC have run together in the same run group at every event I have raced in for the past three seasons in both regions. So from a spectator standpoint, the cars are all on track together. However, I do think there is often confusion for outside observers and newcomers on the difference between the classes. Frankly, I think it could be a big boost "CMC" numbers to be brought under the AI banner for no other reason than there is strength in numbers and all the classes could work better together to promote the entire series. Creating a ladder system could make it easier for people to start in one class and move up in the future if they want to.

[King Matt1548534716]

We are looking at that option, a 350 in a 3rd gen.

If you do that, you might as well just rename the series to Camaro-Camaro Challenge while you're at it.

[mitchntx1548534714]

Rarely do I have an opinion, but this time ...

 

Unless CMC opens up the list of approved platforms to something other than F-Bodys and Mustangs, it should remain The Camaro/Mustang Challenge. It is the ULTIMATE rivalry ... Blue Ovals vs the Bowties. It make for good press.

 

American Iron can encompasses Impalas, GTOs, Crown Vics, Dodge Chargers, etc.

 

So, unless those platforms are morphed into CMC somehow, I think a distinct line drawn beween the 2 series needs to remain in place.

 

What concerns me is the somewhat "fuzzy" line that segregates CMC and CMC2. Those of us who are familiar with the rule set understands where the line is. But looking at it from a new potential racer's perspective, the line can be come confusing.

 

I think the hard line drawn about power ceiling for CMC was a good thing and helped focus the line better.

 

But cross polinating engines in differing platforms (an LSx motor in a 93-97 F-car for example) fuzzes that line.

[camaro_1le]

I am very good friends with one of the two founders of the Honda Challenge series. After two years he was fed up and out of the series he started. To summarize, his dissatisfaction came from the fact that the racers lost control over the rules.

 

I would fear combining CMC into AIX would doom what we have now with CMC losing it identity. I did a lot of investigation of where I wanted to compete. CMC was my choice because of four simple facts:

 

1) Good competition in my general area

2) Simple and stable rule set

3) Series run by racers

4) Low cost (well as low cost applies to racing)

 

I do not envy my fellow racers that are having to make the hard decisions. But it is reassuring to hear that they have a plan and a vision to keep CMC as a separate entity. I know I made the right decision.

 

I have already submitted my ideas to the directors. I think my only selfish request was to complete the merger of CMC/CMC2 in 2010 to allow me to spread the cost over two seasons

[Tony G]

Thanks Jim, we got your email to us, and also to those who sent me emails thanks and keep it coming.

Hey Matt, Camaro's aiready have 350's in them

Tony Guagllione

[King Matt1548534716]

Not 3rd gens, which are obviously already plenty competitive with a 305. If you allow the 3rd Gens a 350 to move up to CMC-2 power levels, what is the plan for the 5.0L Fords?

[Alien]

We are looking at that option, a 350 in a 3rd gen.

If you do that, you might as well just rename the series to Camaro-Camaro Challenge while you're at it.

I'm going out on a limb here and guess that Tony is talking about how to get third gens up to CMC-2 power levels. I would hope that they wouldn't try to make the 305 guys build A$edan like motors. [edit] 331s for the 302 guys? [/edit]

 

And before this turns back into a mustang/camaro thing, what about the 17" wheels? I don't mind that transition as long as the 16" is still allowed/still has a tire available. I would NOT be happy if it were mandatory to run 17s, due to lack of available tire or otherwise. With a five lug conversion, foxes can still run later model 17s. To run a late model 17" on a third gen, a 2" spacer/adapter is needed. I wouldn't feel safe at track speeds using those. I don't even know where to start looking for 17s to fit a third gen.

 

What is the timeframe of merging the classes? When CMC2 was announced it seemed like it would be a good few years, now the talk is as that by 2009 we will be one class again.

 

*edit* wow I type slow

Edited November 15, 2007 by Guest

[nasa-rm]

4) Low cost (well as low cost applies to racing)

 

This IMHO is the #1 draw for CMC. Don't loose sight of this.

[King Matt1548534716]

Agreed. We are now looking at 350 engine swaps, mods to 5.0Ls to keep them competitive with 350s, 17-inch wheels, a virtually unlimited 13-inch brake package, building race cars out of brand-new Mustangs and Camaros, etc. This does not sound like the CMC class I joined in 2003. I was against CMC-2 from the start, and I still am. The last thing I want to see is CMC-2 swamping what is left of the original CMC class just so we can fit LS1s and S197 Mustangs in.

[Sidney]

Mitchntx,

 

CMC already allows other platforms...Pontiac Firebirds and Mercury Capris. Wonder what the talk would have been if that guy from Texas had bought a Pontiac Firebird instead of a Chevrolet Camaro? How about this headline, "Pontiac Firebird wins Camaro Mustang Challenge National Championship" Try explaining that one to the casual observer.

 

921LE,

 

No need to loose control of the rules just because the name changes to AI 1,2,3,4. You will need National and Regional directors for the subclasses just as we do now.

 

Sidney

AI #64

[Alien]

Agreed. We are now looking at 350 engine swaps, mods to 5.0Ls to keep them competitive with 350s, 17-inch wheels, a virtually unlimited 13-inch brake package, building race cars out of brand-new Mustangs and Camaros, etc. This does not sound like the CMC class I joined in 2003.

I totally agree with the first half of this statement. I'm just now joining after building my car for two years, and thinking I was almost done. Now I gotta do upgrades already?

 

I was against CMC-2 from the start, and I still am. The last thing I want to see is CMC-2 swamping what is left of the original CMC class just so we can fit LS1s and S197 Mustangs in.

I understand the need to create CMC-2, but I don't see the rush to merge the classes. When parts for Foxes and third gens start to be more difficult to find and it's cheaper/easier to just build a newer platform, that is the time to combine.

 

hmm... If CMC-2 draws away the 4th gens, wouldn't that make it more a Camaro-Mustang-Challenge?

[Tony G]

More answers:

16' and 17" wheels are both in to stay.

Never ever will we lose sight of cost, this is CMC and everyone is jumping to conclusions,if you know me you know how much I hate change and any stupid cost issue.

Car number will dictate the class going to one, so it could be a year it could be 5, we are just getting a jump start.

I'll protect CMC the best I can, and the only reason we are looking into doing something is because of the new cars coming in, its called rolling with the times.

We do nothing and the class goes bye bye in so many years, we must allow the flow to go along with us.

We directors always have to look ahead which is not easy but at least we are doing it.

So everyone relax, you should know by now that we won't do any drastic things here.

Keep emailing me, as putting everything on this board just makes it go out of hand sometimes.

CMC is not A/S or A/I, its stock, its cheap and always will be.

Thanks,

Tony Guaglione

[Glenn]

remember Matt King, its not just the 350's in CMC-2 that are the reason for increased power limits, its also those pesky little 4.6 Ford motors too. in fact, CMC-2 is allowing a greater # of Ford model years to get on track in CMC(2) than any GM. not the point.

i sugested that the CMC-2 power level be dropped some today. we will see how easy that can be done over this off season. we will also see if an unrestricted LT1 can make 280 to possibly level the weight difference of the 4th gens w/ regards to what motor it has.

time frame on the merge of CMC and CMC2? my bet is its past 2009.

[Sidney]

Tony,

 

17 inch wheels and 13 inch brakes are not stock for a 3rd gen. The only way to do this huge competitive advantage is aftermarket and that is not cheap and not inline with current CMC rules philosophy.

 

Just to make sure I'm clear on this...if CMC2 numbers grow and CMC1 numbers shrink, you're proposing to allow the CMC1 guys to up their performance as to avoid a class with no one or very few running in it. And if enough CMC1 guys keep their current setups and the numbers running on the track stay at current levels or grow...no changes to CMC1?

 

Thanks,

 

Sidney

[Tony G]

Tony,

 

Just to make sure I'm clear on this...if CMC2 numbers grow and CMC1 numbers shrink, you're proposing to allow the CMC1 guys to up their performance as to avoid a class with no one or very few running in it. And if enough CMC1 guys keep their current setups and the numbers running on the track stay at current levels or grow...no changes to CMC1?

 

Thanks,

 

Sidney

 

Correct you are.

Tony Guaglione