bsim Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I'll give the fox cars 2" of additional track width if I can adjust the height of both sides of my panhard bar. Deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I'll give the fox cars 2" of additional track width if I can adjust the height of both sides of my panhard bar. Deal? Or shocks that don't cost a whole Achilles leg. And while we're at it, how about a way to detune the motor and not wash the cylinder walls with gasoline in the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 [Why are they still around? You drove your's even when you though it sucked didn't you? Not a good arguement. But I came to realize I could either figure it out or keep killing electrons on interweb four-ums. you have access to springs and tuning gear made for your car No, they aren't made for my car. They are generic components cobbled together from catalogs. For a stock shocked and suspended 4th gen, the warehouse shelves are just as bleak as your car. Pretty black and white or do you think your track width is hurting your laptimes? Narrower width didn't seem to hurt Mr. Wirtz's lap times. I've got 5-6 really sharp guys helping me make changes Look for me testing my latest revelations: Sharp guys, huh .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsim Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Well here's your problem.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMC#11 Posted April 4, 2008 Author Share Posted April 4, 2008 Or shocks that don't cost a whole Achilles leg. How much are your front Koni DA's? Ours are $600 / pair. Since you can spend a max. of $800 I don't see that as a huge difference. Nice picture Brad!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Matt1548534716 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Speed costs money. If you think your shocks are too expensive, use cheaper ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Speed costs money. If you think your shocks are too expensive, use cheaper ones. Nice comeback there Mr. King. Koni DAs are $795 for the fronts and $600 for the rears. Of course James is kicking butt on $300 (a set of 4) Bilsteins ... The more typing that goes on here, the more obvious it is that it's all about driver and less about car. So rules compensation is not about parity between platforms, rather crutches for drivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsim Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 ...it's all about driver and less about car. So rules compensation is not about parity between platforms, rather crutches for drivers.OK, who hacked Mitch's forum account? What'd you do with him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudy1548534717 Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 (edited) Ok, I don't give a flip what it takes to make each car competitive, that as you guys say it is a driver's choice and it's irrelevant to parity of the platforms. We get to now spend $1,500 bucks on Cobra stuff to break 210 hp so who gives a crap, this ain't about money. The rules are for competition, not cost compensation. Enough with the dramatic killing of electrons to take away from the true issue at hand. 1) We agree that the Fox has not been fully developed under the CMC rules. The need to run higher ride heights and softer springs to get better laptimes is evidence that something else, YTBD, is a problem. Believed by such rookies as MM to be bind in the rear end... 2) The cars fenders yeild it some 2" narrower than the other 3 platforms in the series as the rules are written. But new evidence shows that track width does not equate to laptimes. Come on, who do you think is stupid here? This thread for a short time was turning into good productive banter about how to make the Fox faster. Somehow, it's now about politickin', driver ability, and cost wars. How is that? No one mentioned rules, just tech talk about making it faster. Exactly what is needed, group discussion on ideas and techniques. Now go ahead and continue with the typical drama show normally provided and we'll try to improve our cars some other way. rb Edited April 5, 2008 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudy1548534717 Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 Oh, for that matter: I'll provide the driver of the GM camp's choice with a Fox car for a full season. It's got a brand new motor, tranny, rear end, the best of everything, no corners cut. I'll provide all expenses exept entry fees. I'll provide full funding for set-up changes or parts or whatever. Let's see what happens. You know full well I'm not bluffing. You also know that with both platforms fully developed, the same driver won't be able to provide the same performance in the Fox car. Let's stop playing drama games here, the car has issues that developement can't overcome under the current rules. Now type what you truely believe or don't. I chose to. rb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 This thread for a short time was turning into good productive banter about how to make the Fox faster. Somehow, it's now about politickin', driver ability, and cost wars. How is that? No one mentioned rules, just tech talk about making it faster. Exactly what is needed, group discussion on ideas and techniques. Now go ahead and continue with the typical drama show normally provided and we'll try to improve our cars some other way. rb Well Robert, I posted this ... But what I don't get is if it's predictable, and heims should remove much of the unpredictability out of the equation, a reasonable chassis tuner should be able work around this issue and even take advantage of it. People use bump stops on the rear suspension of a 4th gen to get the car to rotate in a turn. Can't get any more instantaneous bind than hitting the suspension travel bump stops and the effective spring rate goes infinite. To which King agreed ... a reasonable chassis tuner should be able work around this issue there are workable compromises Like in any of the platforms, each has it's Achilles heel. Something else I don't understand is that if it's so bad, why are there Mustangs still running in this series? What I find laughable is that the platform a particular racer owns is absolutely the worst ... every single time. It's nothing more than a transparent attempt at laying ground work for "politickin'" come rules massaging day. Well, after trying my best at doing just that, let me share something with you. It ain't happenin' ... we're all just killin' electrons here. I did put a smiley in there, but to no avail ... Because you went down this road ... Like in any of the platforms, each has it's Achilles heel. Something else I don't understand is that if it's so bad, why are there Mustangs still running in this series? What I find laughable is that the platform a particular racer owns is absolutely the worst ... every single time. It's nothing more than a transparent attempt at laying ground work for "politickin'" come rules massaging day. Yeah sure, every platform has an Achilles heel but this one has an Achilles leg. I've maintained all along that these Fox cars can be made faster with time and effort put into the developement. Not much has been done, that I've seen or read to get this platform to it's fullest potential. The only documentation I've ever seen proves that the geometry stinks, period. Why are they still around? You drove your's even when you though it sucked didn't you? Not a good arguement. What I find laughable is when guys believe one thing and post the opposite. Sorry, but politickin' ain't my game cause I stink at it. You know me well enough to know that I'll take it on the chin for the next guy any day. But the facts are what they are. You are wider, you have coil overs, you have a torque arm, you have access to springs and tuning gear made for your car, you have a panhard bar that makes the car better not worse, horsepower to spare, I have more... Now I have heard how each of these items is actually a GM's disadvantage but that's where the real politikin' kicks in. All I asked for last year was a weight concession to compensate for the lack of track width that the Fox fenders restrick it to. Too much? I think it's more than fair as track width can easily be tested in relation to laptimes as can weight. Pretty black and white or do you think your track width is hurting your laptimes? As for the rest, I can't honestly ask for anything else because I don't feel the car is fully developed. I've got 5-6 really sharp guys helping me make changes and I'll get this thing to its full potential soon. However, I do believe that even then, it will still fall short of keeping up to you guys under the current rules. You believe it too! Look for me testing my latest revelations: Sorry you take my observations so personally. I'll stop. I tried calling you, but it went to VM. I'm off to bed now. Have to be at work at 2am Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsim Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 I don't think it's that sad RB, it just seems silly to me. If the car's that bad, let it go to AI where mods are more better. Mitch is correct, there's crap in ALL of these platforms. And the rules are written so that WE in CMC don't need to spend time/energy/resources re-engineering cars. If you want a car with a wide track, don't run a fox body. If you want to be able to change your spark plugs in 20 minutes, don't buy a 4th gen. And on and on... If a fox car runs better with 2" more track, why can't a 4th gen add it too? Gee, think how cool that would be Mitch! The deficiencies in the WHOLE car need to be considered when getting into a particular car, especially for a new guy. Not "I'll get THIS car and lobby for geometry fixes later". Inherent design flaws need to be considered within the confines of the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 OK ... who hacked Brad's account. He appears to be agreeing with me. Maybe I need to rethink my position ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Matt1548534716 Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 The CMC rules should strive to equalize the potential of all eligible platforms so that this series remains about driving ability. Other than to ensure safety, that is the primary purpose of our rules. Otherwise this will become a spec series of one make and model. What will make this series successful is a situation where a competitor of proven skill can be equally successful in ANY car that is eligible for the series. This class should not devolve into a situation like SCCA Touring where there is a car of the year and everyone else might as well go home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 We already did just that,twice. We stuck the fastest drivers in the slowest cars and guess what the slowest cars were now the fastest cars and the fastest cars were now the slowest. No matter what you say, no matter what you do or change, there is only one secret here and that is "THE DRIVER". Don't think so, then I challenge you to let the guy who is kicking ass in your region to drive your your "slower car" in the next session and I'll bet you your car hauls ass now. That is why I love this series....its not the cars, its the drivers. Come on you all know this.... Tony Guaglione Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudy1548534717 Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 First, I appologize Mitch. I was a bit unnecessarily harsh. Just excited, didn't mean anything malicious. You know I Love Ya right... Right? It's not that the car is SO bad... What I'm saying is that I believe the bind issue can most likely be tuned out but no one's taken the time, effort, and expense to figured out how and keep the car legal. This is fact that myself and others have been working together to resolve within CMC rules. Assuming the effort is successful the car will still suffer from a 2" track width deficit. I don't care what platform you drive wouldn't you want a rule that allows you the same width as everyone else? Shouldn't parity be the potential to be equally competitive on track? I can't follow comparing a spark plug changing issue to a performance issue. Glad to hear from you Tony. We did that here too but for some reason our results were 100% opposite of yours. Some of our best drivers couldn't do crap in the Fox cars. Our 2 time regional champ quit out of frustation last year when he just couldn't catch the Chevys. He's respected as being one of our best drivers. Another one of our well respected driver/tuners drove 1/2 duty in a Fox last year and just didn't get the results implied. Finally, I put our national champ in my car last year and his choice of words was less than flattering. Please send me your best driver for an event, I'll pay the air fare. rb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffburch Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 I could elaborate Boudy, tell us about your stint in the #9 Pontiac. jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsim Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 ...wouldn't you want a rule that allows you the same width as everyone else? Nope, cause then we'll argue about wheelbase. Then turning circle. Then cd. Then height. Then color. Identical dimensions are for FFR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Ginsberg Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 Our 2 time regional champ quit out of frustation last year when he just couldn't catch the Chevys. I hate dragging this further off topic but.....that statement isn't accurate. He was damn competitive right up until he left. He had some mechanical issues that precluded him from being further up in the finishing order. He was frustrated for a number of reasons, and wanted HUGE rules changes that were not/are not in the spirit of CMC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 Boudy, tell us about your stint in the #9 Pontiac. jb That is one of the reasons I wrote this ... The more typing that goes on here, the more obvious it is that it's all about driver and less about car. So rules compensation is not about parity between platforms, rather crutches for drivers. that and the fact that a 3rd gen scorched the lap record by over a second at MSR-C and James and Steve are blazing fast with cheap shocks. The reality is that not everyone here are Micheal Schumachers. In fact many of us are Cristiano Piquets. The point is ... the cars have remained basically the same over the years. Yet the "hot ticket" seems to be passed around amongst all the platforms over time. Maybe in 5 years I'll be interweb pleading for rules relief to prop up my seemingly endless lack of abilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMC#11 Posted April 5, 2008 Author Share Posted April 5, 2008 So should I run the 1050's or 900's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Ginsberg Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 So should I run the 1050's or 900's? That's what I want to know too!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakebit Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 Me too! I'm just looking for a good starting point and/or advice on setup. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Matt1548534716 Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 I know what the guy who has the fastest A Sedan Fox Mustang in the country told me was the better rate choice between those two for a Fox with a stock K-member, and it wasn't 900. But you should still try both because a CMC car is a lot different than an A Sedan. Basically what you have to do with a stock Mustang suspension is not lower it too much and keep it stiff enough that the roll center does not migrate all over the place, so the car is predictable. Then work on balance. It seems like there is a desire to find some "magic bullet" combination that is going to work perfectly for everyone. It don't work that way. You need to tune your car to your style, which takes time and money and a not inconsiderable amount of skill to ensure accurate testing results. There are some good baseline starting setups, and they have been suggested here, but like I said way, way back, some people like a softer-sprung car and that might work better for you. But there are soft springs/stiff bars people and stiff springs/soft bars people. Kinda like Bud vs. Miller. Until you have tested both, you'll never know which one you are! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 In fact many of us are Cristiano Piquets. Minus the $3,000 boots! lol Mark 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.