What coil springs to use on a fox?

[bsim]

HOLY SMOKES! Matt and I agree again. Who's screwing with the accounts?

 

I should run 800/200. Same platform, Nick should run about double those (or higher, I can't remember). Maybe he just welds the moving parts. Either way, you need a baseline.

 

I say start soft (though higher than stock), and work up from there. Suspension travel is your friend, embrace it. Then "tune" your handling with bars.

[Boudy1548534717]

OK, I'll go back to 900/200, remove the panhard bar and learn how to drive. Thanks a million guys, you've really helped me see the light.

 

I guess some of you guys are going to have to drastically change your sales pitch. I can't count the times I've been told:

 

"if you really want to win, ditch the Fox and buy one of these.

"we wanted rules changes but we developed the cars and now we're fast."

"Our set-up is so great, we might just sell it."

"Look how results are duplicated from car to car with our set-up"

"A good Fox driver would dominate in one of these"

 

Is this the new sales pitch?

 

"We have recently determined that none of the Mustang guys know how to drive so you can buy our car or not, just learn how to drive"

 

So many of you guys say one thing in person but type something totally different. I guess that's lesson #2 for me to learn.

 

Boudy

[tacovini]

Are there any Texas Mustangs running the GW 900/190 setup or is it just me? I hate to sound cocky but when I was racing, I seemed to be running just fine with the top Camaros and ahead of the Mustangs in "other" setups.

 

...and parity is shown best in lap times, not track width.

[jeffburch]

......... but when I was racing, I seemed to be running just fine with the top Camaros and ahead of the Mustangs in "other" setups.

 

Agreed.

 

jb

[King Matt1548534716]

I would say parity is best shown by race results, not single lap times. It's one thing to be able to put down a single fast lap, and another to be able to maintain that pace for a race distance. So when was the last time a Fox won a race in California?

[mitchntx1548534714]

I would say parity is best shown by race results, not single lap times. It's one thing to be able to put down a single fast lap, and another to be able to maintain that pace for a race distance. So when was the last time a Fox won a race in California?

 

When was the last time a fox owner did more tuning and less whining?

 

Seriously, you need to go back and read posts from me in 2004. It's like you are quoting me, only transposing Mustang and Camaro. And I was told then the exact same thing you are being told now.

 

I came to terms that I would prefer to win on the track by beating the competiton in the shop. Winning by rules massaging wouldn't yield any self satisfaction. Being the Paris Hilton of CMC didn't sound very appealing.

 

Bottom line is making wholesale, long term changes based upon short term results is bad business. You know that.

 

Trend the results over the life of CMC and you will note that the results ebb and flow back and forth between the manufacturers. That, my friend, is based upon drivers as they come and leave the series, not platforms which remain constant.

 

Sometimes a driver has to come to terms with his mediocrity ... I have and I'm having a lot more fun at events.

[Boudy1548534717]

......... but when I was racing, I seemed to be running just fine with the top Camaros and ahead of the Mustangs in "other" setups.

 

Agreed.

 

jb

 

Umm... Not according to mylaps.

 

When was the last time a fox owner did more tuning and less whining?

 

I'm trying brother, I'm trying. Look at my post count, I don't whine much and I'm not in the middle of every drama that unfolds. I just don't think this compares to 2 rookies Queening it up for rules changes in 2004. Is every Fox in need of tuning and a better driver?

 

Boudy

[mitchntx1548534714]

Is every Fox in need of tuning and a better driver?

 

Boudy

 

Just like the bad 4ths in 2004 ...

[CMC#11]

Is every Fox in need of tuning and a better driver?

 

Boudy

 

Just like the bad 4ths in 2004 ...

Mitch, were you asking for rules changes back in 2004?

The TX racers in 2004 ALL drove Mustangs. Of course the 4ths needed more tuning, they never saw the track.

[Boudy1548534717]

OK guys, I'll leave you with this and I promise not to touch this tread again.

 

Only 1 Mustang/Driver has cracked the Top 5 at Nats for 2 years running, unfortunatly, he's no longer with us. The next closest Stang in 2 years is 7/10s off the pace with the closest Fox outside of a second.

 

[jeffburch]

Umm... Not according to mylaps.

 

Challenger 7 2006?

 

jb

 

p.s.

I wish we had a lap time on how much time each of us spend with the car in the garage. I do well in this stat also.

How about your Fox guys?

[Boudy1548534717]

Sorry dude, I promised. I'm done here.

 

Boudy

[jeffburch]

Oh well, then I get the last word

 

seat time

seat time

seat time

 

jb

[Boudy1548534717]

[Tony G]

Didn't I kind of say that in my post

Tony Guaglione

[CMC#11]

How much seat time is needed?

2 yrs, 4 yrs, 10 yrs?

 

My main concern is having a 100% level playing field. I do not want to muddy the waters (any more than it alread is). I have been racing in TX since the end of 2005 and have raced the last 15 events (16th coming in 2 weeks). There is no rules change that could be made that would keep me away from an event and the chance to get to spend time with the great competitors we have in TX. Every chance I get to practice I always try to get one of my competitors to come out and share the track time with me. The more racers we have at max. pace the better!!!

At any given event we have 5 + drivers that have a "chance" of grabbing the pole (that's including Al, maybe even Todd if he would race with us again).

 

Myself along with Boudy and other Mustang drivers are trying to do some testing to further develop the "fox" platform. We will be testing any and all changes possible to the "fox" platform (except for less track width) This testing will take many months of discussion and track events. Our goal is to each have the "best developed" car that fits each of our racing styles.

Is the fox platform the "hot setup" to use? There shouldn't be a "hot setup" in CMC, this class was made to be equal for both Ford and GM with all models included.

Statistically the "fox" has not been a competitive platform in the recent years. I can guarantee that we will put the necessary time into the research and testing to develop our cars to their max potential.

 

There has been alot of talk about car prep., car development, and their importance to racing success. I admit that when I started I did not put as much emphasis on these items and they led me to specific unsatisfactory finished and DNF's due to failure. I have adjusted my strategy and now have a more complete and reliable car. I want to be sure that no other competitor has an advantage b/c of car prep. or maintenance over me.

 

I am a statistical guy. I am basing my numbers off what we have seen here in TX and not necessarily the US.

I have been curious to the weight reasoning for the different classes. Why is it that the "fox" cars were changed from 3125 to 3150 at the end of the 2004 season? What constitutes the need for a rule change and what just gets left as-is? Do the regional points play a factor? National Championship finishing order? Sheer gut reaction to the overall season?

 

I just want a better understanding of how the rules are determined. Nonetheless, I will be at TWS in 2-weeks to kick some GM ass. I'm bringing my super-speedway aero-package.

[bsim]

I guess it will take as long as it will take (to paraphrase). It depends on how much time and effort you guys want to put into it.

 

In the years that I've been in CA CMC, the champions have been:

4th Gen Camaro

SN95 Mustang

3rd gen Camaro,

Fox Mustang,

3rd Gen Camaro

 

Now, these drivers (except for 2006) are in different cars in later years. Steel(x2), Flaherty, and Gualglione are fast in whatever they're driving. Hell, Brady was 2 seconds faster in MY car than I was, faster than his own car that weekend, in the last 10 laps of a 3 hour enduro.

 

Some of the guys reading this need to stop looking for some magic bullet, some cool go-fast part, or some sweet rule change that will instantly give them 2 seconds a lap. It ain't gonna happen.

 

Years ago I spent some serious $$ for a 3 day session with Ross Bentley/Speed Secrets. 1 second a lap with no car mods, no rule changes, just productive instruction and about 2 hours in car.

 

In CMC I went from mid-pack to 2-3-4 area just by not trying to "fix" my car! Once I got the car to be close to where I wanted it, I didn't touch a thing for over a year. And I then went about learning to drive it. Things got a whole lot better both in and out of the car when I stopped trying to make a 13#/hp car behave like a Lotus.

 

Does your pig-heavy 4th gen push on corner exit? Well, instead of whining about how you HAVE to have a splitter for more front downforce, how about slowing more on entry, getting the car rotated, and powering through the corner, letting the push get you out to the edge of the track?

 

Instead of the car or rules needing to be changed, how about tightening the nut behind the wheel.

 

It's been said in this thread a few times - the rules here do their best to equalize nearly 30 years worth of car evolution. And they do a damn good job. EVERY car has weaknesses. That's what keeps things equal, right? On the other hand, when does/will the support stop for the older cars? Through attrition, they will be going away at some point. Is 25 years the cutoff? Won't they be eligible for vintage racing then?

 

Now, mentioned above is the fast guys always being fast - the same goes for the slow guys. If a guy runs 10th place in one car, he's not going to be contending for wins in another car (unless car #1 is a piece of turd). And because this is a drivers series, if one car gets a change that gives them a second a lap, ALL cars will get changes that give a second a lap. That's parity.

 

What's NOT parity is giving "breaks" to slower car/driver combos (no matter the model) that gives everyone on grid an equal chance of winning. There is too much spread in driver talent to allow that, and you end up punishing the talented guys for being good, as well as rewarding lack of talent.

[mitchntx1548534714]

Only 1 Mustang/Driver has cracked the Top 5 at Nats for 2 years running, unfortunatly

[/img]

 

Thanks for pointing out that 50% of the wins at Nationals have been won by a Fox and that there have been NO National wins for a 4th gen ... just losers.

 

It reinforces the notion that statistics can be used for and against.

 

It's just data and not necessarily the reason ...

 

A reasonably successful, professinal driver once told me that in ANY grid in ANY series, there are 70% well funded drivers, but with mediocre to no talent; 20% reasonably talented drivers, but under funded; and 10% of the drivers are actual driving talents and have the funding to go to the front.

 

On any given race weekend, any of the drivers in grid can win. But over time, that well funded and talented 10% will rise to the top of the finishing order.

[CMC#11]

Only 1 Mustang/Driver has cracked the Top 5 at Nats for 2 years running, unfortunatly

[/img]

 

Thanks for pointing out that 50% of the wins at Nationals have been won by a Fox and that there have been NO National wins for a 4th gen ... just losers.

 

Sorry Mitch but you misread the information. The Mustang that won Nationals was a SN95 and has the ability for a wider track width.

NO Fox Mustang has ever won Nationals ... just losers.

NO Fox Mustang has ever gotten a top 5 ... just losers. (7 out of 10 in the top 5 have been 4th gens.) I don't see many losers there.

[mitchntx1548534714]

Guess your right ... they all look alike to me ... appear we're all just driving losers.

 

Maybe we should go after the SN95s and 3rd Gens. They obviously have a superior platform.

[King Matt1548534716]

Here are some facts to consider:

 

In 2003, the minimum weight for a Fox was 3125. The minimum weight for a 4th gen was 3300 pounds, for a weight differential of 175 pounds.

 

In 2008, the minimum weight for a Fox is 3150. The minimum weight for a 4th gen is 3200 pounds, for a weight differential of 50 pounds.

 

So in the past few seasons the 4th gen has gained a 125-pound weight advantage against the Fox Mustang.

[Glenn]

So in the past few seasons the 4th gen has gained a 125-pound weight advantage against the Fox Mustang.

 

i wouldnt use "gained".... more like lost 125 lb weight disadvantage/difference.

if your fox was 1 lb heavier than my 4th gen, you would certainly not call it an advantage, would you.

[King Matt1548534716]

I don't think anyone who has a rational understanding of vehicle dynamics believes that the Fox Mustang and 4th Gen GM platforms have equal handling potential at the same weight given the advantages the GM has in track width, CG, and front and rear suspension geometry. There needs to be some weight adjustment to level the field between these two cars and that field has tilted considerably in favor of the 4th Gen GM since 2003, IMO.

[Glenn]

i will not argue those points. my point was the use of "gained" 4th gens didnt get a weight advantage as you posted. they got weight breaks. the fox still has a 50lb weight advantage over the 4th gen.

the things you listed above are the things the 4th gen has an advantage w/. but the fox has the weight advantage.

[tacovini]

It seems soooo early in the year to be having these 7+ page debates, however, as I pondered the original question more & more today on commute and in the elevator...I have to ask:

 

If the wider track and better suspension geometry is the Panacea in CMC, why aren't those cars all turning the same lap times and not all crossing the finish line at the same time?