What coil springs to use on a fox?

[Adam Ginsberg]

As a follow up, after discussing my setup with another Fox driver here in CA.....here's how my car is configured, front to back.

 

Chassis:

1985 Mustang GT hatchback (AKA turd-polished wet noodle chassis)

Welded-on sub frame connectors

4-point lower chassis brace (not sure this actually does anything)

4-point upper strut tower brace (not sure this actually does anything either)

Bolt-in Autopower roll cage (this should be helpful )

 

Front:

SN95 control arms w/MM delrin bushings

1994-1995 spindles and hubs w/0.5" front spacers on each side

1995 GT front sway bar with urethane bushings on the end links and brackets

1150lb Hypercoil front springs

Spring spacers

MM AL steering rack bushings

MM steering shaft (to replace the factory rag joint)

Factory Fox GT steering rack

MM bumpsteer kit

MM camber/caster plates

MM-valved Bilstein struts

3.5^ negative camber on both sides

1/16" toe out

All the caster I can get via the CC plates (never notched the shock towers)

Original 1985 front K-member

StopTech 13"/4-piston front brakes with PF01 pads

 

Rear:

1985 Ford 8.8 with factory traction-lok, rebuilt with the 2003-2004 Cobra carbon fiber discs

MM lower control arms (MMRLCA-30)

Used, factory upper control arms with rubber bushings (on the body, and axle). I'm NOT using the PM3L

H&R Race springs

MM-valved Bilstein shocks (that are now....7 years old!)

MM panhard bar

No rear sway bar

1994-1998 Cobra 11.65" rear brakes (important due to axle length) with XP8 pads

 

Rims:

A mixture of MB Comps (no longer available) and MB Weapons - 17"x9", approximately 20-21lbs. 27mm offset

 

I can tell you that my previous setup was similar, except I used H&R Super Race front springs, the biggest Fox front sway bar (it was on the car when I bought it....never changed it), the original 12" CMC front brakes and 16" rims/tires. Also, I ran with a rear bar from 2004-2007, but removed it at the 2007 Nationals (and went a second a lap faster)....it hasn't been back on the car since. I raced that setup from late 2004 to 2010 - 5+ years! In doing so, pretty much knew where I could put my car, where I couldn't, how it would react, etc. It gave me confidence. Confidence = faster lap times, and better ability to put your car in certain places, because you know what the car will do. I was never happy with the front dive, nor the low-speed push it had. That's a few of the reasons I made changes.

 

When I redid the front suspension for the 2011 season (new springs, struts, 17x9 rims/tires, new brakes, but NO engine mods due to a shortage of funds), I had to totally relearn the car - braking points, entry speed/exit speed, turn in....you name it. For me, it works and I like it. It's more composed, less tendency to be tail happy, less push in the lower speed corners. It should be noted that I made the big change to the front only....still haven't touched anything on the rear. Same rear setup since late 2004/early 2005.

 

But after 2 years, I'm still making changes to my DRIVING, and virtually NO changes to the car (modest tire pressure changes is all). When I say changes to my driving, I'm referring to changes in my line, changes to my braking points, changes to my turn in, changes to when I get on the gas.....damn near everything.

 

The car has had a high-speed push for a few years that I believe is due to the massive spoiler on the rear - it's getting removed for our April BW event as a test to see if I can reduce/eliminate the HS push. We'll see.....

 

So, with that all said.....there you have it. Throw rocks, toss grenades, argue that my setup can or can't work. My guess is it's not the same as Michael Mosty's car, nor a few others - a perfect example that this setup works well for me, but might not be suited for any other driver. Then again, it might.

 

FWIW, even with the HS push, at our recent March SPIR event, I ran my fastest lap times. Ever. On year old RA1s. With the caster on the passenger side screwed up from an incident the previous day of a Legends trying to occupy the same space as my Mustang.

 

1:54.458.

 

Still 2.3 seconds off Nick Steel's November 2011 1:52.752. That means I have more work to do.

[Boudy1548534717]

Still 2.3 seconds off Nick Steel's November 2011 1:52.752. That means I have more work to do.

 

You've done everything known and you've tried every set-up that any Mustang guy in the world could make go fast for the last what, like 8 years? If you believe there's 2.3 seconds left available then I believe it's official, you're on CRACK!

 

Sorry bro, luv ya but you've lost it.

 

Boudy

[Adam Ginsberg]

You've done everything known and you've tried every set-up that any Mustang guy in the world could make go fast for the last what, like 8 years? If you believe there's 2.3 seconds left available then I believe it's official, you're on CRACK!

 

FWIW, I've not even come CLOSE to doing everything known. If anything, I've been lazy as hell in not making more changes.....this is only the 3rd, maybe 4th, set up on the car in 10 years of racing CMC!!

 

That's hardly "trying everything".

 

There's more I can do, completely within the rules, that I just haven't gotten to....like the simplest of all things, weight. I still come off the scales ~60-70lbs heavy. I've NEVER been at the absolute minimum, ever. At SPIR in March, I came off at 3148, the closest I've ever been. This week, I'm finally installing a later Fox bumper beam and brackets (87-93 composite, approximately 20lbs lighter than the original steel beam and associated brackets), and I've personally lost 25lbs myself. Yet, the car still has the factory sound deadening material on the floor pan.....that's a project I may never get to.

 

My point is.....my car is NOT built to the full extent of the current rule set. Somehow I managed to wield my shit around a track at a decent clip from time to time, but between the car, and the driver.....there's ALLOT on the table (legally) that I haven't taken advantage of.

 

I'm 100% confident the missing ~2.3 seconds at SPIR can be found. I truly believe a big portion of it is the loose nut behind the wheel being able to take full advantage of the car.

[Boudy1548534717]

Congrats on the 25 lb weight loss. My car's always been heavy on the scales as well but I always figured it would be dead on if I lost 60 lbs or so from my fat ass.

 

Good luck finding a couple more seconds, you're one of the last guys I know that thinks he can. Hope you get there, I can't find the motivation to keep trying.

 

Boudy

[Glenn]

Congrats on the 25 lb weight loss. My car's always been heavy on the scales as well but I always figured it would be dead on if I lost 60 lbs or so from my fat ass.

 

Good luck finding a couple more seconds, you're one of the last guys I know that thinks he can. Hope you get there, I can't find the motivation to keep trying.

 

Boudy

 

So explain Michael Mosty and his success. He didn't seem to have any issues posting top times last year and this year.

[Boudy1548534717]

I figured you'd show up soon enough. Sleep tight, you win.

 

Boudy

[Boudy1548534717]

So explain Michael Mosty and his success. He didn't seem to have any issues posting top times last year and this year.

 

You call this success? I challenge you Glenn to run this same quantification of last year's results and then let quantifiable data make your mind. You'll find marginal results with low competition factors.

 

Boudy

 

MSRH - January 2012

 

Qual 1 - Micheal Mosty, Fox

Qual 2 - James Proctor, 4th Gen

Race 1 - P1 to Micheal, Fast Lap to James

Race 2 - P1 to James, Fast Lap to James

Race 3 - P1 to Micheal, Fast Lap to James

Race 4 - P1 to Dan, Fast Lap to Micheal

 

Wins - Fox = 25%, 4th Gen = 75%

Poles - 50%

Fast Laps - Fox = 17%, 4th Gen = 83%

Milestones - Fox = 40%, 4th Gen = 60%

Competition Factor - Low, 2 drivers took 9 of 10 of milestones.

 

MSRC - March 2012

 

Qual 1 - Derek Wright, 4th Gen

Qual 2 - Glenn Landrum, 4th Gen

Race 1 - P1 to Dan, Fast Lap to Dan

Race 2 - P1 to Cody, Fast Lap to Dan

Race 3 - P1 to James, Fast Lap to Cody

Race 4 - P1 to Micheal, Fast Lap to Derek

 

Wins - Fox = 25%, 4th Gen = 75%

Poles - Fox = 0%, 4th Gen = 100%

Fast Laps - Fox = 0%, 4th Gen = 100%

Milestones - Fox = 10%, 4th Gen = 90%

Competition Factor - High, 6 drivers shared 10 milestones.

[Glenn]

I could pick an event that would show the same results in favor of a Fox as well.

How many Fox cars were at the event you used as an example?

I think 2. So 50% of them did pretty well.

There were 12 4th gens. Only 25% of them did well.

[Boudy1548534717]

Exactly what I expected, you won't deal with data and facts. Only rhetoric, speculation, and bias.

 

I could pic an event that would show the same results in favor of a Fox as well.

 

No worries, I've already started running all of last season because your response was predicted.

 

How many Fox cars were at the event you used as an example?

I think 2. So 50% of them did pretty well.

 

You're wrong, this whole discussion centers on good drivers with prepped cars who are 'in the hunt.' Saying 50% of them did pretty well quantifies nothing. Same as saying 90% of 4th Gens did poorly, it means nothing. If there's only 3 guys in the hunt that day, then data outside of 33% each is quantifiable. This also gets addressed by the Competition Factor used in my data.

 

There were 12 4th gens. Only 25% of them did well.

 

Again, means nothing. It's an irrelevant statistic.

 

 

 

Generally speaking, you can't use cars that are 5 seconds off the pace and not in the hunt as a benchmark to set performance percentages. You have to use data from those that were well prepped, well driven, and in the hunt that day. You want to use Micheal as you proof to swing rules around and I'm trying to get you to see that Micheal's success as you call it is not as impressive as you sell it.

 

I'm not willing to argue your opinion. I am willing to discuss simple and logical data points that certainly seem to contradict your opinion.

 

My summaries take into account:

 

- Wins

- Poles

- Fast Laps

- These add up to 10 milestones per event and who achieved them.

- Competition Factor looks at how many drivers shared those milestones, who was in the hunt that day.

 

That's just about all there is to quantify what happened at an event. Unless you would simply prefer that I just go with your opinion. Oh wait, ain't happening!

 

No, I'm not angry, beating my keyboard, or cursing you at dinner. Just trying to get you to think outside of your Bowtie. I'd hoped driving a Fox for a season could do that but that didn't happen.

 

Boudy

[Boudy1548534717]

Here's ECR from Oct 2011. Doesn't support your opinion either.

 

Wins - Fox = 25%, 4th Gen = 75%

Poles - Fox = 50%, 4th Gen = 50%

Fast Laps - Fox = 0%, 4th Gen = 100%

Milestones - Fox = 30%, 4th Gen = 70%

Competition Factor - Low, 2 drivers took all 10 milestones.

 

Boudy

[CMC#11]

Or you could look at it that over the last 3 TX events (12 races) the 4th gen has had fast lap in 10 of them, fast lap for fox in 2 of them, and all other platforms 0.

It would also be interesting to look at this over full seasons from region to region.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Guest

[Alien]

Dang, those poor, slow a$$ third gens and their 0%'s must need some help, maybe update the table to lose that 50lbs that got added a few years back.

[Adam Ginsberg]

So, there was a bunch of chatter than Landrum was going to race a Fox this season. Then, all of a sudden, it didn't happen. A bunch of excuses, other drivers making stupid comments, etc.

 

Screw all the bullshit - if Glenn is such a great driver as he portrays himself, then he needs to race a Fox instead of making a bunch of excuses. I'm tired of Glenn asking to take things away from the Fox chassis since they are now, "too fast".

 

From my experiences - a good driver is fast in ANY car. Pro drivers will get behind the wheel of ANYTHING...it forces them to learn a car quickly, find it's strengths (to use), and it's weaknesses (to defend), and makes them fast as hell.

 

My take - Glenn won't be able to come to grips (hah!) with racing a Fox chassis. It will show what his driving ability is really like.

[ls168camaro]

I can't wait for Boudy's comparison's next year when Mosty is driving an S197.

 

Boudy-Your MSRH data sure makes the Fox look capable. The Fox took 50% of Poles and 100% of the non-inverted races. Let's add some weight to them. Though I wasn't there to get a feel for how each car's were prepped and each car's handling.

For Cresson I was there and I don't think Mosty was happy with the changes he had made to the car. So kind of tough to use data from a car where the driver says his car isn't handling the way it normally does.- (Sorry to throw you under the bus Mosty) Or does that not matter for your data? Man how would your data be if Wirtz (3rd Gen) Kellam (SN95) were running and won all of your datapoints?

 

Last thing Boudy-I found some white marks on the front fender of my 50!

[CMC#11]

The setup I ran at Cresson was 100% the same to the setup I ran at MSRH. The changes I did to the care were before the season started.

 

I agree with you Bryan that it was frustrating. I was 1 - 1.5 seconds off the front guys all weekend and nothing I changed on the car helped.

 

I am baffled that James, Dan, and myself were so close in lap times at MSRH and then I was so far off at Cresson. I racked my brain all weekend and since then and the only thing I can think is the car likes MSRH over Cresson. Cresson has a lot of longer flowing corners that the 4th gens seem to do better with (torque arm) where MSRH has more rapid transition corners where you can throw the Mustang around in. The exact corners at MSRH where James + Dan were killing me are very similar to the majority of the corners at Cresson.

[Glenn]

So, there was a bunch of chatter than Landrum was going to race a Fox this season. Then, all of a sudden, it didn't happen. A bunch of excuses, other drivers making stupid comments, etc.

 

Screw all the bullshit - if Glenn is such a great driver as he portrays himself, then he needs to race a Fox instead of making a bunch of excuses. I'm tired of Glenn asking to take things away from the Fox chassis since they are now, "too fast".

 

From my experiences - a good driver is fast in ANY car. Pro drivers will get behind the wheel of ANYTHING...it forces them to learn a car quickly, find it's strengths (to use), and it's weaknesses (to defend), and makes them fast as hell.

 

My take - Glenn won't be able to come to grips (hah!) with racing a Fox chassis. It will show what his driving ability is really like.

 

I've never said we need to take anything away from the Fox. I may have made some joking comments about adding the 50lbs back, but nothing I was really serious about. Please back up your comments Adam.

 

As for driving a Fox for a season..... lets just say the offer was made, but it was not what it was presented to be. I kept getting the feeling I was gonna be on the hook for operating costs of racing it. When I backed out, it was for money reasons. I didn't run a full season last year (half), and I've only made 1 this year. I plan to make 1 or possible 2 more this season. Money is the reason. I've not run a full season since 2009. As for me being such a great driver...... I've never said those words. I have had alot of success racing in CMC. Is it me? Don't know. Is it the car? Don't know. I do know that tracking 4th gens for 14 years (wow! - I just counted that up!) likely has alot to do w/ it.

 

Now w/ 14 years of tracking 4th gens, how is that going to translate to tracking a Fox? I bet I'll have a considerable learning curve to adapt to the driving style a Fox needs.

 

But lets say that I did run the Fox for a season? And lets say I did poorly. I could easily conclude I was not able to adapt to the Fox. I had a real hard time adapting to Mitch's 4th gen while it was running 200lb more front spring rate. I would think a Fox would be alot more different than that. But lets just agree I did poor. I would say it was me not being able to adapt. You would say the Fox is at a disadvantage. There is no upside to doing it.

 

But lets look at another point you made.....

You, Adam (of all people ) think I am a terrible driver. Why the need for me (a terrible driver) to validate the performance envolope of a Fox? What value would it give the cause? Your gonna take the results of a driver you think is a hack and use that to validate some sort of change for the Fox platform?

 

Another point...

Why me? I'm not the only Regional Director who does not drive a Fox. In fact, I think the Ford's have more representation than the GM's at the table. All you need is a majority vote to make changes to what the Fox is allowed for parity.

 

Why Fox Fox Fox? Why not Fox/SN-95? Is the SN-95 better? What specs of an SN-95 are better than the specs of a Fox? Pretty much the same cars mechanically w/in the limits of the CMC rules.

 

But hey, your such a bad ass. Come on out and drive my car. Set some track records.

 

Once agian Adam.... get the fact before you post.

[Glenn]

Bryan and Micheal Mosty hit it on the head.

It all depends on wht ability of the driver and the track you run.

 

Kelam isn't getting more from the car than it is capable of running.

Wirtz .... same deal.

Varner.... (who? ) same deal.

[Glenn]

One last thing...

How did this become about me?

[Boudy1548534717]

Bryan: The comparisons are merely indicators for which we can choose to or not to make conclusions from. Statistics from any one event alone don't represent the whole and should be viewed as such. And yes, 2011 and 2012 events show that Micheal is absolutely BAD ASS in Houston.

 

As for the S-197, I think it will probably fuel the debate on how the series can't realistically equalize cars spanning 30 years of technology. Any driver to experience success will never get credit for anything, it'll all be the car. Hell, the key argument here is that cars from same decade aren't equalized.

 

Adam: Stop attacking Glenn when I'm trying to be productive. If I didn't present the offer in a manner that was acceptable to him, that's my fault. I was making the offer to him, not the other way around.

 

Statistics will be on another tread shortly.

 

Boudy

[CMC#11]

I don't want to get in a pissing contest but even though the fox/SN95/SN99 are extremely similar, there are still major differences.

 

Wheelbase, front suspension geometry (k-member), sway bars, track width.

 

It still baffles me that in order to get to the 72.75" track width max I have to destroy my 1/4's and spend hundreds of $$ for flares, body mods, and paint. I feel the directors got this part of the rules completely wrong!!!

I can also now run a sway bar that doesn't even bolt to my car. I have to fabricate parts just to install.

Thanks for "throwing the Fox" a bone.

[Boudy1548534717]

Glenn: I personally point at you on this subject because you are the one who has continuously claimed that the Fox is fine from a performance standpoint. You also want to point to Mosty's so-called success to back your opinion. From what I understand, hearsay I admit, you feel the Fox needs that 50 lbs back due the same.

 

On the other point, I offered the ride to you with hopes of settling this for good. I figured that you would find difficulty chasing James and would tweak on it until you determined that and adjustment to the rules was warranted. It was Mitch and others who came up with the "10 reasons Glenn has nothing to gain" BS. I made the offer with good intentions for series first followed by you second because I felt you would be happy take a ride that wasn't costing you. I don't remember the details but I thought I offered to pay for most everything and even some hotel costs. We should discuss details on that privately.

 

Yeah, Adam tossed a shot over the bow but that's you guys. Seems that you two have been at it since I can remember.

 

Boudy

[MHISSTC]

...in order to get to the 72.75" track width max I have to destroy my 1/4's and spend hundreds of $$ for flares, body mods, and paint.

 

I can also now run a sway bar that doesn't even bolt to my car. I have to fabricate parts just to install.

 

*ding* *ding* *ding*

[Glenn]

Glenn: I personally point at you on this subject because you are the one who has continuously claimed that the Fox is fine from a performance standpoint. You also want to point to Mosty's so-called success to back your opinion. From what I understand, hearsay I admit, you feel the Fox needs that 50 lbs back due the same.

 

On the other point, I offered the ride to you with hopes of settling this for good. I figured that you would find difficulty chasing James and would tweak on it until you determined that and adjustment to the rules was warranted. It was Mitch and others who came up with the "10 reasons Glenn has nothing to gain" BS. I made the offer with good intentions for series first followed by you second because I felt you would be happy take a ride that wasn't costing you. I don't remember the details but I thought I offered to pay for most everything and even some hotel costs. We should discuss details on that privately.

 

Yeah, Adam tossed a shot over the bow but that's you guys. Seems that you two have been at it since I can remember.

 

Boudy

 

I think your goal was one that had good intentions for the series. However, there are too many in this series who don't have honest intentions. The end result is I'll work my ass off for zero gain and constant drama over mine and your honest intentions. May as well just sit back and do nothing for the same results.

There is more to my reasons for not taking you up on your offer than I posted here. I'll not post those details, but rest assured - it has nothing to do w/ you personally.

 

The short of it is, data logger info is where you (anyone) will get the most useful info for platform adjustments. We try our best to not use race results, track records, and the like for parity adjustments.

Lets take a look at the Texas Region. None of the LS1 4th gens are performing in the top. We know those w/ this platform are relatively new drivers. At some point we expect them to start placing well in the races and such. I was just about to start looking into the 50lb penalty for the LS1 cars (as in removing it) when all of a sudden a Rocky Mountain driver shatters the track record at MSR-C his first weekend there in an LS1 powered 4th gen. Well there goes that plan. At that point I have no leg to stand on. If those who drive this platform feel they are disadvantaged, provide data.

I don't like race results being used for "see how bad they finish?" since we don't know if they had an off as a result of avoiding another car, a mechanical failure that they limped to the finish, old tires vs new tires, or was just not thier game mentally. It is hard to point at a reason why a car didn't finish well. It is easy to take positive results and adjust from there.

The Fox has gotten alot of bones over a short period of time. It may be that they still need an adjustment, but lets give it time to see.

 

MM said above that his car just like MSR-H better than MSR-C. I find that my car like TWS better than ECR or Hallett. I know I need to adjust my set-up for those tracks, but I don't. I deal w/ it. Lets see how the year shakes out.

 

Funny all this came up today. I was thinking to myself over lunch what would happen if we allowed the Fox to run a torque arm and bump them back to 3200lbs. MM's lack of results from MSR-C has been on my mind since the event ended. Sure would be nice to test this.

 

One thing to keep in mind - CMC will never reach 100% platform equality. It will never happen. But you gotta admit, it is very close and has gotten better over the last 2-3 years. Progress will be made. It just takes time.

What we see here, may not be what is seen in other regions. Those tracks may favor Fox's. We don't want to make local adjustments. If we did, what would the point of having a National class be?

[Boudy1548534717]

Well said Glenn.

 

Boudy

[CMC#11]

Glenn, I agree the rules are better than ever at making all platforms equal.

I just don't understand some of the changes the directors have given the Fox to supposidly get them equal to other platforms. I know you just gave a hypothetical example of a Torque Arm on the Fox but that is the opposite direction (I personally) want to go in. Why make a platform spend more $$ to become equal when it is MUCH easier to pull the other platforms back.

 

Example being track width.

The 4th gen has a track width of 74.75" Max when a Fox can't even get to 71"in the rear without major modifications. I have small flares on the rear lips of mine and I am maxed out at 70.75" (can't get an 1/8" spacer on either side).

Is it reasonable to expect a Fox driver to spend hundreds of dollars for flares and spend countless hours of fabrication time, and then paint just to get within 2 inches of a stock 4th gen? Why not just limit the 4th gen track width and have the 4th gen drivers remove their $10 spacers.

You are throwing the Fox drivers a bone by allowing them to spend big money to reduce their disadvantage from 4" to 2". How nice of you.

 

Same case for the SN95 front sway bar that was changed this off season we are now allowed to run. I can now fabricate brackets to mount a sway bar to my car that never fit in the first place. I then get to go test at a track to see if any other suspension changes are necessary. If so I get to buy new springs and then go back to the track to test again. All in the hopes that this SN95 sway bar will even make an improvement to the car.

 

If we want to equalize the platforms, why not go for the lesser expensive route instead of making "the lesser" platform spend unnecessary $$?