Boudy1548534717 Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Tony, Al, Mike, Nick, Don, and Todd: The Fox and SN-95 are the same platform from a chassis and suspension perspective with the exception of track width due to LCAs. When fitted with SN-95 LCAs, the Fox can obtain some of the track width as the SN-95 but is still at a 2" deficit do to extra room under the SN-95 fenders. Regardless of driver skill, car prep, or any other issue that gets dragged in to muddy the waters, this is fact. The 2 cars can't logically be expected to perform the same, impossible. Is there any current discussion as to how this situation can be remedied? Thank you, Boudy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsim Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 (keeping it civilized) So that addresses the front track, what about the rear? Is it the same on both cars? The foxes already get 50# weight in relation to the other cars (specifically the 95s), would you be willing to give that up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Matt1548534716 Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 (edited) Brad, please READ THE RULES before you post. The Fox and SN95 run at the exact same minimum weight, 3150 pounds. They run the same engine package, same brakes, same tires, but one car is wider. The 3rd gens also run at 3150. As a side note, SCCA gives the Fox a 200-pound weight break compared to the SN95 in A Sedan. edit: To partially answer the rear track question, 94-98 SN95s are 1.5 inches wider by design in the rear than Foxes and 99-04 cars are 3 inches wider, but I have not measured what the maximum achievable rear track is with each car in compliance with the fender rule. Edited April 8, 2008 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsim Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 I'm keeping it civilized and learning about Mustangs at the same time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D1548534719 Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Before one can learn about a mustang one must race a mustang MikeD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudy1548534717 Posted April 8, 2008 Author Share Posted April 8, 2008 Matt: Please don't run this thread into a muddy lake. We ain't talkin about any gens here, just the Fox and the SN-95. Stay focused grasshoppa... Brad: Yes, the 2 cars run the same weight so there's nothing to give up there. Also, I'm not 100% certain about the rear track widths of the 2. Boudy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Are spacers out of the question for Fox's? Or will the wheels stick out enough that it would be illegal due to the rule regarding the, well, the wheels sticking out? One inch per side is do-able with spacers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMC#11 Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 They would definitely stick out and also rub. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudy1548534717 Posted April 8, 2008 Author Share Posted April 8, 2008 I can run SN-95 control arms w/3 degrees of camber and can't fit 1/4" spacers in the fenders. Boudy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D1548534719 Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I run a 3/8 spacer up front anything else the fenders rub. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsim Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 So, still trying to learn... Can you get -3 camber with the other LCAs, or is that the benefit gained with the widening? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxCMC22 Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I must say this brings up some interesting questions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMC#11 Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 So, still trying to learn... Can you get -3 camber with the other LCAs, or is that the benefit gained with the widening? I haven't had the Fox control arms on my car for about 2 years but IIRC you can only get around 1.5 - 2 degrees. The SN95 arms do allow for much more camber adjustments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Matt1548534716 Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 With stock Fox-length LCAs, it's difficult to get more than 2 degrees negative camber depending on the car. There is a lot of tolerance variation in these chassis, but most Foxes will not get much more than 1.5 negative without slotting the struts. With longer SN95 arms you can pretty easily get to negative 4-plus. There are other advantages to the SN95 geometry. The entire K-member is moved forward by about an inch, which increases caster. A stock Fox will barely get to 2 degrees of caster. With an SN95, the nominal factory caster setting is 3.6 degrees, which is still not very good, but with adjustments and offset control arm bushings you can get enough caster that you can at least start to negate the camber loss more than you can on a Fox with a stock K-member. Modified MacPherson struts have terrible camber curves, but let's not get into any comparisons with SLAs so as not to muddy the waters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Matt1548534716 Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Some basic information on the effects of increasing track width, from "Race Car Vehicle Dynamics" by Millikin and Millikin, pg. 408: "A. Increasing the track width reduces the load transfer on turn entry. With the tire loads more evenly distributed the tires can produce more force (load sensitivity). B. In steady-state cornering the track width and the CG height determine the total lateral load transfer. Increasing the track width reduces the load transfer. This will improve lateral acceleration capability. C. If the track is increased the load transfer is decreased and this may allow for more of the total roll resistance to be taken on the non-driving end of the car before wheel lift. This will give more equal loads on the drive wheels for acceleration on turn exit. D. Increasing the track will improve the braking in a turn performance by increasing the max lateral force available." So to paraphrase, all other things equal, the wider car enters the corner better under braking, can carry more speed through the corner, and accelerates better out of the corner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudy1548534717 Posted April 9, 2008 Author Share Posted April 9, 2008 "Matt Tangent Boy King" The SN-95 in it's design is a reskined Fox. Same geometry, specs, and parts. Ford simply made it wider. A Fox is allowed to run the wider control arms so it can benefit by gaining more camber and some width in the front but nothing on caster and nothing in the rear. At this point it is at maximum allowable width as defined by it's fenders so spacers are not an option. Full SN-95 width is not attainable due to fenders. Bottom line is that the Fox, under no circumstances, could perform equally with anything Ford produced after it. I'm asking if management is aware, has it been discussed, is there a plan, is volunteer testing/data aquisision needed...??? I'm available and willing to help or assist or... Boudy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacovini Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 So to paraphrase, all other things equal... There's the big "IF" and the poison pill. Let us know when "all other things are equal". IMO...all the numerous, different variables are so dynamic that fractions of an inch aren't worth a whole bunch in the big scheme of things. Fox cars can run SN95 axles and arms...gets 'em pretty close, and also changes the balance of the car. Poe's SN95 fast lap at Nat's was good enough to contend for a podium (it's virtually the same as Glenn's). IF the SN95 didn't have traffic...IF he got a better start....IF he made some different choices on track, IF he repeated consistent laptimes in a string together...."all other things equal"...Poe's SN95 would have been in the hunt. I personally think the weight rule discussions per platform are valid and as mentioned elsewhere, it is reviewed and adjusted (i.e.- tweaked) as needed each year. One thing is for certain, it's never "perfect"...that's why it gets looked at each year. (Even with the weight rules, "all other things" are still not equal, because some take full advantage of their weight break...and others (such as myself) do not. (FYI...my Fox was 150+ over my min weight at the 2006 Nats with very little prep time.) Another thing we can't lose sight of...CMC caters to the entry level racer. That is, the entry hurdle has got to be low so that new folks continue to join the series with minimal mods needed to their cars. We shouldn't be seeking rules to address the top 5 cars in the series, we should be making sure that there is a good supply of new folks joining the series, the majority of the field has a level playing field with minimal changes needed to a factory setup and then the top 5 will rise to the top. I've joked around in the past that I loathe the day that our Texas Pontiacs of Warren & Dawdy both win on the same weekend. Only then will we hear the screams of inequity regarding the superior nose profile, .cd's and aerodynamics those cars have. Hope this comes across reasonable...I'm not trying to stir the pot nor be acidic. Just sharing my views. -=- Todd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacovini Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 PS- Boudy...if you're looking for a Fox test driver to confirm/deny some of your test data, contact Jonathan Bomarito. In the anals of CMC history, I believe in his CMC Championship year, Jonathan scored more Fox wins in a given season than any other platform. (If Jonathan isn't available, I'm local and may be able to help out a bit. -=- Todd PS- Liebbe & I will be driving his underdeveloped Fox during the 4 hour enduro in 2 weeks. We'll be beating a 4th Gen...it will be interesting to see the difference in lap times between car owner and car borrower...all other things equal.(...which really aren't equal because it's setup different than my car and Rob has a ton of seat time this year...but close enough.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Matt1548534716 Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Let us know when "all other things are equal". Put the same guy in both cars, and he'll be faster in an SN95 than a Fox. Can't get much simpler than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudy1548534717 Posted April 9, 2008 Author Share Posted April 9, 2008 Todd: I'm not talking about fast laps, we all know that a Stang can turn a fast lap here and there. That's another discussion about rear end bind, snap oversteer, and consistancy better left to another thread. I started this thread to address an all things equal issue between these 2 cars. No drivers, no prep levels, no ifs, and no butts.(well maybe some buttheads) The Fox fenders under the current rules prevent it from obtaining the same track width as the SN-95 by almost 2 inches front and rear with all other things being equal. Period. Now, the question becomes, "OK fine, what do you want us to do?" May I suggest that with a consistant driver, track width is easily related to laptimes just as weight is. A good test session day with 2 consistant drivers in the same car with data aquisition could easily generate 2 sets of data showing how much track width and weight relate to laptimes. (edited to add...) Oh, and would also suggest the testing be done at 2 different tracks. 1 short tight track and 1 long track. Nothing is the fix all end all and there are no magic bullets. Remove ego, emotion, and everything else from and issue and you're left with the bottom line. If management is receptive I'm willing to fork over the resources to prove or disprove our belief that the Fox is doomed. What say you? Boudy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 100% totally disagree with that one Matt. I have been faster in some Foxes (like Greg Robinsons) than in my own SN95. Bomarito killed everyone in his Fox. I love the Fox body its by far one of my favorite ones to drive. I took out Tim Laplantes Fox once and could not believe how well it handled,I remember coming in and telling him how good the car was. I took out Sam Stowells Fox at Willow Springs and took 1st place (I never drove the car before just jumped in and ran the hell out of it). I also remember a Fox killing the racers in Texas not to long ago. Only reason I have a newer car (2000 Model) is that I like to stay up with the newer body's and went into CMC2. Think my car is so much better,then you can have it for $12,999 fastest Mustang on the West Coast,but it might not be with the next driver and then we start this all over again. Tony Guaglione Really, its time to move on....If you hate your Fox, sell it and buy the SN95..but it wont help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudy1548534717 Posted April 9, 2008 Author Share Posted April 9, 2008 Tony: Sorry, I don't want to buy your SN-95 nor do I want to sell my Fox. Run your SN-95 2 sessions with your data aquisition and then slap 1/2" spacers on all four corners and run 2 more sessions. Compare the data. You do a very fine job of keeping the peace and pointing out when you think issues don't exist and relating everything to driver skill. Really, this issue is provable and it's time to address it. Boudy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudy1548534717 Posted April 9, 2008 Author Share Posted April 9, 2008 Oh, and I also agree with you about Matt's statement. It's impossible to keep Tangent Boy on track. My point is not 2 different cars with a driver. My point is that the track width difference can directly be related to laptimes. That's it. Besides, me changing cars does nothing for the issue. But I can see where it could be percieved as a way to shut me up. Boudy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Matt1548534716 Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 100% totally disagree with that one Matt. So you are saying that if you set up two cars equally to your driving style, that you would be faster in a Fox than an SN95 given that both cars had the same power, weight, and brakes? We are talking about the performance improvements attributable to a wider track width as a single variable, not the specific differences between two completely different existing cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudy1548534717 Posted April 9, 2008 Author Share Posted April 9, 2008 100% totally disagree with that one Matt. So you are saying that if you set up two cars equally to your driving style, that you would be faster in a Fox than an SN95 given that both cars had the same power, weight, and brakes? We are talking about the performance improvements attributable to a wider track width as a single variable, not the specific differences between two completely different existing cars. No, what he's saying is that you can't set up 2 cars equal. It's a comparison based on fiction and not provable, repeatable, or verifyable because it's not a single variable. I just spoke to Tony and he agrees that the testing I've offered to provide results from is a fair way to evauluate this issue to prove or disprove this point. Boudy Boudy 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.