Boudy1548534717 Posted April 12, 2008 Author Share Posted April 12, 2008 Is there something in the ALR water that causes a total loss of comprehension? Boudreaux Cool-aid ... WTF!!! MITCH WARREN - THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME YOU DRUG MY COMPANY'S NAME INTO AN ONLINE DISAGREEMENT YOU WERE INVOLVED IN... MAKE IT THE LAST!!! You're so busy and focused on derailing the issue, as usual, that you can't even realize you don't understand the issue. One more time for the logically challenged: The Fox's fenders limits it's track width as compared to the SN-95 which is otherwise believed by some to be the same chassis. Read and pay attention so you don't ask questions like - Robert, you realize that increasing front track width, in effect, lowers effect front spring rate. and you won't get answers like - It doesn't matter what track width does to spring rate on my car because my fenders won't allow that. No, I'm not talking in circles because we are not talking about widening the track on anything. Pay attention, geeze. Did you even read the first 5 pages of this thread? Increasing the track width of a Fox is not an option nor is it the topic of this discussion. What was that you said about comprehension? Practice what you preach. The rest of us are talking about testing to try and quantify if there is merit to subtracting weight from the Fox to compensate for the track width it can't achieve due to it's fenders as compared to it's SN-95 cousin. Equalize that and a guy can do whatever the hell he want's from there with his setup. Brad's added some good input to consider regarding wheelbase and some other comments that we would like to discuss. However, you won't shut the hell up about spring rates, egos, prep levels, bong pipes, driving skill, comprehension, superior platforms, cinching it up, and who knows what else. Anything and everything but actually contributing productively to the discussion of the topic as presented. You're a master, I'll give you that. If a 4th gen Camaro's fenders limited it to 2" less track width than a 4th gen Firebird then "OMG" would this be a totally different thread. I've got $50 bucks that says more rules change requests have come from 2 guys in Texas than the rest of the CMC drivers in the region combined. Any takers? To all who participated, offered input, asked questions, and discussed the topic with an open mind, I thank you. I've explained it a dozen times and most of us seem to get it, however, it is obvious that Master Warren is not going to allow us to continue to discuss it in a civil manner. For all practical purposes, it seems that another thread's been shot to shit. Good luck to all, I wish you well. I'm done here. Robert Boudreaux Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 No, I'm not talking in circles because we are not talking about widening the track on anything. Pay attention, geeze. Did you even read the first 5 pages of this thread? Increasing the track width of a Fox is not an option nor is it the topic of this discussion. What was that you said about comprehension? Practice what you preach. The very first post in this thread .... 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 Where in the world does it say weight for track width? I apologize Boudy ... I guess it's a Texas High School thing, cause I just don't see it in that statement ... What I do see is that you had a specific group you wanted involved. My bad. Maybe it should have been done via e-mail? I dunno ... And the comment I made concerning widening track width would in effect lower your front spring rates was a general comment, not an attempt to de-rail. You want an open-minded discussion as long as it stays within the confines of a very specific and narrow topic. From my limited experience, chassis tuning just doesn't work that way. Change one thing and it affects several other parameters. I brought up the spring rate as a reminder only. Somewhere along the way, some of you think I have an agenda here. True statement ... to learn. If you think some of my comments are stoopid, probably because I just don't know that much about the negatives and the positives (and there are positives) of the Mustang platforms. Teach me, explain to me ... don't attack and threaten. And a great marketing strategy is to lament on the negatives and brush aside the positives. I do it all the time on a 4th gen ... Any open discussion has the potential to plant seeds that spawn new ideas and new concepts of how to make things work better, easier and cheaper. If that isn't the overall agenda, sorry I didn't comprehend that either. Robert ... my comments about ALR, the cool-aid and bong pipe were all tongue in cheek. In hind sight, probably not the best move on my part. My sincerest apologies to Robert and those that are affiliated with ALR. Please, no one take my comments as anything negative about Argent Labs. It was my poor attempt at humor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudy1548534717 Posted April 12, 2008 Author Share Posted April 12, 2008 That's fair, Thank You. The very first post in this thread .... 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 Where in the world does it say weight for track width? I apologize Boudy ... I guess it's a Texas High School thing, cause I just don't see it in that statement ... It doesn't, my agenda was not to wholesale slash weight from the Fox but to discuss the issue and come to a wholesale agreement what could be done. Weight was proposed later in the thread along with a somewhat reasonable method of testing to relate the 2. What I do see is that you had a specific group you wanted involved. My bad. Maybe it should have been done via e-mail? I dunno ... Well actually yes. I wanted to hear from Tony, Al, Mike, Nick, Don, and Todd and I didn't want anything lobbied behind the scenes. Brad immediately joined in with questions and we went from there. You want an open-minded discussion as long as it stays within the confines of a very specific and narrow topic. From my limited experience, chassis tuning just doesn't work that way. Change one thing and it affects several other parameters. I brought up the spring rate as a reminder only. Everything works that way Mitch. I have to troubleshoot and repair state-wide communications systems that consist of hundreds of sub-systems and dozens of manufacturers for a living. Before anything can be fixed, it has to be analyzed within some confines that are specific and narrow to get to the bare bones of the problem. Otherwise, the variables of the whole system that works together will never allow the root problem to be identified and repaired. Somewhere along the way, some of you think I have an agenda here. Personally, I like you. Competitivly, I think you have an agenda. Here's why: And a great marketing strategy is to lament on the negatives and brush aside the positives. I do it all the time on a 4th gen ... You and I think differently, we explain things differently. I've tried multiple many times to explain 1 simple concept in many ways. Everytime, other varialbles get pilied on and I've tried to get you many times to apply your experience and knowledge to the issue and you won't. You got directly to you can't drive, your car isn't set up... Blah, blah, blah. Your not stupid Mitch, pretty damn sharp at times actually. You just won't discuss the topic. I don't know why but all can be gotten from you is, "shut up, set up , and learn to drive, and see - SN-95 won 50% of the Nationals." Yes, it's frustrating. So when you then turn to Cinch it up, comprehension, and bong pipes, I'm past frustration. I appologize to you, I've been called a hot head more than once. Robert ... my comments about ALR, the cool-aid and bong pipe were all tongue in cheek. In hind sight, probably not the best move on my part. My sincerest apologies to Robert and those that are affiliated with ALR. Please, no one take my comments as anything negative about Argent Labs. It was my poor attempt at humor. Between ourselves, I can take all the ribbing you can dish. Here, guys don't know that we actually get along and these guys are potential customers. ALR has to feed families and false laid impressions, although unintentional are real. Thank you for understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudy1548534717 Posted April 12, 2008 Author Share Posted April 12, 2008 To have the end result of evenly match performance, you have to start with a evenly matched potential. This is where I've tried to keep the focus of discussion. Before chassis set-up and driver skill can even play into the formula, the 2 cars have to begin with evenly matched potential. 1) Since the Fox can't possible achieve the SN-95's track width, it is a factor that effects the root issue of evenly matched potential. 2) Since any tuning that can be done to one can also be done to the other, tuning is ruled out as a factor that effects the root issue of evenly matched potential between 2 cars. 3) Since driver skills vary, driver skill is ruled out as a factor that effects the root issue of evenly match potential between 2 cars. With these points considered my goal is to discuss a way to obtain evenly matched performance potential between the Fox and SN-95 that doesn't negatively effect points 2 and 3. I think we agreed that reducing some undertermined weight from the Fox might accomplish that. Then, Brad added a point that maybe the wheelbase negates the the width and thus allows them to actually have evenly match potential afterall. Maybe, but until we focus on it, we'll never determine anything and the issue will remain to be cat fought over next year. That's about the absolute last way I can think of to try and explain my point. If that doesn't do it, then maybe I am stupid. Who knows. Boudy Since Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 Sorry I missed your call last night .... had to be at work by 0200 ... Between ourselves, I can take all the ribbing you can dish. Here, guys don't know that we actually get along and these guys are potential customers. ALR has to feed families and false laid impressions, although unintentional are real. Thank you for understanding. Point well taken and 100% understood. I hadn't considered that some one here might not realize how "dynamic" our relationship is. Although I did think my cool-aid comment was kinda funny ... I'm no different than you or any other racer. No racer is gonna stand proud and wax on about how superior a design the platform they own actually is. We all play our cards close to our chest and put on our best poker face. So I guess, in broad, general terms, that is an agenda. So let's discuss weight, then ... I don't think it will yield the results you are wanting. While it was a miracle lap, I ran a 47 at Houston (in CMC trim because I had no dyno sheet) and came off track 120lb heavier than any other CMC car. So, 50# isn't going to mean a lot ... unless you can get it off the nose. And what can be taken off the nose of a Fox and still remain within the confines of CMC's illusive intent? What's typical for F/R weight percentages on a Fox? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Al F. Posted April 12, 2008 Members Share Posted April 12, 2008 Question...the 99 up cars are wider overall than the earlier sn95 cars (hence why I posted referring to them as edge 2000, or new edge, whatever the design theme was) and they're wider overall by some 1.4 inches. I always assumed that could manifest itself in wider track given the right wheels/spacers. Is that not true? [/i] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllZWay Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 Boudy...I suggest decaf next time. BTW...I need to talk to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 Boudy...I suggest decaf next time. BTW...I need to talk to you. James, it's all good and justified ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST#97 Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 you boys are funny...just lurking here but here are some other things you need to take into account...namely frontal area and windshield rake as well as headlight area drag differences from a fox to a SN car and even more to a new edge car. Other things like over all chassis rigidity and weight are going to skew the data... Other things to consider is that a lower profile tire is going to make the car VERY delicate at the limit compared to what you are used to now. Going with a stiff setup and a short sidewall is REALLY going to change the character of the car and be much less forgiving....meaning you aren't going to easily scrub speed in corners by tossing the car in sliding it through. I would love to see Robert pull off this investigation and would volunteer my services as the wheel man. I think it would be a good idea to use a NON CMC driver so that the driving style for a CMC car would be taken out of the equation. I think it would be best to use someone that had not driven a fox or SN95 CMC car to take out more variables and keep the data strictly to the changes in the car. Just my $0.02 and hope you guys figure this out... MW.....the OTHER one! 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.