BIG CMC announcement.

[AllZWay]

No one has talked about torque or area under the curve.

 

I totally agree... I think there will be a new can of worms opened here and I am willing to bet there is going to be a HOT setup with really good numbers....but meet peak HP/torque numbers.

[ls168camaro]

JP-that is exactly why I am looking forward to seeing different setups dyno graphs.

Will a 305 breathe better and have better #'s across the board than a choked down LS1 or LT1? Would a 5.0 stroker be better than a mod motor?

I hope that people will post their dyno graphs so everyone can see what a particular combination produced.

[mitchntx1548534714]

No one has talked about torque or area under the curve.

 

I totally agree... I think there will be a new can of worms opened here and I am willing to bet there is going to be a HOT setup with really good numbers....but meet peak HP/torque numbers.

 

JP ... I think you should contact Tony directly and volunteer your insight into this kind of rules metamorphisis.

 

Very few people know that you were "rules change" out of the dirt track series you were racing in, opening the door to CMC. The rules changes that affected you and others almost killed the series and several tracks, if I recall. And the economy was is a LOT better shape then than now.

[Shortcutsleeping1548534716]

No one has talked about torque or area under the curve. All of the discussion has been about achieving peak HP numbers, which look great on a dyno sheet and bench-racing on the internet,

 

Folks, Matt is dead-on right here.

 

The likelihood is that 3rd gens will at least have the option to get the advantage of those cubic inches through an engine swap.

 

I'm completely serious here, but what about an LS1/T56 option (restricted, or course) for the 3rd gens? NOT MANDATORY or anything, but if a guy has a clean 3rd gen (say, v6 auto) and is looking to source the correct 305 tpi, painless harness, ecu, t5, and then get it freshened with the right parts to hit the 260/300...

OR

COULD one option be to get a wrecking yard ls1/t56 and bolt it in and restrict it and go?

 

I've been looking at CMC for years and a few of my friends are in and getting into it. As an ASedan guy ages ago I saw rules creep really hammer that class. Hopefully that is not what is happening here.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Costas

cars and such...

[Glenn]

not likely to happen. when i built my car, it had no drivetrain. i mentioned i was gonna put a TPI/5 speed set-up in it and was shot down on the idea. at the time it would have been the hot ticket.

these cars are grouped into platform groups, and the GM's are clearly divided between 3rd gen and 4th gen (and soon to be divided into 4th gen LT1 and 4th gen LS1). no parts shall be swapped between the model groups.

the LS1 cars are getting a higher minimum weight (for now) than the LT1 cars due to the difference in engine weight.

so w/ the 3rd gen already being allowed to run lighter than the LT1 4th gen, allowing it to run a 75lb lighter engine package opens up a can of worms as to how to you pick a minimum weight for the 3rd gen. its bad enough that parity is hard enough maintain, once you allow LS1's in 3rd gens, or 05 Mustang motors in Fox'es, or carbed 305's in 4th gens, it would be impossible to balance the field.

[j dawes]

...and no 5.0s in an S197? And just in case you think I'm joking, here's the idea:

 

wrecked V6 S197 for 5-6 grand [i watch ebay and other sites]

sell the guts from that to offset the cost of the purchase

drop in a 5.0 [or a 4.6 2v motor for that matter]

add the rest of the class legal bits

go race!

 

A 5.0 or 4.6 2v can be had for relatively cheap...a 3 valve 4.6 is another story.

 

I'm assuming 8.3 prohibits this idea...but before I put both barrels to the temple of this dream and pull the trigger, I want to be certain. I think this is an appropriate issue for this thread, given the discussion of the future of CMC re: power, cost, S197s added to the mix, etc.

[jeffburch]

Just call it AI Lights with the peak numbers of 12.3hp/10.66tq per lb.

Hellava lot easier to regulate.

 

jb

[j dawes]

Just call it AI Lights with the peak numbers of 12.3hp/10.66tq per lb.

Hellava lot easier to regulate.

 

jb

You're the champ: call it whatever you want. Either way, the newer cars will trickle in eventually. Now the drivers of those cars may get their asses handed to them by faster guys [not unlike yourself] driving 15-30 year old cars that cost a fraction of the newer builds, have smaller tires/wheels/brakes, less power, etc., but the newer styles will creep in eventually unless they are simply taken off the eligible manufacturer/models list...and maybe they should be; I don't know and nobody seems to be saying that outright.

[King Matt1548534716]

...and no 5.0s in an S197?

That combo is for AI or A Sedan.

 

As far as AI Lite goes with a power to weight ratio, trust me, it's been suggested and run up the NASA flagpole to a very high level. Talk to your local and national series directors if you want to pursue that.

[liebbe1548534713]

Sooooo complicated.

 

I know, what if we created a class for the older cars and another class for the newer cars. We could call them CMC and CMC2. That would be cool.

 

 

Seems logical anyway.

[jeffburch]

BRILLIANT!

Have a Heineken.

 

Toyo falatio prolly means no.

 

jb

[Tony G]

What if we created one class with 20-35 cars all racing each other, now that would be ultra cool .

But then there are those who hate change, hate staying with the times, and generally hate any progress and that's fine, but if you follow that route there will be no CMC in the future just a bunch of guys (maybe 5)saying damn we should have tried to beat the future, not lag behind it..and now its too late..so now what the hell should we do

Now that is COOL....

Tony Guaglione

CMC National Director

[jeffburch]

The future, is now http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=67&t=23030

 

 

jb

[GT4Point6]

We all know gas prices has more to do with the lack of participants for the Nats than anything else. Other items for those of us who went the last two years is the cheapness it became last year compared to the first year, no details, it would take too long to type.

 

Not fair to compare the Nats entry list to the future of CMC. At last count in Ca, we had 21 cars running in our last race and that is a lot more than the current Nats list, so why is that? It surely isn't for a lack of CMC cars, we've had 31 different cars run this year on the weast coast.

Lack of interest and willingness to spend that much on gas is more like it...

 

I'll say it again, apples to apples, oranges to oranges...

[jeffburch]

Kevin,

You almost got my point.

Please look at the entire list.

CMC is down, the rest are about the same or higher than previous years.

I, interpret this only one way.

CMC has attracted the cheap ass guys/gals in years past that couldn't (wouldn't) run American Iron.

The current economic environment effects this class the most.

In my eyes this is not the time to go from "no ceramic coated exhaust manifolds allowed" to run what you brung.

Also, there ain't a "future CMC car" on that list.

 

jb

[camaro_1le]

You can use numbers any way you want to. You can look at it and say the future Tony predicts is already here because of CMC/CMC2 format. Maybe if it wasn't split into two groups, we would have 25 cars at Nationals.

[King Matt1548534716]

If the "future" is here, it's only because of previous decisions that split the class in two. The task now is to fix what is already reality. I wish we could turn back the clock, but that's not going to happen. So we need to determine the best way to move forward that preserves what CMC is all about.

[liebbe1548534713]

What if we created one class with 20-35 cars all racing each other, now that would be ultra cool .

But then there are those who hate change, hate staying with the times, and generally hate any progress and that's fine, but if you follow that route there will be no CMC in the future just a bunch of guys (maybe 5)saying damn we should have tried to beat the future, not lag behind it..and now its too late..so now what the hell should we do

Now that is COOL....

Tony Guaglione

CMC National Director

 

Think of CMC and CMC2 as a slow evolutionary process. Of course CMC numbers will dwindle while CMC2 numbers will increase. The older cars are getting harder to find, the newer cars are more attractive to new buildups, etc. etc. But just consider yourself five or ten years down the road when the next generation of pony cars requires the creation of CMC3 and everyone who has invested their time, money, spent time away from family on a CMC2 car is suddenly told to redo and reinvest the tangible and intangible prices you had to pay. How would you feel? Now what the hell should we do? You support the people who supported the series to begin with.

 

Rob - beating the dead horse - Liebbe

[mitchntx1548534714]

Maybe the problem is communication.

 

Let's start simple ...

 

Please define:

So we need to determine the best way to move forward that preserves what CMC is all about.

 

What is CMC all about? Maybe there are too many interpretations of that often used phrase.

[bsim]

What is CMC all about?

A driver-centric series using Camaros, Firebirds, and Mustangs with a limited set of rules designed to bring parity between platforms.

 

Now, the daunting task is to make a 1984 Ford perform equally to a 2007 Mustang or LS1 Camaro.

 

The pain is in whether 300 HP car owners want to be severely restricted, or whether the fox-body owner wants to spend the $$ to bring the power levels up. Prolly 'no' on both counts given the option.

 

Personally, I think one of the problems is that some rules are based on track performance. With a few exceptions, most of the fast guys are in new equipment, which skews the result analysis towards bigger breaks for the slower drivers in older equipment.

 

I'm still for the 2 class system, but the numbers for the older class will continue to dwindle.

[King Matt1548534716]

I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

 

 

I think CMC is about relatively low-cost showroom-stock based racing with limited performance modifications. But unlike SCCA Showroom Stock, I don't think CMC is the right playground for people with the budget to race cars right off the "showroom" floor, which means keeping the sweet spot of the rules centered around cars that are 5-15 years old. Where SCCA has a 5-year rule (or maybe it's up to 7 now) that eliminates older cars from eligibility, maybe CMC should adopt the opposite philosophy: we won't consider a car until the platform is at least 5 or 7 years old!

[Carson]

well said Brad ....but does that make you a "hater" ???

 

this is a vital issue for the membership to decide

 

POLL the membership as to merge

 

or keep two classes

 

now that's GRASSROOTS

[Waco Racer]

A driver-centric series using Camaros, Firebirds, and Mustangs with a limited set of rules designed to bring parity between platforms.

 

The more restrictive the class, the thicker the rulebook.

 

"If it doesn't say you can, then you can't" or "I know it when I see it", without a detailed list of factory part numbers, only opens potential infractions up to judgment calls. Leaving that up to individual officials would require all National, Regional, and Race Directors to have the same opinion of each technical aspect of each car. The best way to establish this is to have a comprehensive set of rules. Do the exhausting research now, not when each item is protested at impound. Which leads back to Tony's original post. Please re-read it.

 

 

 

p.s. KM I saw the simlie, but, it did bring up a good point.

[camaro_1le]

If we jump on the Texas bandwagon, in a few years the older body styles and CMC will fade away, giving way to strictly CMC2 and the newer body style cars ... SCCA

 

We know Texas hates change and will drag this out to 100 pages because they appear to be one of the few regions skewed totally towards CMC and seeing minimum growth in CMC2. I believe it has more to do with culture than anything else causing that scenario.

 

The Texas mentality will obsolete my car in the next 12 to 18 months in the Mid-Atlantic region. With the new comers moving into CMC2, instead of a 15-18 car field, CMC will be 3 or 4, if that. I could see it dwindling to 2 or 3.

 

So the logical move for me then is to AI with my third-gen because there is no where in the Camaro-Mustang Challenge for me to race with a decent size field of competitors.

 

Now to extrapolate the Mid-Atlantic region nationwide, by 2010 or 2011 the older style cars will be gone and the Camaro-Mustang Challenge will simply be newer style cars except in Texas of course. So we will end up with only one class in the Challenge one way or another.

 

I applaud the Directors (National and Regional alike) for taking this task on. For giving me the opportunity to keep my third-gen competitive. You know it would be quite easy for them to say, screw it! Older body styled cars are out after 2011 and only the 4th-5th gens and equivalent Mustangs can compete.

 

As for polling, come on and get real. What a forum poll? That is really reflective of the CMC competitors? No, only those that frequent the forum and that is mostly Texas people (see post counts). And we know who y'all feel about it. So I can see that push. Maybe send a secret ballot out to all members? Excuse me, maybe I missed it in the mail, but I have not gotten my membership card. I showed up at a NASA-MA HPDE with a third-gen 1LE, was told of the AI evils and ushered over to the CMC paddock. So much for memberships.

[King Matt1548534716]

 

p.s. KM I saw the simlie, but, it did bring up a good point.

 

Hey, I agree with you 100 percent. In fact, I emailed essentially the same comment to our director list earlier today. We've got a couple of key gray area issues that the 2010 rules will give us a chance to straighten out once and for all.