Jump to content
Al F.

Rules silly season - please read!

Recommended Posts

Glenn

so why include the Cobra R spoiler if none ofthe rest of the car is included?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MHISSTC

The need to specifically declare Cobra R spoilers as legal is unnessary, and there was none given, since spoilers are open (within the guidelines). However, I believe someone specifically asked about the Cobra R spoilers and the reply was, "Yes. Cobra R spoilers are legal."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MHISSTC
Besides, they are getting hard to come by and are WAY too expensive for what they are. you would be $$$$ ahead looking for a used AI wing where someone either upgraded or was selling out. Atleast it would be adjustable.

 

Factory original Cobra R spoilers/wings are getting more expensive and hard to come by, but replicas are being made in the aftermarket so someone who is not concerned about originality can join the poser crowd.

 

I'm wondering more now about the new spoiler/wing rule that was aluded to. Could it be spoilers/wings will still be "open", but limited to being non-adjustable? I would be full-on in support of that specification. That would limit folks to either stock, close to stock, or at least more tasteful spoiler/wing choices. Those Rice-A-Roni "AI" adustable wings are rediculous...especially since we cant counter the rear downforce that becomes available with those wings with front splitters or other front aero downforce mods beyond a front air dam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
King Matt1548534716
The need to specifically declare Cobra R spoilers as legal is unnessary, and there was none given, since spoilers are open (within the guidelines). However, I believe someone specifically asked about the Cobra R spoilers and the reply was, "Yes. Cobra R spoilers are legal."

The significance of the Cobra R rear wing is that it was apparently the part the original rear wing rule was specifically written to include. I guess that means you could bolt one onto a Camaro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn

i guess i'll stop beating around the bush. the only reason we have the AI type wings is that this Cobra R wing is legal. if we ban all the Cobra R parts including the wing, then there would be no reason to allow the other crap. my personal opinion is if it aint OEM stock/available, it shouldnt be legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
King Matt1548534716

I agree. That rule should never have been written the way it was. CMC cars should be limited to essentially stock aerodynamics. Maybe a slightly lower front air dam or a short rear ducktail type spoiler, but nothing that significantly deviates from the overall stock appearing profile of the car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TurboShortBus

I propose a CMC-3 class that lets you bolt on any "Failside Samurai" body kit or 3-level "Mexican bunkbed" rear wing for maximum aerodynamics and the ultimate in ricer stylings.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raging Aardvark

all I want is to put a smallish spoiler (ala Chris McComb's mustang) on our firebird.

 

the GTA came with a total boat anchor of a "wing"..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nape1548534725

Is this spoiler CMC legal?

 

kazoorocket.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bsim
...the only reason we have the AI type wings is that this Cobra R wing is legal. if we ban all the Cobra R parts including the wing,...
I believe the rule was in place before Cobra Rs were available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bsim

Some of you guys seem to think that these giant wings are a bad thing. Though I've never seen one in person on a CMC car myself.

 

If someone wants to add a giant UNareodynamic contraption to their car, I'll gladly let them be hindered at speed.

 

If someone wants to add a giant Aerodynamic contraption to their car that actually WORKS, I'll gladly let them struggle in turns with the relative lack of front grip.

 

Think big picture, and not personal taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
King Matt1548534716

Since they don't work, let's just get rid of them. We'll be doing the uninformed people using them a favor. After all, the CMC rules have always been about protecting racers from their own follies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BADVENM

I have been wondering about something and after talking to a few people and reading various automobile threads about it from time to time I guess I'll ask. It may or may not matter so here it goes:

 

When dynoing our race cars for hp/tq there is a common gear that most of us use to get the highest number(s) possible...for my Mustang its 4th gear. This was also the case in my Viper and SRT Ram.

 

I'm not planning on doing this by any means, just a curiousity question since maybe its being done now and not illegal per the rules. Say I dyno my Mustang in a different gear. Wont my performance numbers be lower (how much I dont know)?

 

So, I know that in 4th gear (just as an example) that my car produces 229/290 for rwhp/rwtq. I decide to dyno the car in 5th gear and produce numbers of 210/275. I then purchase some legal items to get my numbers up closer to 230/300 in 5th gear (as an example). Now, when I dyno the car in 4th gear I would probably be illegal (over the hp/tq limits). So, do I get to chose which gear to dyno the car in?

 

Has there been any thought as to ensuring a certain gear is used when dynoing the cars or something that along that line?

 

I've seen comparisons of different gear ratios where one ratio produces lower numbers then another on the dyno. Is there anything that states the gear ratio you use on the dyno will be or should be the one you use on the track? Otherwise, you could mod the car for one gear ratio (reaching the allowable numbers) then put in another set of gears which would exceed the allowable numbers but it would never be known because the dyno sheet doesnt specify which set of gears where in the car.

 

Does this make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ls168camaro
Since they don't work, let's just get rid of them. We'll be doing the uninformed people using them a favor. After all, the CMC rules have always been about protecting racers from their own follies.

 

Agreed.

 

I think it is ridiculous that one part from the Cobra R was allowed and I think we all know why it was allowed. But I don't like to beat around the bush so why was it written into the rules in the first place. I just have never seen anyone other than Tony G be in favor of the wings. There has to be a great reason for why it would be better for the group as a WHOLE as that is what this class is all about.

I just don't see how allowing $1,000 wings is good for our series.

Can I run a carbon fiber SS hood since the originals are hard to come by?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
powerslide91

For what it is worth;

 

I'm all in favor of removing the rear wing rule. I'm confused as to the history of the rule, but I don't really care. Limit front and rear to OEM parts only. If nothing else, it will help distinguish CMC from AI.

 

Also - I really wish the 9.5" wide rims would be eliminated in favor of 8" max. This would help keep it a drivers series instead of turning the cars into little grip buggies. The old skool CMC cars are being told to suck it up and buy all sorts of new goodies for the ability to keep competing. Consider this a small concession. Let the new cars have to deal with one thing other than adding a restrictor plate.

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bsim
I just don't see how allowing $1,000 wings is good for our series.

And just how is it BAD for the series?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony G

You guys are on drugs..I mean really talk about going back and forth on things.

We allowed stock parts ( like wings) that you can buy at your dealer,then measured the largest stock production wing and set the rules by those numbers.

What is the problem with that??

So now you want to take off stock wings...come on people.

Oh and one more comment..have fun running 275's on a 8" rim, I would say keep the 8" rims and run 16's..

Also the dyno question:

I have run dyno's in 3rd and 4th gears,and the dyno will adjust itself everytime,I have tried this on several cars just to see and never had any difference in the numbers in different gears.

Tony Guaglione

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
King Matt1548534716

Tony, since you mentioned it, a few questions.

How did a "stock" wing from a car that has never been on the eligible models list in this class become the de facto standard?

How did we get from 16x8s to 17x9.5s? When CMC-2 was announced in 2006, the rule was originally 17x8. How and why did that change so far so fast?

Why are we running 275s instead of 255s in CMC-2 when that was the original tire announced in 2006?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mitchntx1548534714
Tony, since you mentioned it, a few questions.

How did a "stock" wing from a car that has never been on the eligible models list in this class become the de facto standard?

How did we get from 16x8s to 17x9.5s? When CMC-2 was announced in 2006, the rule was originally 17x8. How and why did that change so far so fast?

Why are we running 275s instead of 255s in CMC-2 when that was the original tire announced in 2006?

 

I recall Tony posting some issues with a 255 on a 9" rim. When cutting a curb close, it was gnarling off the rim lip. So the tire size was moved to 275.

 

FWIW ... I can stack 4 RA1 255/16s beside 4 275/17s and there is less than 1" difference in total height. I was surprised. And the whole 17" package weighs about 5lbs more per wheel/tire combo. So you do get a 1/4" more tire on the ground, but you get to carry 5lbs more unsprung weight.

 

I also seem to recall the 17x9 rim was allowed because that was the size of OE wheels on many of the eligible models. In the GM world, the Speedline WS6 5 spoke and the SS 5/10 spoke wheels were 9". The front Vette GS wheels were 9.5" ... at least I think that was the distinction. Could be wrong ... going off of memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mitchntx1548534714

If someone wants to add a giant UNareodynamic contraption to their car, I'll gladly let them be hindered at speed.

 

I LIKE those big wings. And don't forget the ice cream scoops ...

 

It's like hitting a 50 shot on a long straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al F.

You're spot on Mitch, the reason we went with the 275s was test using the 255/17 showed a vulnerability to rim damage and a requirement to redo the suspension to get back to the same balance while the 275 works better at both protecting the wheel and feels the same balance wise. Rim width wise, its pretty impossible to get anything narrower than 9" for a GM bolt pattern/offset.

 

Matt, you are entirely out of line. You're free to have an opinion, you are not free to slander. Cut it the fuck off, seriously. And another thing, no one on here has stated they think foxes can fit 275s without adjusting fenders and its been public for a while now that this is an item that will be addressed for 2010. Stop trying to instigate arguments for argument's sake. Geez!

 

Now, back to your original programming on wings...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
King Matt1548534716

The Factory Five series has been running the 255 RA-1 on a 17x9-inch wheel this season, so I do not accept the answer that there are any technical difficulties with this. Toyo recommends a 9-inch wheel for this tire. The problem may have stemmed from the use of 9.5 inch wheels, but again, I ask where that number came from? No cars in this series ever came with a 9.5 inch rim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al F.

Yep, ffr allows 255 or 275. They also weigh 2450lbs. I cant speak to how easy they might damage a wheel relative to one with a taller sidewall, I wasnt there. To be honest I was more sold based on the change to how the car behaves and the subsequent change in suspension required while those that tried the 275 said no change was needed. To me that made a lot more sense. Anyway thats been around since April, why the hangup now?

 

9.5 came from availability for 4th gen offset/bolt patterns. There's plenty in the 8" and smaller range, plenty in the 9.5 and bigger rance...9" is pretty scarce (yes, worse than 16x8 mustang wheels, much worse!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
King Matt1548534716

My "hangup" comes from reports that the 275 R888 is even wider than the 275 RA-1 and how that will potentially affect fitting that tire under the fenders of Fox Mustang, along with that wide 9.5 wheel. That platform is already facing challenges that we have agreed need to be addressed, and this looks to me like a step in the wrong direction. As far as the tire affecting the setup, that's racing. The bigger 17 is an option, not mandatory, so those who choose it must accept the reality that tuning could be required.

 

If 17x8s are easy to come by for GM cars, then why didn't we settle on that size? It's the most common size for Mustangs too.

 

BTW, FFR dropped the 275 option as of July 31. The series now mandates the 255 tire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alien

In regards to the 'balance' issue. Was there anything else changed during the testing? Was it a case of test the 255 on 16s, the 255 on 17s, the 275 on 17s? No changes were made to swaybars or springs etc? Each of these setups were not 'optimized'. Worried about changing the suspension? WTF? Springs are cheap, stock swaybars should be plentiful, it just takes some testing. I have no issue with allowing the 17" wheels, or even the 9" wheels, but don't change to a 275 tire.

 

If it was a case where there was no way the 255 on 17s were as fast as the 255 on 16s, then sure go to a 275. I bet that there is a combination where the 255 on a 17 will have the same balance as the 255 on a 16.

 

As far as vulnerability, it's been said that if a third gen guy/girl doesn't feel confortable running a 2" adapter bolted to the front rotor, they they don't HAVE to run 17's. I think if someone doesn't feel comfortable running a 255 on a 17x 9" rim, they don't HAVE to run the 17s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...