Rules silly season - please read!

[Glenn]

Since this was titled, "silly season", can I ask a silly question(s)?

 

Why are we looking at 4 pot calipers?

Is there a problem with the caliper rules as is?

What is the reason for the requested change?

Who asked for the requested change?

 

Dave, i'll see about getting involved in the directors behind the sences email going on now. it involves this and other topics.

[ls168camaro]

Since this was titled, "silly season", can I ask a silly question(s)?

 

Why are we looking at 4 pot calipers?

Is there a problem with the caliper rules as is?

What is the reason for the requested change?

Who asked for the requested change?

 

Dave-they are already legal for CMC-2 so I would say that is the problem with the caliper rules.

Reason is supposedly to allow bigger brakes that would be cheaper in the long run and for the heavy cars in CMC2. I don't see that as an issue now that the weights are coming down. I have also run my Ls1 calipers for 2 years weighing 3400 without any problems. My pads have lasted all season with one more weekend and they look to be just fine.

Al has been a big proponent for the big brake package but I don't know who else.

[ls168camaro]

The directors nor I make up the rules, we all do, we just don't go backwards.

Thanks,

Tony Guaglione

 

Tony-could you please let us know who the 'WE' are as that sentence doesn't make sense to me.

 

Carson-I totally agree that there is zero transparency. The group doesn't get to hear what was voted on, why, and what the voting was which is much different than the rest of our democratic society. Which either you get to vote as a member or you vote on people who then vote on issues usually in an open forum.

[mitchntx1548534714]

The directors nor I make up the rules, we all do, we just don't go backwards.

Thanks,

Tony Guaglione

 

Tony-could you please let us know who the 'WE' are as that sentence doesn't make sense to me.

 

Carson-I totally agree that there is zero transparency. The group doesn't get to hear what was voted on, why, and what the voting was which is much different than the rest of our democratic society. Which either you get to vote as a member or you vote on people who then vote on issues usually in an open forum.

 

Might be surprising, but I really think voting by the masses is a bad idea. Where do you draw the line? Current season points paying competitors? any one who has ever seen a CMC car? Some where between those 2 extremes?

 

And how would the group implement it? Not every one in CMC is an internet junkie. The logistics is too much to ask.

 

I do think a group of directors and a complimentary group of regular people would be a good mix. And the group rotates so that no single group gets too entrenched in the party line. Spread the work around.

 

If we could all agree upon basic strategy when considering a rules change, addition or re-write that would maintain some level of consistency between tenures.

 

Just thinking out loud ...

[ls168camaro]

Alright, last time I'll say anything about it.

 

Thats it, I'm done now. sorry for being hard headed.

 

After reading that I certainly don't think its worth my time to send in my comments for rule changes. It seems blatantly apparent that the minds are always made up.

Remember compression gate? You posed the question to the Texas group about which way to write the rule. I don't think there was anyone on that post that agreed with your proposal yet the rule was written exactly how you wanted it.

 

As for the rules and what seem to be the hot buttons where I am concerned.

Wheels-don't understand why we need 9.5's as they never came on our cars other than a minute special edition. Though I already have 6 9.5" HRE's.

Brakes-I think you would end up spending as much time and money trying to custom build your own kit versus calling Stoptech and spending $3000. The data provided by people who have run these kits on 4th gens is pretty convincing that they are better and will give one an advantage. Its also not whether I can afford it or not but what is good for the class. There is has also been zero rear world data that is positive concerning a cheap brake upgrade kit.

Wings-has anyone watched Matt Kings nats video? If you watch the start and think wings should be allowed then this class has lost all identity of being a stock type class/image.

Tires-I have run 255's all year without a problem. I also read the post about why to change and there wasn't much data provided or comments as to how many drivers were involved in the data. I'm sure the 275's will help me in the corners since my Ls1 has to run heavier

 

Mitch-very good points that I agree with. Just trying to suggest a way for more transparency.

[MHISSTC]

Wings-has anyone watched Matt Kings nats video? If you watch the start and think wings should be allowed then this class has lost all identity of being a stock type class/image.

 

I thought the small spoiler extensions on a couple of the cars were very tastefully executed and were well within the spirit of CMC. The wings on the F-bodies...well...I found a hood scoop to go with them:

 

 

Take a look at Matt's video again at 7:05. There is NO WAY that wing complys with, "The rear spoiler shall not protrude beyond the overall outline of the body when viewed from above perpendicular to the ground. Excluding endplates, the spoiler shall not be any taller than 11†from the deck of the car. The spoiler must fit securely with minimum modifications to the body and not significantly obstruct the driver's vision."? Did somebody in tech at Nationals forget their rulebook, glasses, plumb-bob and tape measure?

[Al F.]

Bryan, I said that was the last time I would post about brakes. I did not say any decision was made. The issue is on the list of things to be discussed, as is everything else that has been emailed in to me. There is a world of difference. It very well may be that my mind is made up, but I dont make the rules. The rules are decided upon by everyone on the last page of the book, exception being Chris from RM who came in after the last published revision, and Don Trask who has respectfully backed away due to personal reasons. So, nine people make the rules. Tony gets veto or tie breaking rights as head honcho. Further, it is not that there is near zero real world data around one brake package or another. Perhaps not enough or even nothing has been presented to you directly, and I take that feedback and will attempt to do better next time. A-sedan runs brakes exactly like what I proposed originally to the CMC board three years ago to ovewhelming success regarding durability and life of components. Check out their forums for details. My plug was roundy round calipers and rotors, limited to a 12.2" diameter. Upping that to 13 was not my original idea, but others chimed in that those packages were out there so why not.

 

Please guys remember that in this is a much more complicated series to set rules for than most others. We are not a spec series otherwise we'd all be on the same spring rates. As Nick Steel and Mitch Warren and you'll get an idea of how different these can be and still be "right". We are also not an essentially unlimited class. Both of those eliminate the majority of compromises.

 

In our world, its always about compromising. We have an intent, but it is not, IMHO, what some may be taking it to be. The intent is not to run stock parts. The intent is not to run junkyard parts. The intent is not to buy a street car, slap a cage in it, and finish on the podium. The intent, IMHO and how I have listed it in the list of rules revisions as a proposal to the board is:

"The intent of the Camaro Mustang Challenge (CMC) racing class is to provide National Auto Sport Association (NASA) members a racing series featuring production V8 cars. Modifications will be limited to those necessary to promote safety, close competition, and flexibility to enable drivers to learn and experiment with the principles of race car setup within boundaries intended to limit expenses, thereby providing the drivers with fun, exciting, and challenging yet approachable racing."

 

That, IMHO, is the goal. In brief, as well written by Mitch and in no particular order: simple rules, inexpensive, safe, close competition. And by the way dont "daddy" me by limiting my decisions. Everything else is a strategy or a tactic by which to enable achieving or maintaining that goal. Running stock parts wherever feasible is a strategy, it is not a goal. Not allowing front splitters is a tactic, part of a strategy of limiting aero based gains, it is not a goal and it is not driven because it is not a stock part. We pick and choose what non-stock parts make sense to allow in order to maintain and manage the goal. That is why none of us (except Brad on occasion) are running stock springs. It would be silly to require them no? Which brings me to how do I personally pick and choose which parts I push for and which I resist allowing.

 

Mitch posted one aspect of how I personally go about it, three questions I ask myself as to the net effect of the change. That is not my entire decision criteria, but it is a start I remind myself to use, and one that makes sense to me. The overarching aspect of my decision process comes the fact that our goal has wildly competing and conflicting priorities. Providing simple rules is in conflict with ensuring close competition. Attempting to limit expenses is in real big conflict with ensuring close competition AND with providing simple rules AND with not daddying racers. You see my point? Almost every single decision we make involves compromise. Therefore it should not be surprising that some times the compromise swings towards keeping the rules simple, and yet other times it swings towards ensuring close competition, and yet other times it swings towards attempting to limit expenses, and yet other times it swings towards allowing freedom of choice. Which way the decision leans is based on the particulars of that scenario. We do not have a hierarchy. Cost does not always trump all of the other priorities. If it did, we would eventually become a spec class. Close competition does not always trump simple rules or cost. To make it even more complicated, quite often we try to balance these with multiple rules.

 

Lets take a few examples so I can try to add color to this:

 

1) It is no surprise to anyone that a Fox suspension is at a disadvantage to a 4th gen suspension, dont need to go into details here. So, we could help the fox out by allowing them to install tubular k-members and revised front end layouts. This would go a long way towards fixing that god awful front end geometry. That would promote close competition right? Unfortunately it would not promote limiting expenses. Anyone wanting to campaign a fox would have to spend a bunch of money on aftermarket hardware to keep up. No es bueno. So the decision was made a long time ago to not allow that (limiting expenses trumps close competition) and attempt to balance it in other areas. Specifically we allow the fox to run with less weight than the 4th gen (and before you tell me we havent gone far enough, lets just leave it as thats how we've attempted to manage it). That, I feel, is a better tactic to achieve the goal, and a better balance of our conflicting priorities. Therefore I dont support dropping torque arms in fox cars, but I regularly discuss what that weight difference should be (which hopefully you all know will be a bit greater in the future)

 

2) Shocks are a key aspect of your car's setup. As such, there is time to be gained on track by having better control of the tire and the contact patch you're relying on to keep you on the track and in front of your challengers. We dont want to run on stock shocks. Why not??? That would be cheap! It would be simple! Unfortunately it wouldnt promote close competition (who knows how our different cars would react using oem damping!!) and frankly it would be boring. So we know we have to allow for shocks that can handle the spring rates that our horsepower levels and weights will dictate. Yet we dont want to have people go out and spend thousands of dollars on Motons, etc. in order to gain a few tenths, right? Allowing that would not promote close competiton because we all have different budgets and we wouldn’t be promoting limiting expenses. So in this case we (somewhat reluctantly I might add) settled on a dollar limit. In this case, limiting expenses trumps simple rules as it would be much easier to explain and police "any non-remote reservoir shock", for example. At the time, that was the best way we, as a group, could come up with to balance the competing priorities. Some of us were of the opinion that the simpler non-remote reservoir option (simple rules trumping cost) was better. If a driver wants to spend a pile on shocks, let them! The non-remote aspect would eliminate a lot of the really high end stuff. IMHO, and why I personally preferred our selected alternative was that didnt go far enough since Penske will happily take a lot of my money to develop a shock just for me. Were we "right"? Well, not in everyone's eyes. Of course you can spend a pile of time and money having a shop experiment with and fine tune your rebuildable Billsteins for every single track you go to and be well within the $800 limit of the rules (we dont limit testing or rebuilds or the number of shocks in your trailer). But, that was the compromise and the best we felt we could do. If anyone has a better mouse trap, please by all means let me know!! If you think we should go back to the negotiating table and discuss erasing the $ limit then submit it as a rules revision request and lets chat. I’m all for finding a better mouse trap!

 

3) Wheels are obviously an essential performance component. Unsprung rotating mass...the worst mass on earth!!! Originally CMC attempted to control this by setting a limit on manufacturing technique (no three piece wheels, no "exotic" materials, etc). At one point there was huge turmoil when someone went out and got some pretty fancy light weight and rather pricy wheels that fit the letter of the rule. Hang on, we thought, thats not right! We had no intention of you spending a pile of money! Crap, now what? Do we really want all our guys going out and spending $2k per set of wheels? Of course not, that would not promote cheap racing. It also removes unsprung rotating mass, therefore it doesnt promote close racing. Well shit, our rule sucks then doesnt it? Here we are trying to promote our intent, and someone has obviously decided that, to them, gaining an advantage on track is more important than saving money and has figured out a way to do it well within the written rule. (or maybe not, maybe they just liked the wheels, or maybe they got a killer deal or even already had them, but the impact to the series was the same) That's ok for that particular driver, but it puts the rest of the gang in a bad spot. So, we can ignore it (yay for the few, boo from the many) or we can try to re-write the rule. We re-wrote it, trying to think again how to balance the competing priorities. In this case we decided close competition had to trump limiting cost. We couldnt find a better way to limit competitive advantage AND maintain freedom of choice, AND contain cost (we dont want everyone on a spec wheel!) We went with instating a weight limit (close competition) and ignoring manufacturing and materials (no limit on cost).

 

4) Rear axle assemblies are almost alarmingly open for us. You can run a stock deal with a good diff. You can also have custom light weight 9" built for you with gun drilled axles and all kinds of exotic stuff on and in it. Why? Well, originally this rule stemmed from our desire to enable a-sedan and AI cars to come race with us without having to spend money on stuff that we, fundamentally, didnt think we needed to worry about. Our stock axles are durable enough for our use, but if you come in having spent $5k or more on a custom bullet proof setup, do we care? Well, yes you can get some more performance by cambering and toeing the thing, but you can do that on a stock housing essentially for free (if you're brave!!! ) so the real advantage might come from less weight, or even from more weight slung low and really far back. Ok, I thought, but its not enough to worry about. I’d rather have the car count. As it turns out we havent seen a whole lot of this, but we've left the rule in. Why havent I gone after it in a rules rewrite session? Well because to me, in this case, freedom of choice trumps cost. If a CMC regular wants to build a bullet proof rear end and in the process relocate some mass towards the rear, even though it'll cost him a pile of money...I say let them. The advantage gained by throwing weight out back can be gained by other perfectly legal means anyway. As far as it being bullet proof? Well, all of the failures I'm familiar with really came down to driver mis-shifts. On standing starts I am limited by traction, not by my fear of grenading the driveline. I am confident that as long as I dont axle hop the car my rear end is not the weak link in the chain. BUT I recognize that my answer might not be everyone's answer, so if someone wants an axle-hop-proof rear end...have at it. Freedom of choice trumps cost.

 

5) A fairly recent change to our rules is allowing almost unrestricted data acquisition. You more recent drivers might be surprised to hear that was not always the case! Once upon a time we had a list of allowed devices; relatively simple and inexpensive boxes. Data acquisition was super expensive at one time! NASA did too, in the CCR, so one year we pulled our rule out and relied on the CCR (simple rules eh? nice job us!). Unfortunately NASA decided to drop the list of approved devices and allow anything that didnt involve telemitry. D'OH! Man, you guys should've seen the emails and heard the phone calls. We argued about it, went back and forth...eventually we decided this was not something we could or should control. We just couldnt build a good business case for eliminating it altogether. Too many new devices were coming out that were really reasonable to be honest. We decided to just match NASA and steer away from telemitry but allow anything else. Simple! Simple rules trumps cost. So now you can go buy a simple timing device for a few hundred bucks, to relatively simple GPS based true performance data acquisition systems, all the way to ridiculously expensive setups that would allow you to plot wheel displacement, velocity and acceleration and compare it to angular and linear vehicle acceleration combined with wheel slippage etc. in order to help you fine tune those $800 Billsteins using your own rebuilding equipment and shock dyno! Why do we allow that? Why havent we figured out a way to stop someone from doing that? Well, first of all since the dust settled after the change no one has submitted this as something we as a governing body should do. Personally I haven’t tried because I think a certain amount of data and analysis could help guys like me improve their lap times. This would promote close competition by easing the learning curve and it would certainly promote my level of fun as I lose less! More importantly I dont think we could successfully manage rules around this if we attempted anything other than all or nothing. I live with the fact that if someone wants to invest the money and time, they will learn things I can never learn and both their driving and their car will be faster than I ever will be. I console myself by telling myself that someone that takes their game to that level has already beaten me anyway and that in the end, for me, racing for tenth is just as exciting as racing for first. I just cant brag as often. Anyway, in this case simple rules trumps limiting cost.

 

It is important to point out that the above are my positions on those examples. Other directors could quickly jump in and state that, to them, the compromise should have gone another way! That’s great, and why there are nine of us. That’s why I don’t worry so much that I know 4th gens a pile more than I know Fords, because on the board are guys like Todd and Matt that know Fords really well, and hopefully they are comfy with not knowing 4th gens as much as I think I do. I personally make more mistakes during all of this than most if not all because I actively get into the argument because I just love to argue. The result of not resisting an argument means I am often wrong. That said, I do go out of my way to surround myself with data, with facts, and run financial models, and poke and prod, play devil’s advocate, think about impact to other areas of the rules etc. Hopefully some of you have seen that aspect of me. What I’m sure more of you have seen is how difficult it can be to get me to support changing a rule. Its not because I don’t like you. Its not because I don’t value your experience/thoughts/perspective. Partly its my natural reaction in order to avoid creep. Partly its because I have to in order to convince myself of how to balance our priorities and in quite a few cases I’ve already had the discussion with someone else at some point. So unless you’re bringing something new to the table, I can see how it appears that I am closed minded. I recognize that now more than ever and I do apologize and will try harder to not be as dismissive. Remind me of that and challenge me when you see me doing it!! Its really just that I think I’ve seen it before in the exact same light and see no reason to change the balance.

 

So what was my point to this giant diatribe? Well, it was an attempt to show you that for me every decision involves balancing competing priorities, as I know it does for everyone involved in the decisions. The negative aspect of this whole compromise business is apparent inconsistency. One could read the rules and easily point out how inconsisnent they are. Really, I know, its surprising to read me saying that right? We dont allow aftermarket distributors, gotta run stock crap, but we allow aftermarket wheels that cost a shitpile! Thats complete bullshit, the guys writing this stuff are bonkers!! Well, I guess we are, we stick with it even when it appears we should hang up our helmet. Hopefully this long read will go a small way towards convincing you that this isnt the case. We're not arbitrarily picking and choosing what goodies we own or like best, and that consistency is more about the process than whether the answer is running a stock part or always allowing the cheapest answer. Speaking of answers, we dont have all of them, and we make just as many mistakes as any other human making a decision, so please do continue to help us help you by getting involved and providing your constructive opinion because we need that, just as always, in order to do what we do: make decisions that compromise our competing priorities in order to maintain a goal, and attempting to balance a very long list of rules and specifications in order to deliver the safest, closest, must fun and exciting yet limited expense racing format we know of.

 

Thanks for reading.

[Tri-Agan]

Well said Al!!

 

I would add one thing. It's important for folks to keep in mind that there are major differences between regions right now. What may be good for TX or the MW, may not be good for the East or CA. As a national class, compromises need to be made with the rules so that all regions can continue to grow like the have the last 6 years. If you look at the evolution of CMC, CA was the first region. As a result, they have more newer body styled cars than any other region. The East coast was the 2nd big region, and like CA, we have an even split between CMC and CMC-2 cars, with more CMC-2 cars coming at each event. TX has a completely different situation and I do understand it because we had the same situation 2 years ago.

 

I think it's important for everyone to know that those of us making decisions behind the scenes are doing the best job we can to make changes that promote growth, while not leaving anyone behind. It's a very difficult task.

 

Thanks Al for taking the time to put that out there.

 

Kent

[mitchntx1548534714]

Thanks Al for taking the time to put that out there.

 

Kent

 

I will second that.

 

While it took a couple hours to compose, in the long run, it was time well spent in not having to deal with drama.

 

Knowing the process helps those of us who are outsiders to get a genuine perspective.

 

Now ... spend a couple hours explaining "intent".

[Glenn]

nice post Al.

[cmc35]

nice post Al.

 

Ditto.

 

-chris

[RichV]

Thans for the post Al. It helps to clear up the foggyness of the post.

[MHISSTC]

Thanks Al.

That does a lot to make things right in my head.

 

(No follow-up comments are allowed from the RM Region )

[Carson]

finally... a peek behind the curtain

 

Iam sure members will be interested in minutes of director's decisions on all rules / policy updates

 

two questions

 

what is the deadline for rules / policy comments ?

( there is a difference between the two )

 

where did this "VETO POWER" come from ?

example of a policy not a rule .....

first I've hear of VETO POWER in a grassroots organization

[GT4Point6]

Nice post Al!

 

I've avoided reading most of the other 14 pages since it was the same thing over and over and over. Felt like the energizer bunny sometimes...

[Lady in Nomex]

I think the thread has drifted off course from what Al was asking for in the first post here:

 

Ok, you know and have read everything going on around CMC-CMC2 merger for 2010, that is a separate issue. 2009 will be transitional in the sense that we will incorporate what we know for 2010 into 2009 CMC2 (for example, power levels coming down to the 260/310, etc). Therefore what we are mostly looking for is thoughts/comments on existing rules we know are staying that can stand to be made more clear.

[ls168camaro]

Very good post Al. Will comment further when I have more time. Is there any way we could get a heads up what rules may or may not be changed?

The reason I ask is for someone, me, who might have the opportunity to purchase a set of 17x9.5 wheels and big brakes but don't want to buy them this week if they won't be legal? Are either of these at risk of being changed or are they set in stone?

[Glenn]

both are on the table.

[Al F.]

Carson, from section 3 of the rule book:

The Chief Director is given the main guiding control and final decision making power for CMC. The NASA Executive Director will maintain oversight of the series as required by the NASA CCR, but the Chief Director shall be the authority for CMC rules interpretation and series direction.

 

You could call Tony Arthur instead, he gets to wield supreme executive power. At least he didnt get it from some watery tart...

 

Bryan, yes, I will make a new post about that so all of you can see what all of your coleagues have submitted so far. 9.5" wheels and four piston calipers are on the table as those have been submitted.

[Glenn]

realize this too guys..... i can submit that i think XXX should be allowed. Al will add it to the list of things for review. it may not have a snowballs chance in hell to get approved, but we will vote on it. some stuff gets submitted every year by the same people and it gets shot down every year.

[Adam Ginsberg]

Take a look at Matt's video again at 7:05. There is NO WAY that wing complys with, "The rear spoiler shall not protrude beyond the overall outline of the body when viewed from above perpendicular to the ground. Excluding endplates, the spoiler shall not be any taller than 11†from the deck of the car. The spoiler must fit securely with minimum modifications to the body and not significantly obstruct the driver's vision."? Did somebody in tech at Nationals forget their rulebook, glasses, plumb-bob and tape measure?

 

I can assure you, the Race Director for Group B at the Nats did not forget how to measure properly.

 

Since you weren't there, it's impossible for you to understand what went on at Mid-Ohio.

[Adam Ginsberg]

dp

Edited October 6, 2008 by Guest

[MHISSTC]

So do you have the benefit of information being an Mid-Ohio Insider, or do I have the benefit of perspective from being a Mid-Ohio Outsider?

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist that one after watching the VP dbates.

[Adam Ginsberg]

So do you have the benefit of information being an Mid-Ohio Insider, or do I have the benefit of perspective from being a Mid-Ohio Outsider?

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist that one after watching the VP dbates.

 

 

Well, I didn't watch the VPOTUS debates.

 

One could say I was a 2008 Nats insider.

[King Matt1548534716]

So does that make you part of the problem or part of the solution? What are your maverick credentials? Do you represent change or the status quo?