Jump to content
Al F.

What is on the table so far for '09

Recommended Posts

Al F.

I dont want to keep poking the hornet's nest, but I do want opinions. I believe your best bet to participate is by discussing the ones you have energy around with your local director. He's your rep! Always feel free to call/email me with your comments as well. I cant post a file here so this is a list of all rules someone has submitted a request on. PLEASE keep in mind some of these would only impact CMC2 for 2009 if they were to be manipulated. Not on this list but obviously being worked are: 1) any of the engine package changes being played with in order to get current CMC cars to proposed CMC2 targets and 2) revised CMC2 weight/power table. and 3) inclusion of all cars into CMC2 for '09 as "test mule" (ie with mods that arent in the book but are being tested)

 

Rule Number Suggestion

2 Reword all of section 2

6.9 Add that fuel displacement blocks are not allowed for either fuel cells or for stock tanks

7.4 Reword last sentence, not relevant to this section.

8.16 Compression, from the tech bulletin

8.26 Allow exhaust manifolds to be wrapped/insulated

8.3 Don’t allow of 4v Ford aluminum blocks with 2v heads

8.8 get rid of ballast # limit and location restriction.

8.13.1 Edit to read "in OEM stock configuration unless otherwise stated in these rules...", per the tech bulletin

8.13.2 allow solid motor mounts

8.18.1 Delete "If no oil pressure accumulator system is employed, eligible cars may use an aftermarket oil pan as specified in this section." from rule, from the tech bulletin

8.2.3 Either let CCR specify numbers/letters or make requirements equal to CCR

8.25.4 Allow computer tuning

8.34.1 Edit to state wheels may be of any construction, per the tech bulletin

8.34.2 Limit 17" wheels to 9" width

8.34.3 Edit to state 275s are allowed in cmc-2, per the tech bulletin

8.34.3 Limit tire size to 255

8.35.5 Allow blower motors on brake ducts

8.35.9 Ditch 4 piston calipers

8.36.12 clarify what this means seeing as how stock columns must be used

8.5.2 Clean this up since some OEM bumper covers (Cobra R) clearly create splitter effect and is therefore confusing. Also, the rule states "no horizontal sections" but (to the requestor) this doesn’t mean it cant extend downward at an angle and therefore have a component of the cross section that is horizontal, therefore creating downforce. This also suffers from the same problem with interpretation of the text as the rear wing, leading you to want to extend your air dam to the widest part of the body (the mirrors presumably)

8.5.4 Limit wings to only those that came in allowed models or at least rewrite rule to not allow the wing to extend beyond the car where the wing is (ie, plumb bob dropped from the end plate ends must touch the body)

8.5.5 Edit to state radiator air deflectors may be extended but shall not be lower than 2" measured vertically from the ground, per the tech bulletin

8.9.11 Allow hood gutting

8.9.2 allow aftermarket/custom steering columns

none limit fuel to pump 94 octane, no additives

none track width for Foxes/ fender mods to enable new tire sizes to fit

none allow blower motors/ducts for windshield defogging

8.6.1 allow subframe connectors to cross (H bracing, X bracing)

8.6.1 If the above don’t float, clean up the rule to ensure clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bsim

Is this a voting booth? Mebbe you should lock it, and just update the "things on the table" portion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al F.

Good point Brad. No, this isnt a voting booth per se. People are free to post their opinion, just like they could start a new thread on any topic.

 

That said, if you email me your vote I will keep a tally for shits and giggles. As Mitch said, we have no definition of who is allowed to vote, so the only votes that count are the folks on the last page of the book. I dont care to use the polling function because someone will figure out how to vote more than once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn

anyone see any isues w/ allowing solid motor mounts?

for me they are the same price as poly's and way cheeper that OEM stock form the dealer or the parts stores. add to the trend i'm seeing where i'm having to replace mine every two years (i need to order my 3rd set for the off season), i see solids as a cost reduction. i do not see a performance increase from these, so i dont see lap times dropping.

any platform at a disadvantage to not being to get these? i know the Fox, 4th gen and 3rd gen F-cars are covered. anyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bsim

I don't want 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nape1548534725

I'm not pushing for any rules in CMC, but if you make changes, consider these comments.

 

-------------

 

6.9 - don't limit it to "fuel displacement blocks". If you want the rule to prohibit altering the capacity of the fuel tank/cell, write that "No method may be used to alter the capacity of the fuel tank or cell." I'd be looking for a way to skirt the rule with a creative way such as a basketball or volleyball a la NASCAR.

 

8.5.2 - Re-word to state that air dams may not extend past the front plane of the nose by 1/2" (to allow air dams to be fixed to the face of the fascia) and that no component added to the nose of the car can be X degrees (use 10* as an example) from vertical.

 

8.5.4 - Limiting wings to only those that came on allowed models shows brand and generation bias.

 

8.5.5 - Radiator air deflectors leaves a lot of rules interpretation open. If I can put the RAD (sweet) 2" from the ground and my air dam at only 4", my RAD just extended to the entire width of the car. As long as it is in the vertical plane of the front of the core support where RADs usually are, it just needs a big one. It still keeps air out from under the car and skirts the air dam rule.

 

8.8 - getting rid of ballast weight limit and location strongly favors Fords in my opinion, with Fox Mustangs being the the prime beneficiaries. All comments IMHO.

 

8.9.2 - see 8.36.12

 

8.9.11 - Specify hood gutting to only be the metal structure underneath the body surface of the hood. Otherwise, my hood becomes a swiss cheese of metal with fiberglass patches.

 

8.26 - if you allow them to be "wrapped/insulated". I prefer to insulate my manifolds with ceramic coating.

 

8.34.2 - don't limit wheels to 17 x 9. You just alienated half your GM field. 17 x 9.5 is a common GM wheel size. Besides, most common GM aftermarket 17 x 9.5 wheels are heavier (23-25lbs) then the 17 x 9 wheels (21-22lbs commonly). GM 17 x 9.5 OEM Corvette Z06 front wheels are 19lbs, but choose your weight wisely before you piss off the people that have already bought them if you choose a minimum weight.

 

8.36.12 - clarify that the OEM steering column must be used to steer the car, but that steering shaft components inside the engine bay are open. If you want to run a "race" steering column, run AI. Stock steering columns are a big plus to class perception as far as ease of entry by the average Joe.

 

If you don't want rules open to interpretation, write them that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HMark

8.36.12 clarify what this means seeing as how stock columns must be used

 

I would like this to read that the stock steering column housing must be used, but that the shaft inside can be modified/replaced. This is mainly to get away from the plastic U-Joint in the modern Ford tilt columns. There is no non-tilt option.

 

PLEASE! - I already made mine non-tilt...

 

-Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TurboShortBus

I have a few (possibly worthless) comments here. Keep in mind that I am only a lowly schmuck in HPDE-3 who is building his 2004 Mustang with an eye on moving up to the CMC class (although there are no CMC cars in Florida; maybe I can start something), although I aspire to make a stop in the Time Trial class sometime in 2009 before moving up to CMC W2W action; all of this probably means that my opinions here are worth slightly less than AIG stock, but that's fine with me. Also keep in mind that I really only know 1979-2004 Mustangs, so my comments may be unintentionally biased against the F-bodies and S197 Mustangs, but only because I'm not nearly as familiar with them.

 

First, let me say that I realize that none of these parts are REQUIRED, as this is not a spec class like FFC. Nobody is making you buy $2500 calipers, and nothing says that they will make you a better driver, although they really can't hurt.

 

1. 4.6L 4V aluminum blocks with 2V heads - Ah, I don't see the need for this right now, since it is starting to get away from the "U-Pull-It" philosophy of just running stock engines. However, when the classes merge in a couple of years, I can see this as a viable option, since 4V cars will already have aluminum blocks and the 2V cars will already need some work to get to 260 rwhp; if you're going to build a new engine, you might as well start with an aluminum block (junkyard specials).

 

2. Solid engine mounts - Why not? I picked up some pretty cheap ones for a 302 on eBay in the past, and it's not like they ever wear out. Poly mounts are pretty expensive by comparison, and stock replacement rubber ones don't hold up. I once made solid mounts by taking a worn set of stock mounts and welding scrap metal between the upper and lower halves...done. Not much of a performance advantage here.

 

3. Computer tuning - Sure, go for it. 20+ years after the EEC-IV computers came out, it's relatively easy and cheap to fiddle around, as long as you are required to keep the stock ECU. For some of us with EEC-V cars, we need to get into the ECU to shut off the anti-theft, EGR, rear O2 sensors, etc. While none of those are a performance advantage, they are technically illegal. To keep things fair, feel free to jet your carbs however you see fit. As long as you don't go off the HP/TQ chart, I don't see a problem.

 

4. Wheel width - The limit will be 17x9.5, and from what I've read, 17x9.5 wheels are common on F-bodies. Unfortunately, that size never came on 79-04 Mustangs, and the closest size was 17x9 on the 2003/04 Cobras and the 1995 Cobra R (you could always buy new aftermarket wheels, though). Note that used OEM 17x8 5-lug Mustang wheels are a dime a dozen on Craigslist, but a 275/40-17 won't fit on them properly; even a 255/40-17 won't quite fit properly, although I've done it before. A 245/45-17 was the standard tire for 17x8 wheels, but now the F-body guys would be stuck looking for narrower-than-common wheels, and that's no fun. I have no suggestion for this.

 

5. 4-piston calipers - IMHO, we're getting away from the low-buck aspect of this class, which is what attracted me to it. There's something to be said about making the most of OEM parts without spending a ton of money at the same time. Sure, high-buck brake pads on stock calipers might cost more in the long run than cheaper pads on aftermarket high-buck calipers, but what if you only run a couple of races per year, and you want to feel like you're competitive when you're there? That driver is better off with cheapo calipers and more pricey pads, since s/he will only go through 1 set of pads per season with a much lower initial overall cost.

 

6. Bumper covers/splitters/whatever - These just make it harder for me to get the car on and off the trailer. I say that we stick to stock dimensions.

 

7. Big wings - Hideous, IMHO. Ditch the aero and learn to drive! This also applies to #6 above.

 

I have been a drag racer since 1990, and I always participated in FFW and NMRA events when they came to Florida and the southeast. Whenever a new class was developed, it usually looked like a great opportunity for "regular guy" racers to get on board, until the rulebook was continuously revised year after year to allow racier and racier parts, up until the point where only 110% dedicated race cars in enclosed haulers had a snowball's chance in hell of being competitive (NMRA was the worst offender; see the Real Street or Pure Street classes). Part of NMRA's problem was their Race Pages magazine, which was full of ads for the sponsors whose parts were made legal for all of the classes (not very low-buck or grassroots; slight conflict of interests here). But, with the rules running away like that, the guys who were making the most of affordable parts didn't have a chance (like my friends and me), so we went off to play elsewhere while the fast guys continued their spending contest.

 

This CMC class looks like a cool setup (that's why I'm here), and I hope that it stays appealing to me as my wheel skills improve. AI is too spendy for me, and I like a little more creativity than the spec classes allow. The thought of making the most out of stock or commonly available (yet reasonably affordable) parts and having the drivers let it all hang out just seems like a good time to me.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GT4Point6
1. 4.6L 4V aluminum blocks with 2V heads - Ah, I don't see the need for this right now, since it is starting to get away from the "U-Pull-It" philosophy of just running stock engines. However, when the classes merge in a couple of years, I can see this as a viable option, since 4V cars will already have aluminum blocks and the 2V cars will already need some work to get to 260 rwhp; if you're going to build a new engine, you might as well start with an aluminum block (junkyard specials).

 

I slightly disagree. All the alum block does is get the 2V closer in weight to the 5.0, still heavier though as the weights were posted a while back when that discussion was in play. No other advantage. Main reason is that if you can run a lighter 5.0 in a 99-04 that was never built that way from Ford, why not allow those with a 2V to lighten the nose? Neither option was built by Ford but only allowing the 5.0 transplant for now isn't really fair to the 4.6 crowd in reference to weights.

 

This really stems from Ford calling all 94-04 cars SN95. The 94-98 had 5.9 nad 4.6 engines, the 99-04 only the 4.6. A few other differences to say the least between those years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CMC#11
1. 4.6L 4V aluminum blocks with 2V heads - Ah, I don't see the need for this right now, since it is starting to get away from the "U-Pull-It" philosophy of just running stock engines. However, when the classes merge in a couple of years, I can see this as a viable option, since 4V cars will already have aluminum blocks and the 2V cars will already need some work to get to 260 rwhp; if you're going to build a new engine, you might as well start with an aluminum block (junkyard specials).

 

I slightly disagree. All the alum block does is get the 2V closer in weight to the 5.0, still heavier though as the weights were posted a while back when that discussion was in play. No other advantage. Main reason is that if you can run a lighter 5.0 in a 99-04 that was never built that way from Ford, why not allow those with a 2V to lighten the nose? Neither option was built by Ford but only allowing the 5.0 transplant for now isn't really fair to the 4.6 crowd in reference to weights.

 

This really stems from Ford calling all 94-04 cars SN95. The 94-98 had 5.9 nad 4.6 engines, the 99-04 only the 4.6. A few other differences to say the least between those years.

I think that the idea of running a 5.0L in a 96-04 Mustang is completely outside the intent of CMC. Also the idea of running a 4.6L in a Fox seems completely rediculous.

I don't see how the intent of CMC is to swap motors, transmissions, wiring harnesses, and instrument cluster into a vehicle which it never came in. I don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn

regardless of what motor is in what chassis, the car will follow the weight charts of the engine. i can put an LS1 in a 93 chassis, but i'll still have to follow the LS1 weight charts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al F.
I don't see how the intent of CMC is to swap motors, transmissions, wiring harnesses, and instrument cluster into a vehicle which it never came in. I don't understand.

 

Michael...is it any more complex to swap a 5.0 into a 99sn95 than it is to swap in an iron block 2V 4.6/5spd into a 99 that was a v6 auto? The later has never been deemed to be outrageous. A hassle sure...but many of our cars were built from dirt cheap high mile v6 cars. They're both essentially bolt in jobs once you've assembled all the parts and tools and built up enough patience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CMC#11
I don't see how the intent of CMC is to swap motors, transmissions, wiring harnesses, and instrument cluster into a vehicle which it never came in. I don't understand.

 

Michael...is it any more complex to swap a 5.0 into a 99sn95 than it is to swap in an iron block 2V 4.6/5spd into a 99 that was a v6 auto?

Very true, I don't really have a comeback for that, I'm sticking with "intent"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FBody383
I don't see how the intent of CMC is to swap motors, transmissions, wiring harnesses, and instrument cluster into a vehicle which it never came in. I don't understand.

 

...is it any more complex to swap... The later has never been deemed to be outrageous. They're both essentially bolt in jobs once you've assembled all the parts and tools and built up enough patience.

 

I don't think complexity is the issue; complex can just be gutting a factory wiring harness. I had to hang pedals in mine but at isn't the point that it was a factory option?

 

I'm open to the realization that we might end up there in the single class future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al F.

I dont think it being a factory option is a goal. It is a strategy which works well very often. It is can be and is often trumped by other factors like helping the racing be safe, cheap, competitive, and fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GT4Point6
I don't see how the intent of CMC is to swap motors, transmissions, wiring harnesses, and instrument cluster into a vehicle which it never came in. I don't understand.

 

Kind of what I said that the first Nats in 06 when a 99+ rolled in with a 5.0 and was legal since Ford never changed the SN95 designation from 94-04.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
j dawes

...so back to a question i raised earlier which is why not a 5.0 in an S197? it's no advantage; in fact it's a DISADVANTAGE performance-wise...but much cheaper than running the OEM 3V motor. i could get a wrecked V6 model, put a 5.0 in it, and have a 'relatively' inexpensive CMC2/2011 CMC car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Den341548534727

.....and the same goes for the fourth gen cars, tons of v6 manual trans cars out there for very cheap that could easily be retrofitted with a carbed V8. Sorry ..I know, I am just clouding the issue with facts!!! I will shut up now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al F.

Putting a 5.0 into an S197 is not exactly a bolt in deal, and that is why it isnt allowed; only those with either a lot of money or pretty damn good fabrication capabilities are going to succeed. Plus, once you enable people to mount motors and transmissions however they see fit you lose control over a very important weight balance factor. I'm sure plenty of guys would go at it just to be able to move the motor back a pinch. All of the other swaps are bolt in jobs using factory parts with the engine and trans in the same spot.

 

Dropping a V8 into a V6 car IS allowed, always has been. Same with putting a manual into an auto car. The hardest part is finding all the right parts: pedal assemblies etc. But, they are all readily available factory parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rustang72
none track width for Foxes/ fender mods to enable new tire sizes to fit
Was this approved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al F.

Uhh....nothing is official until the rules are released, and they are still being discussed w/NASA National. There are no fender changes on the table for CMC cars, only CMC2 Fox cars. The proposed draft right now includes CMC2 foxes getting provisions in order to enable running the wider tires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CMC#11
Uhh....nothing is official until the rules are released, and they are still being discussed w/NASA National. There are no fender changes on the table for CMC cars, only CMC2 Fox cars. The proposed draft right now includes CMC2 foxes getting provisions in order to enable running the wider tires.

I think this needs to be addressed. Even CMC Fox's have problems with clearance, not just CMC2.

This has been said for a long time now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBolt
Uhh....nothing is official until the rules are released, and they are still being discussed w/NASA National. There are no fender changes on the table for CMC cars, only CMC2 Fox cars. The proposed draft right now includes CMC2 foxes getting provisions in order to enable running the wider tires.

 

 

Al,

 

This sounds like the CMC Fox cars are not going to get a weight reduction or track width change? What happened to Tony posting about how all us Fox drivers were going to be happy with the changes that were on the way? This is not what we were expecting.

 

JJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rustang72
Uhh....nothing is official until the rules are released, and they are still being discussed w/NASA National. There are no fender changes on the table for CMC cars, only CMC2 Fox cars. The proposed draft right now includes CMC2 foxes getting provisions in order to enable running the wider tires.

I think this needs to be addressed. Even CMC Fox's have problems with clearance, not just CMC2.

This has been said for a long time now.

Due to the previous owners including SN95 wheels with my Fox, I can only fit 245/45-16 tires. The only options for factory wheels that fit are Fox wheels and 2005+ wheels. Fox wheels are 4-lug and legal 2005+ wheels are only 17x8. If you just set a track width or maximum amount for flaring the fenders, people like me could use 255/50-16 like everybody else. We would not have to backdate to 4-lug (inferior brakes), move up to 17" (too narrow), or buy aftermarket wheels. Isn't one of the goals of the series to be fair and low cost?

 

If I had known we were going to be screwed on this expected rule change, I would have had the car bumped up to CMC2 power when I paid to have it tuned and dynoed last week. More money down the drain since you guys can't make up your minds on rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KiMifan

If you are running any of the stock Ford 16x7.5 inch wheels, you're probably better off with the 245s anyway. To run the 255 you should really use a 16x8 wheel, which Ford never made, so then you need aftermarket wheels anyway. Does your car have SN95 A-arms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...