Survey

[camaro_1le]

Oh joy, a survey to complete. If who ever sent this survey out is going to use it to develop the 2009 rule set, they really need to learn how to properly conduct a survey. Probably the same methodology that had Dewey winning over Truman.

 

Questions 3, 4 and 10 are useless. Every Mustang owner will vote one way and every GM owner the complete opposite. And the survey has no way to gauge it.

 

The use of the word "hypothetical" is quite scary. You know full well the response chosen will be used to format the rule and probably with the exact "hypothetical" parts listed. Why not be clear on intent, allow CMC2 5.0 engines aftermarket parts to make power levels?

 

Now question 11 is interesting. If I answer "No", will we be permitted to adjust height on all four corners? How about, Ride Height adjustment: front corners, all four corners or none.

 

How many of us have the OEM batteries for our cars. I know I have an aftermarket of nearly the same size and weight that is relocated per the clear cut CMC rules. The wrong answer to this will increase our battery cost by $500.

 

How can I, as a CMC driver know if I want to boost power when the very next question's responses might make it nearly impossible to do so?

 

By my count, 7 of the questions are misleading and/or poorly worded, that is over 50% of the required questions.

 

I have a hunch that this survey did not come from the CMC directors.

[mitchntx1548534714]

I looked at the questions from where I think CMC SHOULD be ... an OEM, showroom stock type class. So, my answers were based upon that view.

 

If giving the Foxes a weight break would keep them from pushing the rules to maintain parity, then so be it. In Texas, the Foxes are competitive, but the 3rd gens are dominant.

 

Motor options ... I chose the option that used the most Ford/GM Factory parts.

 

Battery ... leave it alone. An OEM style battery with the ability to relocate it. My reasoning is simple. I've seen too many of those light-weight, high dollar batteries not have enough juice to spin over and start a hot motor. So if a car spins on track, has one of those batteries and it can't start, it screws up the whole race for every one.

 

Doesn't matter to me who authored the survey. It does matter that there is an appearance that some one out there cares enough about the series AND the competitors to at least ask for input from the end user.

[ron12]

Jim, nice post. Additionally it doesn't appear that they are trying to preserve the initial intent of the class.

[KiMifan]

The questions and choices sure are strange, but I bet it didn't come from the directors because I've never seen them ask for racers to vote on anything.

[cmc35]

I bet it didn't come from the directors because I've never seen them ask for racers to vote on anything.

 

Don't know who you are, don't care. But you are way out of line. I don't know about all of the regions, but the ones with which I am most familiar have directors or coordinators who do their damnedest to get input. Do they all ask folks to vote? Probably not, because what's really important is to get beyond the black-n-white of a simple (and probably irrelevant) question, and dig into the grey. That's how we make rules.

 

But then, maybe you meant your post as a compliment, in which case...never mind.

 

-chris

[ShadowBolt]

I looked at the questions from where I think CMC SHOULD be ... an OEM, showroom stock type class. So, my answers were based upon that view.

 

If giving the Foxes a weight break would keep them from pushing the rules to maintain parity, then so be it. In Texas, the Foxes are competitive, but the 3rd gens are dominant.

 

Motor options ... I chose the option that used the most Ford/GM Factory parts.

 

Battery ... leave it alone. An OEM style battery with the ability to relocate it. My reasoning is simple. I've seen too many of those light-weight, high dollar batteries not have enough juice to spin over and start a hot motor. So if a car spins on track, has one of those batteries and it can't start, it screws up the whole race for every one.

 

Doesn't matter to me who authored the survey. It does matter that there is an appearance that some one out there cares enough about the series AND the competitors to at least ask for input from the end user.

 

 

Looks like I voted like you did Mitch.

 

 

JJ

[GT4Point6]

Ya, some questions left the info out that I felt I needed to answer the question without bias. Why would a 98 mustang built to the limits not be competitive with a LS1 or S197 or be allowed to run 200 lbs less?

 

Lots to be thought about here, track width, wheelbase, torque curve, parts used by the SN95 to be up to and touching the limits as stated in the question and other options that will be avail in 09+ that we are not aware of and there has to be some or there would be no rule changes...

 

I voted for wings but no aftermarket body kits and to keep stock battery relocated for CMC as the rule is currently. Some questions were directed toward CMC and some CMC2 so be careful of your answer based on the class.

[Renntag1548534718]

....

By my count, 7 of the questions are misleading and/or poorly worded, that is over 50% of the required questions.

 

I agree with you. I didnt like the way the survey was worded and didnt cast my vote.

 

 

 

 

I bet it didn't come from the directors because I've never seen them ask for racers to vote on anything.

 

.... Do they all ask folks to vote? Probably not, ...

 

I'm confused already !

[KiMifan]

It wasn't an insult or a compliment, just an observation. In the couple years I lurked here before I registered, I never saw a public request for racers to vote on anything. Seems like a good idea though.

 

Ken

[camaro_1le]

I looked at the questions from where I think CMC SHOULD be ... an OEM, showroom stock type class. So, my answers were based upon that view.

 

Thanks for playing and proving my point. That is your interpretation of the survey and only yours. The survey is so poorly worded and with no stated intent that it allows everyone to interpret it their own way.

 

My interpretation is that the survey is asking that CMC stays the way it is or even regress a little with the removal of wings and body kits. The kicker is my interpretation of CMC2. The way I see it is the elimination of CMC2, moving it almost to AI. More directly to the point, AI is fading fast and is on life support, let's try and revive it by forcing the growing CMC2 class into it. Genius.

 

Another issue I have is that the survey was sent out under the CMC banner and my hunch is that it did not come from the CMC directors. So it is pretty much an anonymous source. You have no idea who they are or why they are asking the questions. At least the disposed dictator of the remote African country identifies himself and his intentions when asking me for my credit card number.

 

From what was posted on this very forum, it appeared the directors has come to agreement. They listened to feedback, took into account the dire uncertainty surrounding us all (economy, jobs, security) and made a wise choice to leave the rules stable. That is such a novel concept, lets leave what is successful alone when everything else is a swirling mess around us.

 

I think somewhere on the main web page, Tony states the desire is to have a series that hearkens back to the old trans-am series. It seems some people are intent on letting history repeat itself.

[AllZWay]

I voted like Mitch... close to stock or with close to stock parts.

 

No wings..no body kits.

[Glenn]

the questionnaire came from two guys who dont believe what the directors are telling them, so they took it to the racers. so far it looks like the racer validated what the directors were telling them. please vote if you havent and you did get one. this is not a "vote for the way you want the rules" but more like a "do the directors really know what the racers want" kinda thng.

[koserv]

I thought the survey should have had a small comment section....so I replied back to the [email protected] address with this....

 

"How hard would it be to merge back into one group with CMC2 levels of HP/TQ but with CMC restrictions on mods? Spec components for the older chassis to make the HP, but leave the areo, brakes, tires, etc to the AI guys. I'd love to run 6 seconds faster, but I'd much rather do it between my ears than with my check book. There are plenty of options to go spend money on these cars (AI, AS, etc), but not many left where you can put in a cage and tires and go race (that's simplified, I know, but you get the point). Two groups work for CA and the east coast, but here in the MW, because of car counts, we really don't have that option. My fear is over the next few seasons, CMC2 will adopt many of the rules that allow more areo, aftermarket brakes, upgraded suspension, etc, and those rules will define the merged class. By all means, let's move to a 20xx base line and merge back into a single group, but let's not loose the spirit that makes CMC work for guys like me."

 

Probably barking at the moon and, while it might not be the consensus view, it may not be far off (Or is it? I'd love to see a "mission statement" post covering where we're headed over the next few seasons). Did anyone else shoot back to the survey address?

[KiMifan]

I like some of those ideas. I've thouht CMC would be a great class if it allowed a couple more mods like about 250hp, 17s, stock 13 inch brakes but otherwise keep the cars like they are now. I've been on the fence hoping that was going to happen in 2009.

[Glenn]

I like some of those ideas. I've thouht CMC would be a great class if it allowed a couple more mods like about 250hp, 17s, stock 13 inch brakes but otherwise keep the cars like they are now. I've been on the fence hoping that was going to happen in 2009.

 

do you currently have a car and what region are you in?

[KiMifan]

Got a 94 Mustang I've been HPDEing. I live in Atlanta and have been to some Southeast region events. Not too many CMC cars here so I haven't bit the bullet yet.

[snakebit]

Got a 94 Mustang I've been HPDEing. I live in Atlanta and have been to some Southeast region events. Not too many CMC cars here so I haven't bit the bullet yet.

 

Yep, not a lot of CMC cars in the SE. I hope to have mine together over the winter, if the economy allows. There are quite a few pony cars in HPDE here though, that's a good sign for growth, I'm hoping.

 

John

[Rustang72]

The survey questions are too generic in some cases and way to specific in others. Not enough questions have "unsure" as an option and they all need "none of the above" as an answer.

 

1 What size wings? Located where? Are spoilers wings? Does this include splitters?

 

2 Does aftermarket mean superlight Odyssey and Braile batteries, or roughly OEM size/weight Optimas?

 

3 I don't know what the current weight difference is (50lb?), but it seems to be fair now.

 

4 Even though I drive one of those horribly underpowered 5.0L Foxes, I'd say no to headers to get 230hp for CMC, but yes for 260hp in CMC2.

 

5 This is a low cost series. Do we get to make our own equivalents instead of having to hunt down rare and high priced fiberglass pieces that will crack easily?

 

6 Where is the option for, it depends on how badly the rules get screwed up. If I can flare my fenders, use 17" wheels and everything else stays the same for CMC, I'll stay in CMC.

 

7 260/310 It's doable without major mods. It doesn't mean people who have built motors wasted their time/money. It's close enough to CMC that drivers who want to move up can do so without spending a ton of money.

 

8 Ford or equivalent parts. (Personally, I think we should be allowed anything as long as we don't go over the limits, but I understand why people want to restrict parts. If parts are restricted, it should be factory or equivalent.)

 

9 See #8 but substitute GM or equivalent parts.

 

10 Weight differences should be determined through testing, not our guesses of performance. I think the 98 would be faster with an equal driver if tires/suspension mods/power were equal.

 

11+12 Couldn't they just write one clear question... should ride height be adjustable for: all 4 wheels, just front, none, or don't know. My opinion, either allow 4 corner ride height for CMC and CMC2 or don't allow any ride height adjustments.

 

13 Umm...

[Keith]

While I understand some people not liking the wording of some of the questions, I have to say that I am encouraged by the fact that the survey exists.

 

Thanks for the effort, guys. This is moving in the correct direction.

[Rustang72]

While I understand some people not liking the wording of some of the questions, I have to say that I am encouraged by the fact that the survey exists.

 

Thanks for the effort, guys. This is moving in the correct direction.

NASA National overriding our series directors is the right direction?

[mitchntx1548534714]

While I understand some people not liking the wording of some of the questions, I have to say that I am encouraged by the fact that the survey exists.

 

Thanks for the effort, guys. This is moving in the correct direction.

NASA National overriding our series directors is the right direction?

 

I don't see it as over-riding. I see it as clarification and feeling the pulse.

 

If in fact it was Lindsey and Flahrety (sp?) who sent the survey out, I'm kind of like Keith ... it's good to know that they at least acknowledge that they might not have all the answers and are wanting this series run by the competitors and not an in-bred clique of old-timers.

 

I too sent info@ a note explaining what I think the series should be about. I encourage more of you to do the same.

 

If you don't like the questions, tell them. Posting here is preaching to the choir.

[mitchntx1548534714]

 

10 Weight differences should be determined through testing, not our guesses of performance. I think the 98 would be faster with an equal driver if tires/suspension mods/power were equal.

 

I viewed this as a line drawn in the sand. You have to start some where. If the line is arbitrary, then do a little research and submit your own line, with the proper foundations of course.

 

It appears that this series is at a major cross roads. It's time for us (the competitors) to be vocal, but be extremely fair. Now is not the time to include platform bias or personal differences to invade rational thought.

 

We (the competitors) can either make this series continue to thrive or drive it into the ground.

 

It's time to grow up.

[Pat Stone1548534713]

Where is this survey you're all talking about? I don't see it here on the forum. The second one is I see a lot of people weighing in with their opinions about how this group should be run, but don't recognize them as racers in our series, how many of these people are actually racing in CMC, and how many are "thinking about it" and trying to affect the rules when they are not even participating? Maybe people should sign their name, instead of code, so we know who is who.This has always been a great race group, and I'm sure everyone wants what is best for growth in the future, but I think the input should come from the people who are racing every weekend and not non-participants. Just my two cents.

 

Pat

[koserv]

My "vote" here, a note to info@, and anywhere else that will tolerate my nickels worth:

 

Merge the series. Modernize the baseline (265/310ish, 13" rotors and associated "stock" wheels and brakes), allow the older platforms spec upgrades to make the "chart", and leave the areo/4-pin/fender flair fancy stuff to AI. And then leave well enough alone until the 5th gens starts showing up at the track.

 

Kent Owens

CMC Midwest #30 2nd place cause Bryan kicked my A in the last race and Bob had a baby (well, his wife did) and missed half the season, and Matt was building a car until, like, August for crying out loud, and every time Robin rented out his CMC car they had some bad luck and Dave bought that truck thingy and Sydney was still hammering in AI and 2nd place felt pretty damn good and oh man, I can't wait till next year....

[FBody383]

Where is this survey you're all talking about?

 

+1