2010 Rules are posted!!

[Al F.]

The 2010 CMC rules are posted in our rules section and will be on the national site shortly!!! Thanks to everyone that submitted their thoughts and to our directors for taking the time to discuss and decide how to go on each. I wanted to take a little time to explain the reasons for the changes, as well as some logic around the things that were submitted but that we didn’t accept into the rules. So, in order of appearance in the rules:

- We established all directors as equals other than the Chief National position. It just makes more sense this way, since all regions have a right to be represented in the decision process. We’ll still volunteer folks to help at the track, but our intent is to have a director in every region.

- We moved the penalty text from the driver’s infraction section down to the points section. This will reduce confusion around what constitutes a zero drop DQ.

- The dyno certification section got a little bit of cleanup, but no fundamental change in purpose.

- We added an option for running a diagonal across the roof in T-top and convertible cars instead of a straight bar down the center. This should be easier to retrofit and actually makes the whole structure stronger.

- We are allowing CMC2 3rd gens to run an LT1. This is not “instead of†resolving the TPI issue, as we are still going strong with that testing, rather it is another option which might make a lot more sense for some folks.

- We are increasing the minimum weight of 99-04 Fords that opt for an aluminum block or a 302. These engine choices result in much less engine mass, resulting in a balance advantage. This same logic was applied to the LS1 cars, so it makes sense to be consistent.

- We’re adding a class designator on the front and rear glass to help people identify the class and reduce out of class racing.

- We’ve modified the chassis brace rule to close a loophole that could result in what amounts to a true “through the firewall†cage. This is a cost reduction measure to keep folks from feeling the need to spend incremental money on chassis stiffness.

- We’re allowing C6 PBR calipers where C5s were allowed since for some reason these are cheaper.

- Of course we incorporated the items that were in the tech bulletin around CMC2.

[Al F.]

There were about 30 or so suggestions that came in, so you can see most were not approved. Many suggestions came in that were mostly performance oriented or would otherwise cause many guys to spend money to maintain performance. As I’ve said many times, anything that looks only to improve the car’s performance is going to be a very hard sell since it really only increases the cost of competition. These included:

- Allowing aftermarket sway bar end links

- Allowing any intake manifold for carbed cars

- Lowering minimum weight for wheels

- Allowing 18†wheels in CMC2

- Allowing slotted rotors

- Allowing aftermarket upper 3rd link for S197s

 

There were requests to eliminate the weight disadvantage for the LS1 and S197 cars, but we simply cannot do that without more rigorous evaluation that doing so is appropriate. Scanning power curves is not enough any more now that we can measure much more quantifiable data.

 

A request was made to enable ABS. This is simply not feasible for CMC since so many cars did not ever have it. We are not convinced that one would make up the cost of a new ABS system by not flat spotting tires. Besides, we’re here to drive and that includes brake modulation!

 

Of course a suggestion was made again to not allow wings in CMC2. 2/3ds of the directors did not support this, so it appears wings are here to stay in CMC2.

 

The idea of carbs in 4th gens was submitted again, and again it didn’t receive much support. The reality is a carb in a 4th gen is not exactly bolt in, and we just don’t see sufficient numbers of guys wanting to run this to warrant the increased potential parity issues.

 

A rather interesting proposal was to allow light weight batteries. From a safety perspective this is a good idea since it is less mass to control in an impact. In the end it was turned down since it would just result in many of us going out to spend money and achieve nothing in the end since everyone would run a light weight battery. Good mounting can easily mitigate the safety concern.

 

Another interesting suggestion was to increase the allowable rear camber, or the tolerance around that measurement since modifying the rear axle is not an exact operation. Understand that the reason the 0.6 number is there today is not because that is a safe number to bend the tubes to, rather that is the factory specification in the GM manual for a few years and we never wanted anyone to be illegal with a stock rear end. Fundamentally, we are not encouraging tweaking rear ends and we are certainly not going to make it such that the concept is more attractive than it already may be. If I had my preference this number would be lower still to make it absolutely unattractive. Yes its an inexact operation. If you choose to do it, you’re on your own as to the results!

 

A suggestion to allow 3rd gen cars to run 4th gen fuel tanks was turned down on the premise that replacement tanks are equal in cost and not exactly a regular maintenance item.

 

There were a couple of suggestions around enabling CMC cars to run CMC2 parts, mostly from the perspective of being able to switch back and forth between the classes. While I understand this from the perspective of a young region with a handful of cars, this just doesn’t make sense from a national point of view. We simply cannot make all of the guys in the country wanting to stay in CMC to have to deal with the potential performance difference of cars with 17†wheels, different torque curves, etc. Long term we should be trying very hard to get everyone into one class because bigger fields are more fun, they’ll attract more drivers and sponsors, and it’ll enable us to get more from NASA.

 

Lastly, there was a request to consider allowing 3rd gen rear sway bars on 4th gens to help the 4th gen handle as well as the 3rd gen. This has been deferred since we do plan on taking a serious look at the real handling capabilities of some of the platforms but we dont have enough evidence to act on this just now.

 

Well, that’s about it. If I missed commenting on something you submitted, please let me know I goofed and I’ll comment on it.

[HMark]

So a 1999-2004 ford with a 302 is 3150 in CMC and 3250 in CMC2? WTF is with that?

 

-Don

[Al F.]

LOL damn it, good catch Don...we only put the text in table 2 but table 1 needs it as well. I'll clean up the table descriptions and repost. Sorry

[KiMifan]

Why is there a weight difference between a 302 in a 94-98 Mustang and a 302 in a 99-04 chassis?

[cmc35]

Why is there a weight difference between a 302 in a 94-98 Mustang and a 302 in a 99-04 chassis?

 

See bullet #6 in Al's first (top) post.

 

-chris

[HMark]

LOL damn it, good catch Don...we only put the text in table 2 but table 1 needs it as well. I'll clean up the table descriptions and repost. Sorry

 

That's complete crap. A 1999 and up mustang with a 302 is as fast as an LS1 Camero? What crack were you guys smoking? I can see the car losing the 50lb weight break for Fords, but 100 lbs additional? I would like to see the data supporting that radical of a change.

 

-Don

[KiMifan]

Why is there a weight difference between a 302 in a 94-98 Mustang and a 302 in a 99-04 chassis?

 

See bullet #6 in Al's first (top) post.

 

-chris

I read it and gained no insight into the reasoning behind the change, hence my question. There is no substantive difference between the 94-98 and 99-04 chassis other than a slightly wider rear track width on the 99s, so I am wondering why there would be a 100-pound penalty to put the iron block 302 in the later car. I could understand if it only applied to swapping an aluminum block mod motor.

[HMark]

If the logic was applied the same, a 1999 & up would receive the 50lb Ford chassis weigh break, and then add 50 lb for a lighter engine. That would be a 3200lb Mustang. THAT would be a fair application of the same logic.

 

-Don

[FBody383]

Redline version against the '09 ruleset?

[ShadowBolt]

Guess I will sell the aluminum engine I bought with the car from Tony. No reason to have it now. Since I'm heavy and my car is also I have no problem with the rule. How about we all just weigh 3300 lbs. LOL

 

 

JJ

[Burnett]

LOL damn it, good catch Don...we only put the text in table 2 but table 1 needs it as well. I'll clean up the table descriptions and repost. Sorry

 

Al, not so fast now. I've read it over and over and dont get it. A 94-04 are vertualy the same car. Yes the sheet metal changed but nothing else did. If the issue is the Aluminum block which only came in the cobra, read that as DOHC 4.6 (which is only eligable for CMC2) why would you make any chang to "Table 1"?

 

In "Table 2" I don't understand the logic of spliting the 99-04 out of the full set of 94-04 Mustangs. If the issue is the Aluminum block don't penalize the iron 302 just because it is in a newer body. It's already legal with no weight penalty in the older cars, 94-98.

 

Please help me understand, what am I missing?

[TxCMC22]

wow... this is gunna get get good!

[RichV]

So a 99-present Mustang is legal with a pushrod 302? Good to know...

[Al F.]

The 302 has been an accepted package in a 99+ car for a long time. I made a mistake in typing the decision into the table and no one caught it. Then in my rush to answer Don I forgot that the aluminum block isnt legal in cmc1! lol

 

We're not adding 100lbs we're adding 50lbs. More accurately, we're not giving the aluminum or 302 powere 99+ cars the same 50lbs weight break that the cast iron cars get.

 

The reason why is those combinations have created mustangs with a measureable advantage over the other mustangs. The aluminum block sheds 85 odd pounds from the nose (and the 302 is not that far behind) relative to the cast iron 2V. In the GM world, its a similar story with the LS1 and LT1 cars and in that situation the LS1 cars were handed a weight penalty. All we're doing is applying the same logic to the mustang side. I just fubared the translation onto the table.

[larry klamecki]

What is the data base for weight penalizing the GM LS1 and the Mustang 4.6 L 3v?

 

More particularly, what information is available to justify the conclusion that an LS1 Camaro/Firebird and a 4.6 3 valve Mustang are equal enough in performance to impose equal weights on those chassis/engine combos.?

 

Finally, what data is now available which substantiates any weight penalties at all?

 

I hope these decisions weren't made based on pure speculation.

 

Anyone have any information to offer?

[GT4Point6]

Nothing in this CMC2 engine section addresses the use of the aluminum block in a 2V motor but there is a weight break for a 2v iron block,

 

Can a 2V in CMC2 run a aluminum block? I read it as a no, if that's the case, the 4V motor should also get the weight break like the 2V iron motor since it's a very heavy motor as well. Block is lighter but the 4V heads are MONSTERS.

 

Please clarify...

 

8.5 Engine

8.5.1 Any 4.6 Ford, 5.0,(302 Ford or 305 GM), 5.7 liter GM V8 production engine, in OEM stock configuration unless otherwise stated in these rules, that was originally offered in an eligible model car is legal. Cobra R model engines (Ford) and LT4 (GM/Chevrolet) engines or engine components are prohibited. Additionally, early GM cars may run an LT-1 from the 93-97 Late GM cars as long as the stock LT-1 engine controlling electronics are maintained.

8.5.2 Early GM 305 cars may use 1.6 ratio individual stud mounted roller rocker arms.

8.5.3 Ford 5.0 cars may use Explorer/Mountaineer GT40P heads and intake manifolds.

8.5.4 Ford 5.0 cars may use Ford Racing E303 camshafts.

8.5.5 All of the following unmodified aftermarket components (and only these components) may be substituted on a CMC2 legal Ford 5.0 liter (302ci) V8 long block to create a carbed, spec CMC2 Ford engine:

1. Holley carburetor 600cfm-4bbl #4776

2. Edelbrock Performer RPM intake manifold #7121 or #7521

3. Ford Racing B303 camshaft

4. Ford OEM distributor (non-computer controlled)

8.5.6 All of the following unmodified aftermarket components (and only these components) may be substituted on a CMC2 legal GMV8 long block to create a carbed, spec CMC2 GM engine:

5.0 liter (305ci)

1. Holley carburetor 600cfm-4bbl #4776

2. Edelbrock Performer intake manifold #2116

3. Comp Cams camshaft #12-238-2

4. GM L31 heads #12558060

5. GM OEM H.E.I. distributor (non-computer controlled)

5.7 liter (350ci)

6. Holley carburetor 600cfm-4bbl #4776

7. Edelbrock Performer intake manifold #2116

8. GM Camshaft #24502476

9. GM L31 heads #12558060

10. GM OEM H.E.I. distributor (non-computer controlled)

8.5.7 1998 - 2002 GM 5.7 LS1 cars may use Canton P/N 13-270A oil pans

8.5.8 Early GM 305 and Ford 5.0 cars may use shorty style headers. Ford 4.6 2V cars may use long tube headers.

[Burnett]

The 302 has been an accepted package in a 99+ car for a long time. I made a mistake in typing the decision into the table and no one caught it. Then in my rush to answer Don I forgot that the aluminum block isnt legal in cmc1! lol

 

We're not adding 100lbs we're adding 50lbs. More accurately, we're not giving the aluminum or 302 powere 99+ cars the same 50lbs weight break that the cast iron cars get.

 

The reason why is those combinations have created mustangs with a measureable advantage over the other mustangs. The aluminum block sheds 85 odd pounds from the nose (and the 302 is not that far behind) relative to the cast iron 2V. In the GM world, its a similar story with the LS1 and LT1 cars and in that situation the LS1 cars were handed a weight penalty. All we're doing is applying the same logic to the mustang side. I just fubared the translation onto the table.

 

So what is being created is an opportunity for 94-98 cars to be 50lbs lighter than the 99-04 cars with the same engine. That does not make sense.

 

Help me with this;

1994-2004 5.0 and 2V 4.6 (ie iron blocks, all of them)

1994-2004 DOHC 4.6 (ie aluminum blocks & 4V heads, all of them)

 

What combination of parts has caused the rules makers to take away the 50 lb weight break? And why is an odd subset of cars being lumped in with those perfectly optioned cars with a "measurable advantage"?

 

I know there is something I’m missing about what combinations others have figured out but the rules are not properly targeting those cars. Help me understand, I'm the dumbest guy in the room, what’s going on!

 

Cell 586-246-3287

[Glenn]

What is the data base for weight penalizing the GM LS1 and the Mustang 4.6 L 3v?

 

More particularly, what information is available to justify the conclusion that an LS1 Camaro/Firebird and a 4.6 3 valve Mustang are equal enough in performance to impose equal weights on those chassis/engine combos.?

 

Finally, what data is now available which substantiates any weight penalties at all?

 

I hope these decisions weren't made based on pure speculation.

 

Anyone have any information to offer?

 

Al is an Engineer by trade. he ran the numbers and figured out what the affect is on the car w/ 75lbs less nose weight (LS1 cars). his info supported a weight difference.

i dont know about you, but i sure would love to drop 75lbs from the nose of my LT1 4th gen (what the LS1 is compared to the LT1). first thing that comes to mind for me is i would be close to minimum weight post race instead of being 60-80lbs over. my front/rear %'s would be better too.

i sure hope your opinion that this is unjustified is not based on pure speculation.

 

 

in the past, when new platforms are introduced to CMC (all CMC-2 only cars are new in this case) they get a performance adjustment that is more than what they likely need to ensure they do not have an advantage on track - i call them class killers. in the past this was done by pure speculation as you suggested. only this past year has the series has access to data acquisition to make these calls. since that time we have come to better understand the affect the LS1 has on the 4th gen and applied that info to other platforms that had the same issue. in the past, as time goes by the performance adjustment may be scaled back.

 

perfect case in point. when the LT1 4th gen was allowed into CMC (way before my time) it had a minimum weight of 3400lbs. we both know that car would not be a competitive car. it had too much performance adjustment made to it. over time, it has been reduced to the point where it is now.

CMC-2 has only been around for 3 years now. we are still working out the performance adjustments for CMC 2 only legal platforms. its at a point of fine tuning now.

hope this helps.

[rocky]

Just to go off topic for a minute.CMC2 3rd gen LT1 is the 6 speed legal in this car or do I have to use the 5 speed if I go this route

[Glenn]

Just to go off topic for a minute.CMC2 3rd gen LT1 is the 6 speed legal in this car or do I have to use the 5 speed if I go this route

 

the 6 speed is legal in the 3rd gen.

[Al F.]

Guys, any time anyone gets performance adjusted they are going to feel slighted and that is completely understandable. If you find yourself there now, dont take it personal. We need to try very hard to maintain platform equality in lap times. When someone asks "what is the best car to run cmc in?" the answer should be "it doesnt matter, they all have strengths and weaknesses, but on the track they're all even". There is no way to achieve this without some platforms getting slowed down.

 

The aluminum block 2v 4.6 is not a Ford OEM engine, rather a combination enabled via our update/backdate rule. This results in a car with a measureable advantage over those that havent invested the money to rebuild their engine with that block. We are not interested in folks rebuilding perfectly good mod motors just to get that 85lbs off the nose, but that is exactly what was starting to happen.

 

One option is to make that combination illegal. A better option is to make that combination not have an advantage, therefore it is neither desireable nor undesirable...it just is there in case you happen to find a free block! lol The 302 gets lumped in there because it also nets a substantial weight savings and you had to go pretty far out of your way to get it. Again, we dont want people dumping perfectly good mod motors in favor of 302s to drop 65lbs off the nose.

 

We made the split at 99 because that body has the most room to get wider, as our rules dont have a fixed track width. If we need to bring it back to 94 I'm all ears.

[CMC#11]

We made the split at 99 because that body has the most room to get wider, as our rules dont have a fixed track width. If we need to bring it back to 94 I'm all ears.

An Aluminum block 2V motor weighs the same in a 94 as it does in an 01. If this package has been deemed legal in 94-04 Mustangs then the weight penalty should apply to all years. The current rules give a 98 Aluminum block car a 50 lb. advantage over a 99 Aluminum block car.

[Burnett]

Al,

Thanks for clarifying. I assumed there was a magic set up that people had found. I completly agree with the idea that no platform should be "better", parity being the goal.

 

And no I'm not pushing to change anything else.

 

Thanks

 

Robin Burnett

AI Driver

CMC fan

 

PS anyone have a cheap Ford for sale?

[rocky]

Thanks Glenn