Opening day of rules editing season!

[MHISSTC]

If you are trying to standardize certain aspects of the rules and bring everyone into agreement, make darn sure you are not screwing over someone who in acted in good faith, with full disclosure, and with full understanding of the intent of the rules who built their car to the letter of the law and checked with the directors to ensure compliance before going forward with a build. If you do inadvertently end up screwing someone over, you better make darn sure there is a grandfathering clause in place without any of the lameness of copout statment that "it's clearly in violation of the rules, but in our opinion does nothing to enhance performance and doesn't compromise safety, so it's O.K.".

Edited October 13, 2010 by Guest

[MHISSTC]

Well then, I smell a new class...Spec Camaro! lol

 

No, that's AI.

 

AIX is Mustangs Unlimited.

 

The longer I've argued for the background of a rule in order to better understand the direction things were going, the more resistence I've met.

 

Now I just go quietly with the flow and submit the changes I'd like to see to the rules each year to my regional and national series directors. I'm much more relaxed about it now.

[mitchntx1548534714]

I'm the kind of guy who only needs a sensible, logical explanation for something I don't necessarily agree with; at that point, at least I can understand the reasoning behind it and accept it.

 

"Because I said so."

"Because we've always done it like that."

"Bring me the tech."

 

and my very favorite ... "It is what it is."

 

If any of those answers will help you "understand", are "logical" or "reasonable", then you will be OK.

 

If not, then the line to disgruntlement forms here ...

 

Now ... to adress your issues ...

 

Your points about safety are valid but as history has shown, a point of diminishing returns for the effort spent.

 

There was a video floating around recently of an Alan Blaine built Camaro (I think) that lost his brakes at a west coast track. The driver squirted off course at a high rate of speed and clobbered a concrete barrier.

 

With a 7 and 8 bar connecting the A-pillar to the fire wall, the invasion into the driver's cocoon was extensive around his feet, but was far from crushed.

 

Also, lots of folks have full containment seats whose stature is well under 6'. We just installed one in a car that fell 6" forward of factory "C" pillar. We thought the driver might not like it, but has adapted his egress "procedure" to accommodate it.

 

Like I said, your points are valid. But they are lost in a sea of white noise proclaiming it's good stuff, just not necessary.

 

If you want reasonable justification ... if pedal, column and shifter alterations are allowed, then folks will push that envelope to lighten the column to a broom stick, plastic pedals and air shifters.

 

Its what racers do.

[BADVENM]

Enforce every rule listed in the CCR...period, especially at a National event regardless if it presents a performance advantage or not. Otherwise, remove it from the CCR. More to come later.

[HMark]

 

Eat at Joe's. Isnt your platform allowed to be 100 lbs lighter than mine?

 

Not if you have a 1998 and up, it's only 50lbs, and then if you have 5.0 or a 4.6 AL block you have 0lbs. and still have 55% front weight. and no torque.

 

 

-Don

[cozog1548534733]

Enforce every rule listed in the CCR...period, especially at a National event regardless if it presents a performance advantage or not. Otherwise, remove it from the CCR. More to come later.

 

+1 for consistency

[Glenn]

Buy a 4th-gen F-body.

Badum-bum.

Well then, I smell a new class...Spec Camaro! lol

 

Eat at Joe's. Isnt your platform allowed to be 100 lbs lighter than mine?

It's allowed to be, but like yours, mine also will be heavier than the required minimum (because I'm not gutting the doors, side glass, power mirrors, etc.). Maybe I'll gut it down to the minimum weight someday, but it won't be anytime soon.

 

I'm the kind of guy who only needs a sensible, logical explanation for something I don't necessarily agree with; at that point, at least I can understand the reasoning behind it and accept it. So, why not allow moving the seat/pedals/steering/shifter rearward? Personally, I feel that there are good safety reasons for moving everything rearward (bigger window opening to exit through if the door won't open, driver further away from the A-pillar if it decides to collapse during a crash, feet and pedals further back from the wheelwell if a tire intrudes during a crash, etc.), and I will admit that there is a bit of a performance advantage, although I don't think it's enough to be the difference between having an also-ran car and an Uber-CMC destroyer.

 

In the end, you (or some one else) will not be happy depending upon who gets "screwed".

While you're likely right, I'm not looking at it quite that negatively. The features that I'd like to build into my car are currently legal in 3 other NASA classes, so no matter what happens here, I'll still have a class in which to run my car. I would prefer to be able to run in CMC/CMC2 (and even then, I'd be the only one in the Florida region), but it isn't a necessity for me to have a good time (insert "well then, goodbye and go screw yourself" comments here...lol).

 

Mark

 

Lots of good reasons there as to why your car is heavy. You will find that not a single one of those applies to my car. In fact, I resorted to compromising safety and the health of the motor in a effort to get 30-50 more lbs off my car. Thats the reality of it.

[Glenn]

If you are trying to standardize certain aspects of the rules and bring everyone into agreement, make darn sure you are not screwing over someone who in acted in good faith, with full disclosure, and with full understanding of the intent of the rules who built their car to the letter of the law and checked with the directors to ensure compliance before going forward with a build. If you do inadvertently end up screwing someone over, you better make darn sure there is a grandfathering clause in place without any of the lameness of copout statment that "it's clearly in violation of the rules, but in our opinion does nothing to enhance performance and doesn't compromise safety, so it's O.K.".

 

I spent about 30 minutes on the phone w/ Al saying the same thing.

[cozog1548534733]

In fact, I resorted to compromising safety...

 

Seriously? Why?

[Trevor571548534737]

I resorted to compromising safety and the health of the motor in a effort to get 30-50 more lbs off my car. Thats the reality of it.

 

Read the whole thing next time.

[Glenn]

In fact, I resorted to compromising safety...

 

Seriously? Why?

 

Racers will be racers.

I've asked for a few rules items to be changed to allow some simple weight reduction. Nothing that will cost money, just time and tools. 4th gens are notoriously heavy. There is not one trick w/in the limits of the CMC rules I havent take full advantage of to reduce my cars overall weight. My current car (wreched) was 2925 dry w/ no driver as raced. W/ me and post race, I'm 3250-3260. I need 50 lbs. Since my new car will have .095" wall tube instead of the previous cars .120" wall, I feel that is a safety reduction. It will net me 30lbs weight savings.

20 more to go.

 

I do not have any fans on my motor. I have no subframe connectors, no cool suite, no brake ducts, none of the other extra's see on most CMC cars. I've done all I can.

[cozog1548534733]

Since my new car will have .095" wall tube instead of the previous cars .120" wall, I feel that is a safety reduction

 

OK, I understand. I thought you meant other/worse risks.

[TurboShortBus]

Your points about safety are valid but as history has shown, a point of diminishing returns for the effort spent.

 

There was a video floating around recently of an Alan Blaine built Camaro (I think) that lost his brakes at a west coast track. The driver squirted off course at a high rate of speed and clobbered a concrete barrier.

 

With a 7 and 8 bar connecting the A-pillar to the fire wall, the invasion into the driver's cocoon was extensive around his feet, but was far from crushed.

You are correct in regards to the car and its fabricator. These 2 photos are from www.BlaineFab.com.

 

Before:

After:

Note that, in this particular AI F-body, the driver had been relocated rearward approximately 10" and the pedals had been relocated rearward about 6", which undoubtedly helped keep the driver's feet out of harm's way (I believe that the OEM pedals were used, but the steering column was aftermarket). The addition of the extensive footwell bars (made possible by moving the pedals rearward) also protected the driver's feet. This combination seems like a very good method of protection, as the clutch pedal (in my Mustang) is less than 1" from the firewall/floorpan and the brake pedal is 2"-3" from the firewall/floorpan if I'm pushing them to the floor as hard as possible (which will likely happen in "oh shit" mode when sliding off track). Striking a barrier with the LF corner will cause the wheel/tire to intrude at least 1", thereby relocating the clutch pedal and a left ankle at the very least.

 

Also, to me, it appears that the single bar that most people install at the base of the A-pillar bar that runs forward about 12" to the firewall won't do much to resist wheel/tire intrusion, based on the amount of deformation of the 3 bars in the F-body above.

 

I'm just trying to avoid a result like this one that I saw at Road Atlanta in March 2009. I only saw the car in the pits after the crash; the driver was nowhere to be found, and the trailer was locked up. We were told that he was taken to a hospital for treatment for his left ankle or leg. I took the following 2 photos.

 

Note the relocation of the left footrest and clutch pedal:

 

Literally, seeing the car above nearly led me to sell mine and buy a purpose-built tubeframe car of some sort, but instead, I'm just going to build a cage for the Mustang that addresses situations like this. I believe that Alan's combination of relocating the pedals and footwell bars is as good as it will get.

 

Mark

[mitchntx1548534714]

Can't argue with that.

 

But with this crew, getting that kind of change is more than an uphill battle. It's like scaling Mt. Everest in a Speedo.

[Glenn]

No matter what class you run there will always be something that can be improved in the name of safety. Even w/ the current NASACAR Cup chassis. So where do we stop in the name of safety?

If you feel the CMC class rules limits your safety to the point that you need to skirt the rules, change the rules, or break the rules then perhaps you should find another class.

Pehaps you place too much of an importance on a full containment seat? If it limits your escape, is it really safer?

 

Dont get me wrong, some simple changes can be made, but yours are not simple.

[mitchntx1548534714]

One of the arguements that irks me so much surrounds those rules that have been in place since the dawn of CMC.

 

They probably had merit and sound reasoning when the cars were only mid 80s Fox Mustangs and 3G Camaros.

 

But over the years, DOT rules and regs that upgraded passenger safety on the base platform are never factored in.

 

Limiting or making those rules fit an evolved 21st century platform is near-sighted and limiting or just plain lazy.

 

It is what it is.

[TurboShortBus]

If you feel the CMC class rules limits your safety to the point that you need to skirt the rules, change the rules, or break the rules then perhaps you should find another class.

Relocating the seat, OEM steering, OEM pedals, and shifter rearward does not skirt, change, or break any current rules. If I had showed up at an event with this setup, then there is no way that it would have been deemed illegal per the current rules. But, if you wanted to say, "It's illegal because I don't approve of it and what I say goes," then that's a different story.

 

No matter what class you run there will always be something that can be improved in the name of safety. Even w/ the current NASACAR Cup chassis. So where do we stop in the name of safety?

Pehaps you place too much of an importance on a full containment seat? If it limits your escape, is it really safer?

Dont get me wrong, some simple changes can be made, but yours are not simple.

Don't get me wrong, but you seem to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing, which isn't productive. But hey, "It is what it is." (Check it out, I'm getting the hang of it)

 

Mark

[MHISSTC]

Relocating the seat, OEM steering, OEM pedals, and shifter rearward does not skirt, change, or break any current rules. If I had showed up at an event with this setup, then there is no way that it would have been deemed illegal per the current rules.

 

Did you forget about the "I CAN'T DO IT if the rules don't say that I CAN" opening paragraph of the CMC rules?

 

1. INTRODUCTION

Camaro Mustang Challenge is a racing series with two classes: CMC1 and CMC2. The following rules are

not guidelines for this series but an actual listing of allowed and required modifications. All of these rules

apply to both CMC1 and CMC2 cars unless otherwise stated. The only modifications are those specifically

allowed. If not specifically allowed, any modifications shall be prohibited. Some equipment may be required

to support the sponsors who have contributed to the year end points fund.

[mitchntx1548534714]

[TurboShortBus]

Did you forget about the "I CAN'T DO IT if the rules don't say that I CAN" opening paragraph of the CMC rules

I certainly have not.

 

Maybe I have overlooked it, but I can't find anything in the current CMC rules that states that you are allowed to change the original oil that came with the engine. However, I doubt that there are CMC cars out there running on their original, 25 year old engine oil. Are cars with recent oil changes in violation of the CMC rules? Again, maybe I overlooked it; help me out here if I have.

 

I have posted the following items in the past, and I see no real way for a car with relocated seat/pedals/steering/shifter to be DQed (without bias) based on these current rules:

 

7.8.1 The driver's seat must be replaced with a seat suitable for competition. The driver's seatback must be reinforced by bracing the seat back to the roll cage unless it conforms to the FIA standard which does not require a seat brace. A head restraint system meeting the CCR requirements must be used to cushion the driver's head from behind.

^^^ Nothing says where the seat has to be mounted. Seat mounting location needs to be flexible to accommodate the short and tall ends of the driver spectrum, anyway.

 

7.8.2 Any steering wheel may be used other than wooden models. Quick release mechanisms and spacers may be used to move the steering wheel location, but the OEM steering column must be used.

^^^ Fair enough; a 12" spacer could be used to move the steering wheel back. Or, a "deep dish" steering wheel that has 12" of offset between the mounting flange and the grip area could be used.

 

7.8.3 Any shift knob may be used.

^^^ No problem here.

 

7.8.4 Modifications may be made to the foot pedals to improve the comfort and control accessibility for the driver.

^^^ Right; the OEM pedals would be modified.

 

7.27.3. Any shifter or shift linkage may be used.

^^^ Right; extended linkage would be used.

 

7.32.2 The brake master cylinder and brake booster must be OEM stock and unmodified. Any year SVO Mustang master cylinders/boosters are allowed for Early Ford vehicles.

^^^ No problem there; they would be OEM stock and in their OEM stock locations.

 

7.33.12 Aftermarket steering shafts or shaft components, defined as the components connecting the steering rack/box to the steering column, may be used.

^^^ If one wanted to move the stock steering column rearward (in order to avoid using a 12" spacer), then this rule could be used to install an extended steering shaft that would connect the rack to the relocated column. But, since "you can't do it unless the rules say you can," relocating the column isn't allowed. With that being said, I would go back to 7.8.2 and put a huge spacer on the steering wheel or use a "deep dish" steering wheel.

 

"BAZINGA," indeed.

 

Mark

[Al F.]

Cage design is mostly controlled by the CCR. It specifies minimum standards, and though it allows incremental cage build for safety, it also states that NASA scrutineers can call BS on your cage and require it to be changed.

 

CMC uses the CCR cage rules almost entirely, with a few specific stiffening add-ons and limits. None of CMC's limits result in a cage that is less safe than what the CCR requires. Does that mean a CMC cage makes for a race car that is less safe than man knows how to build? Yep! I dont see how that honest truth can change without going to an AI style open cage rule setup, which I believe the majority of CMCers would not want. However, if you want to pitch specific details of your alternate solution, please, now is the time. All of the directors will weigh in and a decision will be made.

[Glenn]

7.8.4 Modifications may be made to the foot pedals to improve the comfort and control accessibility for the driver.

^^^ Right; the OEM pedals would be modified.

 

Modifying the pedals is not the same as relocating them. Sorry.

 

Thats not legal

Sure it is.

Those are AP Racing's new floor mount pedal assymbly, not the OEM set-up.

Yep, I modified the OEM one until they turned into AP Racing ones.

 

At some point in time the interpretation is just asinine. You have just reached that point. Good luck.

[MHISSTC]

This is funny and not funny at the same time.

 

It's almost like watching your child grow up and become enlightened and aware of the world around them as you know it, but at the same time have to watch them skin their knees and get a few black eyes along the way.

 

I think I'm currently in the middle aged portion of that trasition where I can look back and reflect upon all of my anger and frustraion of my youth (fist 3 years of being in CMC) and realize that I had a lot of good ideas...and I still do..., but that the machine rolls ahead slowly and change does not happen overnight or revolve around my thoughts and opinions alone. I realize that if I want change to occur I have to be accomodating, logical, reasonable, persistent, and follow the rule changing process of quietly submitting my ideas each year or posting them here for further discussion or refinement (or attack by others)before I submit them to my regional and national directors for consideration. I've learned to stop posting some of my more ®evolutionary ideas here because it has only caused problems. I still submit them though.

 

I also wasn't around during the inception of CMC, so I'm not quite to the point of being one of the old codgers of CMC where I'm prone to spout off phrases like: "Read the rules! It is what it is. That's the way it's always been and will always be. Back when we started this series... So and so told me it was legal. That's the way we do it in our region." Hopefully I never get to that point. I like the view from where I am right now.

[TurboShortBus]

7.8.4 Modifications may be made to the foot pedals to improve the comfort and control accessibility for the driver.

^^^ Right; the OEM pedals would be modified.

 

Modifying the pedals is not the same as relocating them. Sorry.

 

Thats not legal

Sure it is.

Those are AP Racing's new floor mount pedal assymbly, not the OEM set-up.

Yep, I modified the OEM one until they turned into AP Racing ones.

The OEM pedals could be modified by attaching thick blocks to them in order to move the foot contact surfaces. Or, they could be cut and re-welded so that the foot contact surfaces are moved.

 

My intent is not to use a $500 Tilton pedal setup, as that costs a pile of money and goes against the low-expense philosophy of this class and my bank account. All of the above could be accomplished with OEM parts and a little creativity.

 

At some point in time the interpretation is just asinine. You have just reached that point. Good luck.

I am trying to keep my posts as professional as possible, without resorting to comments such as this (especially from a Regional Director). It is my hope that cooler heads prevail from the Directors' side of the table, and I'll be happy to acknowledge the level-headed replies as they are made.

 

Mark

[TurboShortBus]

This is funny and not funny at the same time.

I won't disagree with you there, although I'm leaning toward the latter. This whole racing thing is supposed to be fun, but the more this class becomes an "argument contest," the more interest I lose (good news for Glenn).

 

Per my interpretations listed earlier, my proposed modifications are already permitted per the current rules, so I'm not looking for any changes to the rules. But, if these modifications are desired to be prohibited, then changes to the rules are necessary.

 

Mark