Opening day of rules editing season!

[Al F.]

Over the years many of the rules have changed as folks have pushed the envelope for one reason or another. Sometimes to limit how far you can go, sometimes with the realization that the rules hindered where we wanted to go. Limiting how far back the driver sits has never been an issue because nobody has ever pushed this beyond what everyone considered reasonable.

 

It is just a matter of time, under the current rules, before someone decides to sit above the rear trailing arms. Thats not what I would consider reasonable for this class, and that is what last year we directors agreed we should limit, but we couldnt figure out how without painting ourselves into a corner one way or another. Hence the note in the tech bulletin. I dont know if we'll figure out a good way now or not, but I think its worthwhile trying.

 

I'm not suggesting that's what you want to do Mark, I'm acknowledging that right now you could do it and then put up a pretty good argument that you should be allowed. I'd prefer to avoid the argument by having something in the rules that says you can only go so far.

[Glenn]

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.

 

This is acceptable and legal. Relocation of the redals is not.

 

I'll warn you. There is a proposal to limit the number if relocated items to less than the current allowment (all). The pedals can be extended, the wheel can be spaced rearward, and the shifter can be remotely opperated (via a slave arangement - and I really do not like this one at all). If all three of these are done, it could be viewed as solely for the purpose of weight distribution and not driver comfort.

 

My wheel is spaced back like 4", but my pedals and shifter are not modified. I'm 6'3" so I have no issue reaching the pedals and the shifter, but if the wheel was left in the OEM position, I would drive straight armed. For comfort reasons, I moved it back. The Sparco wheel I use is flat w/ not much offset like the OEM wheel, so it needs some spacing in order to be positioned in the OEM location.

Now if I had also extended my pedals, my shifter is moved back as well as my wheel, then its obvious I've done this for one reason only, and driver comfort had nothing to do w/ it.

 

 

So your full containment seat gets looked at the same way. Lots of folks use them. We didn't change the rules for then. Why for you? Use it or not, but evaluate it based on the entire rules package. I would likely be on your side if that seat was required by NASA or CMC, but its not. It seems to me you decided the rules were acceptable when you pick this class. I hope you didn't pick the one you felt you could make more changes to. Or one w/ the least issues.

Alot of us are happy w/ things the way they are. Don't rules change our class to the point of the current cars being obsolete due to not having a 50/50 bias and no way to do it w/out re-engineering the whole car.

 

Myself and many others here have spoon fed you many times here in this post and several others. I for one am done w/ it. There is a time for the "It is what it is." and "Its just the way we do things." and "Possibly this ain't the sport for you." type of comments. From this point forward you will see me use these w/ you on a much more frequent basis. Why? Because none of the detailed answers work for you. There is no end to the line of questioning. "But why?" gets old really fast.

 

 

You tell us your car has a 60/40 f/r bias. Then you tell me in another post you haven't done any major weight reduction like door glass and things like that. Well w/ regards to CMC, your car does not have 60/40 bias. You cannot compair my car's 53/47 to your 60/40 until you have prep'ed your car to the level of mine or other similare built cars. I have built all the car I can legally do w/ in the limits of the rules. You have not and until you do so, you have no "its not fair" rights.

I have won plenty of races down on power and over weight when compaired to other races. At the prep level of these cars (or prep limits) power, weight, f/r weight bias plays a small role - very small.

 

Go build you car, get on track and start kicking ass, in TT, in CMC, in AI. Stop working the CMC Directors to allow you to build what you call the ultimate CMC car as you see it.

[MHISSTC]

Mark,

 

The phrase "silly season" has been coined for a reason. We're in the thick of it now, but please don't let it frustrate or discourage you from coming up with the different, new, or better ways you think things could be done. We're all open to suggestions on making the series better...although we're all innately less open to suggestions that will cost us money or give what we perceive to be an unfair advantage to "the other guy".

 

My teammate and I have a running list of rule revision suggestions we've been accumulating for the last couple of months as specific issues arise. We've added, deleted, and modified the list a bunch of times from what we originally started out with. I think everyone could benefit from having someone to bounce ideas back and forth with (argue with off-line) before submitting them to the sometimes hyper-critical CMC forum eye and definitely before submitting them to your regional and national directors for consideration.

 

I've lost track of the modifications you are actually proposing along with the change in the rules you are proposing given all of the hypothetical situations that have been thrown about in this thread. If you wouldn't mind, please start a fresh thread with exactly the modifications and/or corresponding rules changes you are proposing listed in the format suggested by the email you should have gotten. That way we we may all better discuss the merits or detriments of your suggestions without any of the hypothetical situations or attitudes getting in the way. Filling in as much of the information as possible on the rule change submission form will go a long way to bolster your position with fact or reason instead of opinion or passion.

[TxCMC22]

First off I can be one of the most negative individuals towards the so called "ship" in this group, hell, I argue against myself half the time to prove the point I am trying to get across. I'm not that sharp people I know... But I will say that you have to give the leaders a shot. They are here for us, they do it so we can race fair, they do it so we can be safe, they are really trying to keep all things in perspective. When the rules are written from the opposite prospective of most rule sets, it does create a lot of confusion, and requires someone to say yea or nae. To quote others, it is what it is. But I must admit, I have argued my rules proposal of a a few years, but never actually proposed it. It's been a pain in my ass, cost me a lot of money and even more time... BUT! when I brought the data, showed some initiative and am busting my ass to make it "known" they have started to listen, question, and give me the benefit of the doubt. Can we ask for anything more? Hell, our bosses at work don't give us that half the time...

 

I do agree some things are BS, some decisions are asinine, some things that are said are off the wall, but at the end of the day, we are here to race cars that are, competitively equal (when built to the limit of the rules), Safe (this isn't NASCAR or AIX and our speeds show it), and well, fun (that's a given). These people don't get paid 6 figures a year to make the rules, they do it in their spare time, if you don't like something, or believe something should be different, open your schedule, and your wallet and bring the the data to prove it. From experience, they are usually willing to listen! Bring the country together, group up for a fix, use your friends around the country to help you build the data, and submit it so the directors can look at it. You might find out that someone else in the country has already figured it out, and most of us are willing to help everyone get there car there.... Now helping your driving skills? not so much!

 

Just a thought that is helping me come to grips with the rule set.

[mitchntx1548534714]

This is funny and not funny at the same time.

 

It's like witnessing a train wreck and we're the only ones hearing the "woo-woo chugga-chugga-chugga-chugga woo-woo".

[TurboShortBus]

As an architect and GC project manager, note that I deal with building codes, safety guidelines, construction documents, and specifications 40+ hours per week (I should have been an attorney, as the effort would be equal but the pay would not). Some are not written as well as others, and leave loopholes I could drive an 18-wheeler through; others are tightly defined, with minimal gray areas. Since the majority of all buildings are "custom built" (much like race cars), there will be variations from project to project, from city to city, and from builder to builder that require interpretations of the codes and specifications. I look at rule books (including, but not limited to, CMC's) in the same manner.

 

It seems to me you decided the rules were acceptable when you pick this class. I hope you didn't pick the one you felt you could make more changes to. Or one w/ the least issues.

I'm sorry to shoot a hole in your conspiracy theory, but my intents aren't nearly that scandalous. I bought this 2004 Mustang back in late 2007 for HPDE-1 use, with an eye on eventual CMC competition because it looked like a fun class where I would spend a lot less money than in AI. The type of car was a no-brainer for me, since I have been playing with 5.0L Fords since 1990 and Mustangs since 1992 (with some 4.6L Fords mixed in there along the way). I made sure that every part that was installed on the car from its start in HPDE-1 was CMC-legal so that I wouldn't have to un-do or re-buy anything in the future (I even ran out and bought a set of 16x8s and 255mm RA1s for its first weekend, although that was jumping the gun a bit). My brother runs in FFR (National Champion x3) and a good friend runs regionally in AI, and they encouraged me to get my comp license as I worked my way through the HPDE levels. I didn't plan on participating in TT, let alone being a regional director for it, but it's a fun class and I enjoy our competitive yet low-key group; however, I still will run W2W in the near future, as I'm only a couple of sheets of paper and half of a roll cage away from being legal. But, this is how I picked CMC.

 

Stop working the CMC Directors to allow you to build what you call the ultimate CMC car as you see it.

Again, I'm not asking for any rules changes. I feel that the current rules (as I quoted in a previous post) already allow the kind of car that I would like to build; the difference is that some people just don't want or like this type of car (and that is their opinion). The only rule changes that need to be made are the ones that prevent this type of car. My viewpoint is, if you truly don't want that kind of car built for this class, then the rules need to clearly say it (and, at this time, they do not).

 

Right now, there could very well be an old-timer Smokey Yunick type in a barn somewhere, without internet access, armed only with a printed copy of the CCR and the CMC rules, who is building a super-mofo CMC car that incorporates a rear-relocated seating position and maybe further modifications (but he would still have 25 year old oil in the crankcase because the rules don't allow it to be changed...lol). The difference between him and me is that I'm bringing this to your attention now (which, in hindsight, is probably a mistake; it's always better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission, right?). Had I kept my mouth (er, keyboard) shut and just built the car as I have described, there would be no changes in place in the 2011 CMC rule book to prevent me from competing (unless, of course, an official or director said, "I don't think I like how the car looks, so you can't run with us and it is what it is," which would be unfair).

 

There is a proposal to limit the number if relocated items to less than the current allowment (all).

You're off to a good start!

 

Hell, if you want, I'll help you write the rules revisions to prevent this kind of car from being built. After all, burglars are the best consultants for designing a security system.

 

Mark

[TurboShortBus]

It is just a matter of time, under the current rules, before someone decides to sit above the rear trailing arms.

I'm not suggesting that's what you want to do Mark...

Nah, I'm not trying to drive from the back seat like Hightower in Police Academy 1...lol

 

Mark

[mitchntx1548534714]

Hell, if you want, I'll help you write the rules revisions to prevent this kind of car from being built. After all, burglars are the best consultants for designing a security system.

 

Mark

 

We have grape, lime and raspberry kool-aid.

 

Shall I poor you a glass?

 

[Glenn]

As an architect and GC project manager, note that I deal with building codes, safety guidelines, construction documents, and specifications 40+ hours per week (I should have been an attorney, as the effort would be equal but the pay would not). Some are not written as well as others, and leave loopholes I could drive an 18-wheeler through; others are tightly defined, with minimal gray areas. Since the majority of all buildings are "custom built" (much like race cars), there will be variations from project to project, from city to city, and from builder to builder that require interpretations of the codes and specifications. I look at rule books (including, but not limited to, CMC's) in the same manner.

I knew this from our prevoius phone calls.

 

It seems to me you decided the rules were acceptable when you pick this class. I hope you didn't pick the one you felt you could make more changes to. Or one w/ the least issues.

I'm sorry to shoot a hole in your conspiracy theory, but my intents aren't nearly that scandalous. I bought this 2004 Mustang back in late 2007 for HPDE-1 use, with an eye on eventual CMC competition because it looked like a fun class where I would spend a lot less money than in AI. The type of car was a no-brainer for me, since I have been playing with 5.0L Fords since 1990 and Mustangs since 1992 (with some 4.6L Fords mixed in there along the way). I made sure that every part that was installed on the car from its start in HPDE-1 was CMC-legal so that I wouldn't have to un-do or re-buy anything in the future (I even ran out and bought a set of 16x8s and 255mm RA1s for its first weekend, although that was jumping the gun a bit). My brother runs in FFR (National Champion x3) and a good friend runs regionally in AI, and they encouraged me to get my comp license as I worked my way through the HPDE levels. I didn't plan on participating in TT, let alone being a regional director for it, but it's a fun class and I enjoy our competitive yet low-key group; however, I still will run W2W in the near future, as I'm only a couple of sheets of paper and half of a roll cage away from being legal. But, this is how I picked CMC.

 

Since you picked CMC, it would tell me you liked it the way it was/is. Understand the intent of the rules and build to that. Its not always clear. Just ask and accept the answer.

 

Stop working the CMC Directors to allow you to build what you call the ultimate CMC car as you see it.

Again, I'm not asking for any rules changes. I feel that the current rules (as I quoted in a previous post) already allow the kind of car that I would like to build; the difference is that some people just don't want or like this type of car (and that is their opinion). The only rule changes that need to be made are the ones that prevent this type of car. My viewpoint is, if you truly don't want that kind of car built for this class, then the rules need to clearly say it (and, at this time, they do not).

I will not disagree w/ you there. But you have been told it will not be acepted if you do. Years ago Nick Steel got in a shitload of trouble over "letter of the rule" and intent. He was in the right w/ regards to how the rules were written, but he lost anyways. It did not go well for him at that time. This was many years ago. He didnt ask and wasnt told "no", but it resulted the same - rules changes and a car that wasnt legal. So here you are asking (good) and we are saying no. But not just no, but rather "no, and we will change the rules to reflect this", and yet you still do not back down. You have been given plenty of heads up. Proceed at your own risk.

 

Right now, there could very well be an old-timer Smokey Yunick type in a barn somewhere, without internet access, armed only with a printed copy of the CCR and the CMC rules, who is building a super-mofo CMC car that incorporates a rear-relocated seating position and maybe further modifications (but he would still have 25 year old oil in the crankcase because the rules don't allow it to be changed...lol). The difference between him and me is that I'm bringing this to your attention now (which, in hindsight, is probably a mistake; it's always better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission, right?). Had I kept my mouth (er, keyboard) shut and just built the car as I have described, there would be no changes in place in the 2011 CMC rule book to prevent me from competing (unless, of course, an official or director said, "I don't think I like how the car looks, so you can't run with us and it is what it is," which would be unfair).

See above responce, it applies here as well.

 

There is a proposal to limit the number if relocated items to less than the current allowment (all).

You're off to a good start!

This has been my sugestion for two years running now. Even when all direcotrs agree a rule should be changed, it may take more than one year to get it incorporated into the rules. Even for us, its a slow process.

 

Hell, if you want, I'll help you write the rules revisions to prevent this kind of car from being built. After all, burglars are the best consultants for designing a security system.

 

Mark

 

The door is open, have you submitted anything?

[MHISSTC]

Asking ahead of time is a good thing. It'll prevent you from doing something that may have future rules written to specifically or indirectly address your bright idea and essentially outlaw it. Ask me some time to tell you about the idea we had to use a Group 4D battery.

[FBody383]

Ask me some time to tell you about the idea we had to use a Group 4D battery.

Or just more than one battery...

 

Still the best group of racers I've been able to find.

[TurboShortBus]

This has been my sugestion for two years running now. Even when all direcotrs agree a rule should be changed, it may take more than one year to get it incorporated into the rules. Even for us, its a slow process.

I realize that running the CMC group isn't anybody's day job, nor will the proceeds from it (if any) make mortgage payments, but if any change to the rules is this important, then it shouldn't take months or even years to make.

 

Hell, if you want, I'll help you write the rules revisions to prevent this kind of car from being built. After all, burglars are the best consultants for designing a security system.

 

Mark

 

The door is open, have you submitted anything?

Why would I submit anything? I like the rules the way they are written! But, if you would like to reduce the loopholes to something less than the size of a truck, then I'm willing to help (even if it means I'll just have to run in TT, PT, or AI).

 

Tell you what: I'll submit a recommendation, in the preferred format, that will alleviate "restricting this" and "restricting that" in an effort to make inspections easier. If the main concern about moving the driver and/or ballast rearward is a more favorable weight distribution, then I have a simple suggestion for governing this.

 

Mark