Jump to content
MHISSTC

SN95 Mustang clarifications needed?

Recommended Posts

Trevor571548534737

It seems to me a lot of the explanations are just "they are that way because they are that way."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supermac

Glenn, not to blow sunshine up your butt, but I think you have done a great job explaining this.

Some people just struggle seeing it from the other side.

Like I have a wrecked ls1 4th gen and a perfectly good 3rd gen. So I should be able to combine the two and race that, right? Cmon guys this is not hard.

I believe that the quickest and cheapest way to the track is to buy a running driving completely whatever you want car ie correct tranny motor etc and start from there.

We have tried the piecemeal thing and it just costs more and takes wayyy more time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JB
Glenn, not to blow sunshine up your butt, but I think you have done a great job explaining this.

Some people just struggle seeing it from the other side.

Like I have a wrecked ls1 4th gen and a perfectly good 3rd gen. So I should be able to combine the two and race that, right? Cmon guys this is not hard.

I believe that the quickest and cheapest way to the track is to buy a running driving completely whatever you want car ie correct tranny motor etc and start from there.

We have tried the piecemeal thing and it just costs more and takes wayyy more time.

 

Can your "perfectly good" 3rd gen compete the way it is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeK
OK, so a guy who owns a blown-up 4-banger Fox Mustang and a crashed-but-running 4.6L Mustang would be told to get bent if he wanted to combine his inventory and join the fun. Got it. I guess if you are already getting a few dozen cars to show up for the class in your region, you don't need to worry about growth.

 

The whole idea of "you can run this engine and this chassis but not this engine with this chassis even though this chassis is kinda the same as that chassis" is making my head spin with all of the possible legal and illegal permutations, and I'm sure that I'm not alone based on what I have read in this thread and others. There must be a better way...

 

Mark

 

I agree. Makes my head spin out of control. And I think part of the reason this original thread was started by Scott, is "Where is the line drawn?".

 

Cody, I agree the best place to start is with the right engine/tranny/chasis combo you want, but that's not always possible due to availability and price.

 

In my opinion, to clarify the SN-95 stuff, look at how you purchase parts for those cars. EVERY aftermarket/OEM grouping is from '79-'04. Why?, because it's the same part. If Ford wasn't so lazy, maybe the division would be more clear. I took a set of ring gears from my '03 V6, and tossed them right in my rear end of an '86 SVO, which is bolted to my '88 LX car. The suspension mounting points are the same, as with the brakes, and the T5 tranny, and I even think the driveshaft.

 

I suppose I could not piecemeal everything together, but that's going to take more time and money. Where as with cross-year allowances, I can use what's cheaper, and available, ....and spend a lot of my time in the process which is free $$.

 

As far as the putting a 5.0L in a '99-'04 V6 car, whats the legal issue with it? Is there such an unfair advange? It meets the Ford powered, Ford body guideline. It'll meet the power and weight limitations. And I can do it cheaper than being dictated to buy a V8 4.6L car if I want that body style.

 

If this cross year stuff does not gain an unfair advantage, and keeps the performance equal, what's the big deal????

Sounds like people just don't like the headache of keeping track of it all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn

I know I said I was done.....

As far as the putting a 5.0L in a '99-'04 V6 car, whats the legal issue with it? Is there such an unfair advange? It meets the Ford powered, Ford body guideline. It'll meet the power and weight limitations. And I can do it cheaper than being dictated to buy a V8 4.6L car if I want that body style.

I don't think there is an issue w/ that chassis and motor combo. It is the parts needed to make it work that are the issue. If you really want this, propose a rules change. The rule in question is the motor mounts needed, right? Then change the rule. Be ready to answer the questions I mentioned before.

 

And if you think this class is all about the HP/WT limits, you have us confused w/ AI. If that is all that matters, go race there as it seems that is all they consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mitchntx1548534714

Glenn,

 

You can't cherry pick your battles, especially when you do your best to keep people informed. There will always be a skirmish line ...

 

You seem to be the only Director with balls enough to try and get racers aligned. Other directors seem content with letting racers build'em and then make them un-fuck the build to bring it into compliance (or look the other way).

 

You have really grown hyper-sensitive if you think what I posted was an attack. You need to stop taking some one who questions what you say or points out where you might be wrong so personally.

 

It's not personal ... we all want the same thing ... alignment and understanding. And that territory brings with it questions. We are spending hard earned dollars And don't want to spend them twice.

 

My comment was merely pointing out that you can't divorce yourself from the rules "making" process at ANY level because you and others like you ARE the process. Look at it from a regular guy's POV ...

 

Whether the rule was penned yesterday or 20 years ago doesn't matter to the end user. You and your fellow directors ARE CMC to me and the other racers.

 

And its OK to say "I don't know why a rule is in place like it is. It was before my time. If there is a better way of doing it, do your homework and submit a rules change."

 

Don't just say "Fuck you" and walk away. You are better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn

You knew (should have known) I was referring to the rule under question. You know it was made well before my time.

Placing blame upon me for enforcing a rule that I was not involved in and insinuating I am responsible for its presence is an attack (I don't think there is a Director in place today who helped vote in this rule). It is also a deflection of the topic at hand. I've seen this many times where my point is made and once there is no valid response, a tangent is created. It is downhill from there.

Thanks for your support. I don't think it is me being hyper-sensitive, but rather more experienced. So, if me not wanting to "debate" w/ you the semantics of every post, don't accuse me of "cherry picking" my battles, but rather consider it me walking away from a "no win" conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mitchntx1548534714

You made a statement that lead me, and I bet others, to believe you take no responsibility for a rule simply because it was before your time.

 

So who IS responsible? If no one is, it's just there forever?

 

I'm not claiming you or anyone is responsible FOR AUTHORING A RULE, just responsible for making sure its still applicable, liek the one in question which is NO derailment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn
You made a statement that lead me, and I bet others, to believe you take no responsibility for a rule simply because it was before your time.

 

So who IS responsible? If no one is, it's just there forever?

 

I'm not claiming you or anyone is responsible FOR AUTHORING A RULE, just responsible for making sure its still applicable, liek the one in question which is NO derailment.

 

Your as responsible for it still being there as I am. Have you submitted a rules change request? I haven't. In fact nobody submitted one. So everyone is guilty.

 

I don't like carbs in SN-95 and up (95-04).

I don't like 4.6's in Fox's.

I don't like LS1's in 3rd gens. (not legal)

I don't like not being able to put a 3rd gen TPI motor in a 4th gen chassis back before CMC2 when the HP/TQ limit was 230/300. (pointless now)

I don't like the interchange between Fox and SN-95 chassis parts. Reason - 3rd gens and 4th gens are not allowed to do it w/ parts that are interchangeable.

GM has 2 chassis available to CMC, a 3rd and 4th gen. None of the parts are allowed to be swapped between them except where allowed (very limited). Fords have 3 chassis - Fox, SN-95, SN-99, in just the early model group and as long as it is a bolt in, its a legal update/backdate swap. That is a massive cataloge of parts.

 

Will I be submitting a rules change request for each of these? No. So all these rules are now my fault. I accept responsibility. That responsibility is shared amoung all of the Regional Directors.

 

What is the point?

If you want a rule changed, submitt a request. W/out a request, it will never change. W/out a request, it is everyone's fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mitchntx1548534714

I'm truly sorry you feel that way, Glenn.

 

I don't have a seat at the table. I (we) look to you and those in your position to be keepers of the rules. It's a responsibility of the position you volunteered for.

 

I (we) aren't in a position to see all the data gathered or the vote count on a rules submission. And until recently, even the submissions made.

 

I've never seen you wait for a schmoe to submit a change request or lobby for a change that was seen as unfair, poorly written, poorly implemented or out dated. You've been very proactive

 

Will I lobby for rules changes? No ... I've been down that path of angst and won't go there again.

 

I have put my faith in those running the series (you and your fellow directors) to look at ALL the rules to make sure they are fair and fairly implemented.

 

I see now that I am being naive ...

 

Other users here take issue with what you post and you don't come uncorked on them, like you do me. I have to live by a different set of expectations.

 

I don't single you out. I treat Al, Todd, Chris, Kent, Adam all the same. If I can't voice an opinion (and it's only a single opinion) on how you or anyone sees the world, then I have no recourse.

 

Trust me ... I won't let the door hit me on the way out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn
I'm truly sorry you feel that way, Glenn.

 

I don't have a seat at the table. I (we) look to you and those in your position to be keepers of the rules. It's a responsibility of the position you volunteered for.

 

I (we) aren't in a position to see all the data gathered or the vote count on a rules submission. And until recently, even the submissions made.

 

I've never seen you wait for a schmoe to submit a change request or lobby for a change that was seen as unfair, poorly written, poorly implemented or out dated. You've been very proactive

 

Will I lobby for rules changes? No ... I've been down that path of angst and won't go there again.

 

I have put my faith in those running the series (you and your fellow directors) to look at ALL the rules to make sure they are fair and fairly implemented.

 

I see now that I am being naive ...

 

Other users here take issue with what you post and you don't come uncorked on them, like you do me. I have to live by a different set of expectations.

 

I don't single you out. I treat Al, Todd, Chris, Kent, Adam all the same. If I can't voice an opinion (and it's only a single opinion) on how you or anyone sees the world, then I have no recourse.

 

Trust me ... I won't let the door hit me on the way out.

 

Everyone has a seat at the table.

 

So your one of those guys who complains about how the country is run, but never votes.

If helping run CMC paid my bills, my role would be very different. I would have a considerable amount of time to dedicate to rules re-writes/changes.

 

You have been offered this job several times by more than one National Director. I see now why you refused. It appears to be so you could hold others to a higher standard than to which you would hold yourself. You quickly point out how I'm failing to live up to the expectations you placed upon a position I volunteered for, but refuse to participate as a result of your past experiances. Yet you don't consider my past experiances and the reasons I pick my battles. The last one I took on, took me 2 years to get implemented. And only half of it got through.

 

I don't act on every personal POV towards the series. It isn't my series. It is everyones. So I try to limit the impact my personal take on the series has. I can never remove it.

 

One last thing Mitch - Have you read some document that outlines my obligations to this series? To you, the racer? Can you point me to it? Or are all these expectations your placing on me just assumed by you out of thin air?

 

 

 

To all the Directors who avoided responding to this thread - your smarter than me. It did nothing but open the door for folks (Mitch) to tell me how bad of a job I'm doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn
Thought the 94-04 cars were all in the same update and backdate boat. It looks as though I am only allowed 98 and back though? Can a director please let me know for sure on this?

 

This is a jump from the original thread since it started to stray from the original question about a fox Mustang bumper cover.

 

Aftermarket and "tuner" body and aero kits are covered elsewhere, so I can avoid that discussion here as well as most of the discussion surrounding the factory built specialty cars like the Cobra, Cobra R, Anniversary Edition, Bullitt, and Mach 1.

 

There are several points of clarification I feel need to be addressed with regard to the SN95 chassis Mustangs. At the crux of the issues is the question, "Do we up/backdate based on chassis layout, body style, powertrain, a combination of two elements, or all three?"

 

Even though the basic SN95 chassis remained fundamentally unchanged from '94-'04, there was a powertrain update that didn't exactly line up with a couple of exterior body updates. I think that is what is leading to different interpretations as to what is allowed to be updated and backdated in the '94-'04 year range.

 

The rounded jellybean exterior styling of the SN95 remained the same from '94-'98, but the 5.0 pushrod engine was carried over from the fox body cars in '94-'95 since the 4.6L V8 modular engine wasn't ready yet. The 4.6L modular engine was introduced in '96 and continued through '04. The external dimensions of this engine were larger than the 5.0 it replaced, so changes were made to the K-member and front suspension pieces to accommodate it. Transmissions were also changed at this time. In '99, the exterior styling of the '94-'98 cars was updated with the "new edge" styling that continued through '04.

 

The question remains: Do we specify an up/backdate cutoff between '95 and '96 when the 5.0 was changed to the 4.6, when the exterior was updated to the "new edge" styling in '99, or do we go with the broader spectrum of allowing up/backdating across the entire spectrum of the SN95 chassis from '94-'04?

 

I think we have two choices. We need to either allow a full spectrum SN95 chassis up/backdate, or we need to make a clear division between the '98 and '99 cars.

 

I see a couple of problems if we allow full spectrum SN95 up/backdates. First, mixing and matching of the pre and post-'99 body parts would look goofy if you could manage it at all. Second, we'd have to allow 5.0L V8 pushrod engines in a body style that only ever had the modular motor installed in them. I'm not as familiar with the GM camp, but I don't think that maintains a consistent line of thought through the CMC series.

 

I think it makes more sense to make a division between the '98 and '99 model years. In doing so, the '94-'98 drivers would be allowed to run either the 5.0L or the 4.6L V8 since they both appeared in that body style of car. The new edge cars would only be allowed to run the 4.6L since the 5.0L never appeared in that body style.

 

Going back to the issue of allowing the Mach 1 front bumper air dam/deflector/spoiler thingy on the '94-'98 cars...

In making the division between the '98 and '99 it never becomes an issue since it was never present on the '94-'98 cars. Instead, it becomes solely an issue of whether or not to allow factory specialty model components like those found on the Mach 1, Cobra R, etc.

 

 

Did any of this ever get answered for you?

One thing to keep in mind if we wanted to change the rules (and I'm unclear as to which way you think it should go) is how many will be affected if we make a change.

 

Would it be correct to say that you want 79-96 Mustangs in one group, 97-04 in another? This being a separation between 5.0 and 4.6 cars.

 

Did any of the on topic banter help clear-up why things are the way they are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al F.

Guys, good discussion, but lets keep it friendly. Well, at least friendlier, ok?

 

Is there a really strong technical reason why a 4.6 2V is not currently allowed in a Fox? Well, no, not really. At least not from my point of view. Is there a really strong demand from us racers to allow a 4.6 2V in a fox? Not at all.

 

To my knowledge nobody has contemplated this, gone through the work of determining how it can be done, how it should be done, and verifying that it'd be all good and no bad, and submitted all of that to the directors for consideration (racer or director by the way...some of our directors are quite active in running all of this for changes they see as beneficial).

 

So far our mustang drivers have overwhelmingly preferred the old 5.0 to the 4.6 2V, all you have to do is look at the numbers of each currently in the series. Thats why the 5.0 is allowed in an SN99: because there was a real and big demand and we proved to ourselves that allowing it would be a good thing.

 

No, we are not going to re-write the rules because one person has one combination of parts sitting in their garage. That is especially true when offloading those parts and buying already legal parts would be a net dollar gain. That said, if the mustang community starts moving in the direction of favoring the 4.6, makes the case, assuades the fears of it being made into an advantage etc...then lets rock and roll!

 

We're all here to race and have fun on the relative cheap. Lets not focus on hypotheticals because they're technically feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CF03GT

Off Topic.. Al, how can you be contacted? We've (couple guys here in SE) have tried couple times to contact you through email, PM's (dont seem to get past the "outbox"), and even sent up some smoke signals (oh, those were just worn out Toyo's.. .

Thanks so much- Chris Ferraro SE CMC2 #14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn
Off Topic.. Al, how can you be contacted? We've (couple guys here in SE) have tried couple times to contact you through email, PM's (dont seem to get past the "outbox"), and even sent up some smoke signals (oh, those were just worn out Toyo's.. .

Thanks so much- Chris Ferraro SE CMC2 #14

 

Not to speak for Al, but I assume you have tried the email addy and phone number on the last page of the CMC rules that is listed for al CMC Directors. If that does not work, let your Regional Director(s) know and see if they can get his attention. If that fails, contact National via John Lindsey or Jerry Kunzman via this link:

http://www.nasaproracing.com/aboutnasa/regions.html

and tell him Al is blowing you off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CF03GT

Thanks Glenn- Yhea, it's prob. just user error on our end. I'll try the contact info again.

 

We're just looking for some of the CMC suit patches.. no big deal. And also lobbying for more weight for the F-body's..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn
Thanks Glenn- Yhea, it's prob. just user error on our end. I'll try the contact info again.

 

We're just looking for some of the CMC suit patches.. no big deal. And also lobbying for more weight for the F-body's..

 

Too late, we already submitted for a Fox/SN-95 weight increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jdlingle
Thanks Glenn- Yhea, it's prob. just user error on our end. I'll try the contact info again.

 

We're just looking for some of the CMC suit patches.. no big deal. And also lobbying for more weight for the F-body's..

 

I have tried pm's on this site, the texas site, and the nasa site about those as well with no luck. Let me know if you guys figure out how to get one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al F.

yes yes, guilty as charged! I've been derelict about getting suit patches out. I'll mail them tomorrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TurboShortBus
In my opinion, to clarify the SN-95 stuff, look at how you purchase parts for those cars. EVERY aftermarket/OEM grouping is from '79-'04. Why?, because it's the same part. If Ford wasn't so lazy, maybe the division would be more clear. I took a set of ring gears from my '03 V6, and tossed them right in my rear end of an '86 SVO, which is bolted to my '88 LX car. The suspension mounting points are the same, as with the brakes, and the T5 tranny, and I even think the driveshaft.

Fortunately, you started with the 7.5" axle, which is why those gears fit in the V6 axle and the SVO axle. It woudn't have worked if you had an 8.8" rear from a V8 car, though.

 

Not every part from '79 through '04 is interchangeable, although many of the dimensions are identical. There are slight differences here and there that you might not realize until it's "too late" and the parts store is closed or the brown truck won't show up again until after the weekend. Front A-arm lengths, spindle widths, rear control arm bolt diameters, T5 tranny input shaft lengths (Fox vs SN95), T5 bellhousing lengths and clutch fork locations, driveshaft yoke diameter/splines, etc.

 

This is just a (possibly lame and over-simplified) thought: As for easing confusion and shortening the rules a bit, the chassis/engine combos could just be listed as:

 

1. Provide a list of allowed chassis. Same as is current.

2. Provide a list of allowed V8 engines. EFI shall be OEM; carburetors are limited to "X" manufacturer/model. Optional: Mix/match OEM blocks/heads/intakes.

3. Combine any allowed chassis and engine; brands shall match.

4. Weigh 3200 lbs minimum.

5. Make no more than 260 rwhp and 300 ft-lb.

6. Percentage of weight on front axle shall be no less than 55% (or any other number). This eliminates advantages from moving the engine rearward (as if the 1" between typical engines and firewalls would make a significant difference) or from using OEM aluminum blocks. I have seen local-level stock car rules that say the right side tires must support no more than 55%, etc., so this wouldn't be too strange.

7. Run 'em.

 

I'm not sure how things like the current weight and torque adjustments (in Power & Weight Table #2) would be worked into this, though. There are probably other adjustment factors that would get messed up as well.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn
6. Percentage of weight on front axle shall be no less than 55% (or any other number).

 

This is a bad idea. I understand what your trying to do, but it is a bad idea, and I'll explain why.

 

My car (4th gen LT1) is right around 3240-3250 post race. I have a 53% F bias. That is a 1720 lb front weight. Your saying that adding 65 lbs to the front of my car - one that is already 40-50lbs heavier than the rules reguire - will make things fair? This would require my car to be 3305-3315 lbs post race w/ a minimum weight of 3200 lb purely for the reason of being required to meet a 55% F/R % rule? All this for a car that has absolutly zero ballast or any other weight that can be removed from the car. Do you not see the flaw in your logic? If not, let me help. The performance penalty for the overall weight increase is greater than the adjustment the % change will have.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you raicng in CMC yet? If not, how can you know if the platforms are or are not balanced as the rules currently stand? Last we talked, you had zero plans to runs CMC. Has this changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TurboShortBus
6. Percentage of weight on front axle shall be no less than 55% (or any other number).

 

This is a bad idea. I understand what your trying to do, but it is a bad idea, and I'll explain why.

 

My car (4th gen LT1) is right around 3240-3250 post race. I have a 53% F bias. That is a 1720 lb front weight. Your saying that adding 65 lbs to the front of my car - one that is already 40-50lbs heavier than the rules reguire - will make things fair? This would require my car to be 3305-3315 lbs post race w/ a minimum weight of 3200 lb purely for the reason of being required to meet a 55% F/R % rule? All this for a car that has absolutly zero ballast or any other weight that can be removed from the car. Do you not see the flaw in your logic? If not, let me help. The performance penalty for the overall weight increase is greater than the adjustment the % change will have.

Well, I figured that it was commonly done for the left and right side weights at the local roundy-round level, so it shouldn't be too difficult for the more sophisticated road race crowd to adopt and/or understand.

 

Do all F-bodies have such a favorable distribution of 53/47? Where is your battery located? If it's out back, then moving it to where it started should swing the weight distribution back to the front a bit, if such a rule existed. Adding weight to the front won't affect the overall weight of the car if it comes from the back.

 

OK, so pick 53% as the limit, or 52%; I just threw 55% out there. This could allow cars with 60/40 distribution to move a few things around to help their nose-heavy situation. I suspect that the current ballast placement rule (ahead of the main hoop only) is there to prevent cars from getting closer to 50/50, but if a car is 60/40, then what's the harm in putting ballast in the trunk?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you raicng in CMC yet? If not, how can you know if the platforms are or are not balanced as the rules currently stand? Last we talked, you had zero plans to runs CMC. Has this changed?

My car could still go either way at this time, as little progress has been made on it, and what progress has been made isn't irreversible. However, it has been parked since late 2010 and will remain so until companies start hiring architects again. Until then, I'm just a spectator.

 

My suggestions were only made as ways to reduce some current confusions (I'm apparently not alone), regardless of my future participation in CMC.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn

My battery isn't 65lbs. But you are correct.

You asked if all F-bodies are 53%F... well no, they all are not. Some guys who drive them don't weigh 250+lbs. That is what helps to be so heavy.

 

Running w/ a full load of fuel is another reason. I do this to help keep the car more settled. I could add a cool suit cooler to add more rear weight, but it would just be more dead weight as well.

 

My point about you not driving is to say - race w/in the series for a season before you come in and declair that the rules don't work. They work 100% better now than they did in 2005.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TurboShortBus
My point about you not driving is to say - race w/in the series for a season before you come in and declair that the rules don't work. They work 100% better now than they did in 2005.

I'm not "declaring" that the rules don't work; I was only stating that the engine and chassis combination requirements/limits are a bit confusing, and again, I'm not the only one who feels this way. I just don't understand why somebody couldn't put a 4.6L into a Fox Mustang and compete with it if they were so inclined, but maybe that's just me.

 

I'd be the only CMC car in Florida anyway, so I'm in no rush to take first place (and last place) in a 1-car class.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn
My point about you not driving is to say - race w/in the series for a season before you come in and declair that the rules don't work. They work 100% better now than they did in 2005.

I'm not "declaring" that the rules don't work; I was only stating that the engine and chassis combination requirements/limits are a bit confusing, and again, I'm not the only one who feels this way. I just don't understand why somebody couldn't put a 4.6L into a Fox Mustang and compete with it if they were so inclined, but maybe that's just me.

 

I'd be the only CMC car in Florida anyway, so I'm in no rush to take first place (and last place) in a 1-car class.

 

Mark

 

There is a good chance it would be legal if someone would submitt a rules request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...