S197 and the "unfair advantage"

[CF03GT]

Ok, I've got to chime in here concerning all this hoopla and talk concerning the s197 chassis being a dominant force in CMC.

 

What are we basing this off of?? One National race where most of the nations CMC crowd didnt show up for?

 

"No fox bodies at the Nationals"! Oh my!!

Just because the fast guys in Fox bodies didnt show, Fox bodies are now proven that they cant compete on a National level? Huh??

 

Just because two of the fastest guys at Nats were in s197's, that car is now dominant in CMC??!

 

 

I rented an s197 for Nats because my sn99 was not fully built/prep'd for what I thought, would be a competitive car at the National level (basically a complete stock car with some non adjustable shocks, stiff springs and safety gear). Not because I knew I had to have a s197 to have a chance, I was just hoping to have a complete built car. Just so happened a s197 was offered for rent, that I knew would be a well built car.

 

We've got a top notch built s197 car we race against here in the SE (J. Rays car). The only complaint we'd have for the car is that it is just better well prepared/complete car built to the rules, then the rest of us. James can drive a car very well, as well.

I know with a better prep'd set-up to my current sn99, I would be able to finish ahead of that car (Ray's s197) more consistently.

 

I know I've heard talk from the Texas region that the s197('s ?) running there are a little behind the curve(?).

 

 

I'm thinking that the guys running teh s197's might just have a more complete set up car than us guys running the "cheap" CMC cars. They seem to be more serious on car set up, and have the ability to throw more money at the car (where as some just "get by" to run, like myself).

 

Just hope we're not basing this "slow down the s197's" on one National race.

Heck, did you see those 20 year old f-bodies running tenths off the track record as well? Hell, we need to start throwing more data aquisition in those damn cars! And have you seen the torque curve on those things!!

 

I hope the powers that be spend the time on hard numbers to evaluate the chassis before making any quick fixes/changes. Not to rush it based on complaints from the have-nots (I'm one of the have not's). And not to base it on one National race where most of the CMC nation was not represented.

 

Just my .02

 

- Chris

CMC #14

[CMC#11]

For the record, we have never had a single S197 in CMC in TX. The only S197 we have is an AI car.

[Glenn]

Settle down. I'll answer what I can.

 

What are we basing this off of?? One National race where most of the nations CMC crowd didnt show up for?

If a change is made, it will be as a result of the data collected from data loggers. It will not be as a result of a National win or a Regional win. Keep in mind that the S-197 is a new platform. It was already on the radar for a class killer when it was written into the CMC rules. Be glad the S-197 didn't have to start the class at 3400lbs like the 4th gen did.

 

"No fox bodies at the Nationals"! Oh my!!

Just because the fast guys in Fox bodies didnt show, Fox bodies are now proven that they cant compete on a National level? Huh??

Nope. I can tell you w/ 100% certainty that the Fox is as capable as any legal CMC car. The fact that no CMC Fox attended Nat's plays no role in another platforms adjustments.

 

Just because two of the fastest guys at Nats were in s197's, that car is now dominant in CMC??!

The data is being looked at. I can tell you that this goes to the highest level's w/in NASA HQ.

 

 

I rented an s197 for Nats because my sn99 was not fully built/prep'd for what I thought, would be a competitive car at the National level (basically a complete stock car with some non adjustable shocks, stiff springs and safety gear). Not because I knew I had to have a s197 to have a chance, I was just hoping to have a complete built car. Just so happened a s197 was offered for rent, that I knew would be a well built car.

So you don't own an S-197 CMC car? I wouldn't get worked up too much over this. Put your efforts into the SN-99 car you have and you will be fine.

 

We've got a top notch built s197 car we race against here in the SE (J. Rays car). The only complaint we'd have for the car is that it is just better well prepared/complete car built to the rules, then the rest of us. James can drive a car very well, as well.

I know with a better prep'd set-up to my current sn99, I would be able to finish ahead of that car (Ray's s197) more consistently.

And I'll tell you that if the platform is the reason you finish ahead of his S-197, you can look forward to adjustments as well. This will always be present in CMC. W/ the class being so closely matched, drivers are constantly pushing themselves and the cars to get more from them. As a result, laptimes drop. Sometimes more quickly for one than the others. This is when an adjustment is made. First year for S-197's at Nat's and they go 1st/2nd? How developed do you think the S-197 is compaired to the Fox? The 3rd gen? I bet not much compaired tothose platforms.

Understand, the only goal is platform pairity.

 

I know I've heard talk from the Texas region that the s197('s ?) running there are a little behind the curve(?).

We have no S-197 cars in Texas in CMC. We have 1 in AI, and the car is not anything more than a high HP CMC car w/ 18"wheels and 14" brakes. We have tried to get him to pedal back to CMC since he was in HPDE years ago. We have a pair of SN-99's. Both are well preped and average to good drivers in them.

 

 

I'm thinking that the guys running teh s197's might just have a more complete set up car than us guys running the "cheap" CMC cars. They seem to be more serious on car set up, and have the ability to throw more money at the car (where as some just "get by" to run, like myself).

I dont think this is an accurate statement. You may, but I don't. I've raced Bob Denton there at Mid O. I've raced him here at Hallett as well. He's fast, as fast as anyone.

 

Just hope we're not basing this "slow down the s197's" on one National race.

We are not. If we do, it is a responce from the data collected.

 

Heck, did you see those 20 year old f-bodies running tenths off the track record as well? Hell, we need to start throwing more data aquisition in those damn cars! And have you seen the torque curve on those things!!

I can show you the torque curves. And I can show you that anything over 3K, the LT1 is at a disadvantage. Area under the curve in the useable RPM range. For a CMC car, that is 3K to 6K.

Just a data point. In CMC1 trim, my LT1 made peak TQ at 2200 RPM's. from there it was all downhill. By 5K or so, it was down to 250tq.

In CMC-2, I still run a restrictor plate. I went from a 32mm in CMC to a 40mm for CMC2.

 

I hope the powers that be spend the time on hard numbers to evaluate the chassis before making any quick fixes/changes. Not to rush it based on complaints from the have-nots (I'm one of the have not's). And not to base it on one National race where most of the CMC nation was not represented.

 

Just my .02

 

- Chris

CMC #14

 

Accually, I don't think I've heard any complaints. But like I said, the data will tell us what to do. Since this is a new platform, it was going to get a lookover no matter where it finished.

I hope that the 2012 Nats will have all the top drivers from all the regions w/ all the platforms represented. I hope it breaks the record for car count set back in 2006 which is 23. I was there, and it was the best Nat's I raced. I raced the first 4. Never finished below 3rd. Got 2 back to back wins - one at Mid O and 1 at Miller.

[ShadowBolt]

"We have a pair of SN-99's. Both are well preped and average to good drivers in them".

 

Well I know who the average SN-99 drivers are.

 

 

JJ

[CF03GT]

Settle down?? Nice way to start a response to a fellow CMC'er (whom you've never met) who is just voicing a concern (that others also share).

 

Ok cool. Wasent aware that the platform was already on the radar. My concern was the feedback/comments/connotations I've been seeing post National race. Was hoping it wasent based off of that one race (even though it was a National.. where, once again, most of the nation/platforms were NOT represented.

And again, the mention (also from you) how s197's finish 1-2 (actually 1-3) at first year at Nats. Not a valid point considering the unrepresented turnout. See, even you are biased because of the Nat. race (admit it or not..

 

I know the fox is as capable as any other platform.. hence my "huh?" in relation to the comments from others about there being no foxes at teh Nats.

 

I do now own a s197 that I plan on running next year. I promise you I wont get "too worked up" over this. Again, just voicing a concern.

 

I will be prepared and make due with changes if need be to keep this series cars in parity (thats why I came CMC racing to start with. I think it was you Glenn that stated CMC racing best.. "dont try to outbuild, out think your competitors.. Bring a well built car and bring your A game!

 

Is there anything in the works for a rule change for the s197's for start of next year that I need to be concerned about before I complete the build and stock up on consumables? Or will you guys be taking more time to evaluate the hard numbers for these cars?

I could see myself getting a little worked-up if changes were made right before a new season after all my car prep and stocking of consumables is completed

 

 

Ok. I could have sworn I heard talk from your region concerning s197 having trouble keeping up in CMC trim. Guess not.

 

I think my comment on "s197's being better prep'd by their drivers" is more of a local statement. Here in the SE, we come and run the old junk we have (in comparison to Rays car). Sorry if I offended anyone here. I know a lot of effort/$ is put in to whatever anyone drives.

 

You havent heard the complaints about the s197? Heck, I hear em/see em at the tracks and on this board on a relative daily basis.

 

Congrats on your Nationals finishes. Hoping for the record turn out's in the future as well!

 

-Chris

CMC #14

[FBody383]

"We have a pair of SN-99's. Both are well preped and average to good drivers in them".

 

Well I know who the average SN-99 drivers are.

 

JJ

 

Maybe, but it's a good looking SN-99.

 

This "discussion" may not stay limited to the S197, there is still a certain driver and 3rd gen awaiting its return as an LT-1/T5 car that I anticipate running up front... a lot.

 

I have faith in the process and the leadership to try to do the right thing for the series.

 

But man it would be cool to get 40-50 CMC cars in a race. Even this mid-pack slacker could have a good time.

[CMC#11]

Chris,

I have to ask, why did you just now get a S197 to race next year when you just built your SN99?

 

FWIW, I bought an 09 Mustang last year for my daily driver with the plans of turning it into my next CMC car around 2015. It was 100% stock and I took it to an open track day and was blown away by its performance. I had a passenger with me and ran worn out RA1's on the front and 888's on the back. I was 5 seconds off my own track record in the 10 or so laps I ran (1:24 vs 1:29). The car was 3,850 lbs on track.

I know this is not scientific info buy I would guess that 600 lbs. less, some brake pads, new gears, and struts/shocks would be pretty close to a 5 second drop.

[BADVENM]

Michael, I dont off the top of my head know what the hp/tq numbers are on the '09s...my question is did you restrict your car down to the CMC hp/tq numbers when you were out on track and recorded the times you mentioned?

 

EDIT: now that I think of it I would speculate that the extra hp/tq would be offset by the excess weight of the car when you ran it for your comparison.

[CF03GT]

Chris,

I have to ask, why did you just now get a S197 to race next year when you just built your SN99?

 

FWIW, I bought an 09 Mustang last year for my daily driver with the plans of turning it into my next CMC car around 2015. It was 100% stock and I took it to an open track day and was blown away by its performance. I had a passenger with me and ran worn out RA1's on the front and 888's on the back. I was 5 seconds off my own track record in the 10 or so laps I ran (1:24 vs 1:29). The car was 3,850 lbs on track.

I know this is not scientific info buy I would guess that 600 lbs. less, some brake pads, new gears, and struts/shocks would be pretty close to a 5 second drop.

 

Hey Michael. I finished the build on the sn99 in Dec. 09. My intention with that car was to get me thru my comp licensing and rookie season of w2w racing as cheap as possible, driving something that wasent optimally set-up wise, in order to focus more on my driving.

 

So, between the cost to upgrade/update on that car (a lot needed), the good deal I got on a mostly complete well set up CMC s197 (with some good suspension and adjustability), having a new chassis to drive that I've always wanted/liked since they showed up '05 (that also happens to be MUCH faster than the rest in CMC! hehe , ... The real deciding factor was the money Ford is putting up for the car.

 

I dont know if I can ever say I've been blown away by the performance of a stock mustang, but I hear ya.

 

Why you wait'in til 2015 to bust that bad boy out?

 

 

 

-Chris

CMC #14

[CMC#11]

I dont know if I can ever say I've been blown away by the performance of a stock mustang, but I hear ya.

 

Why you wait'in til 2015 to bust that bad boy out?

 

 

 

-Chris

CMC #14

Call it bad planning on my part. I bought the 09 w/ 30k miles with the intention of converting it when it had around 100k. Needless to say I have the bug to build it right now but just rolled 40k. I should have just bought an older one w/ 80k miles and I wouldn't feel too bad about gutting it.

 

David, regarding the HP, I "guess" it is around 260 rwp in stock trim. It is 300 from the factory and I have heard they put down about 270 to the wheels w/ the accessories stripped.

It was also interesting driving the entire track in 2nd and 3rd b/c of the 3.31 gears. I was hitting almost 110 on the main straight in 3rd at 6k RPM.

[ls168camaro]

Chris-I guess I haven't been looking close enough as I seem to have missed all the daily comments on here about the S197?? Although maybe you have seen my RCR I submitted to Al that is below.

 

 

---2) 5. Eligible Manu.

---3) Remove 2005-2010 Ford Mustang

---4) Reasoning for change MUST include at least 1 of the following:

---------->a) Willl decrease series cost because it won’t make people build this car if they want to win a championship and will allow the cheaper cars to be built and raced competitively.

---------->b) Will increase driver safety because if everyone is driving a S197 then we will be going faster which is more dangerous.

---------->c) Will increase series growth because it will allow more people to continue building cheaper cars that are competitive.

---------->d) Will improve competition because everyone will be on a more level platform.

---------->e) Will provide more clarity because otherwise it will turn into AI where it’s the S197 Challenge.

[CF03GT]

Chris-I guess I haven't been looking close enough as I seem to have missed all the daily comments on here about the S197??

Although maybe you have seen my RCR I submitted to Al that is below.

 

 

---2) 5. Eligible Manu.

---3) Remove 2005-2010 Ford Mustang

---4) Reasoning for change MUST include at least 1 of the following:

---------->a) Willl decrease series cost because it won’t make people build this car if they want to win a championship and will allow the cheaper cars to be built and raced competitively.

---------->b) Will increase driver safety because if everyone is driving a S197 then we will be going faster which is more dangerous.

---------->c) Will increase series growth because it will allow more people to continue building cheaper cars that are competitive.

---------->d) Will improve competition because everyone will be on a more level platform.

---------->e) Will provide more clarity because otherwise it will turn into AI where it’s the S197 Challenge.

 

Yeap, they're out there.

 

Good luck with the submission. Makes so much sense. Thanks for your input..

 

 

-Chris

CMC2 #14

[Glenn]

Chris-I guess I haven't been looking close enough as I seem to have missed all the daily comments on here about the S197??

Although maybe you have seen my RCR I submitted to Al that is below.

 

 

---2) 5. Eligible Manu.

---3) Remove 2005-2010 Ford Mustang

---4) Reasoning for change MUST include at least 1 of the following:

---------->a) Willl decrease series cost because it won’t make people build this car if they want to win a championship and will allow the cheaper cars to be built and raced competitively.

---------->b) Will increase driver safety because if everyone is driving a S197 then we will be going faster which is more dangerous.

---------->c) Will increase series growth because it will allow more people to continue building cheaper cars that are competitive.

---------->d) Will improve competition because everyone will be on a more level platform.

---------->e) Will provide more clarity because otherwise it will turn into AI where it’s the S197 Challenge.

 

Yeap, they're out there.

 

Good luck with the submission. Makes so much sense. Thanks for your input..

 

 

-Chris

CMC2 #14

 

Calm down. It was a joke.

I know why Kent doesn't let you guys post now.

 

I know you don't know Bryan at all, but he was just trying to lighten the mood.

[cmc79]

A lot of talk about 5th gen Mustangs running CMC. Yet still, some CMC leadership thinks racers won't want to run newer cars with CMC level mods.

[Glenn]

A lot of talk about 5th gen Mustangs running CMC. Yet still, some CMC leadership thinks racers won't want to run newer cars with CMC level mods.

 

I'm not following you Nick. Explain more please. Call if you want.

[Al F.]

If past history is any indication, it takes about seven years from OE model launch until the street prices get down to about where people start considering a car in earnest for CMC. The first 4th gen (Don Trask) was built in 99. I'd say we're right about on track for S197s, maybe accelerated a wee bit.

 

Chris, Glenn is one sarcastic mo-fo. Nine times out of ten he's gonna say something that'll get your hairs on end. Ten times out of ten he means well, you just have to get used to his style

 

Now...yes, the S197 is under consideration for some adjustments. The data is the driver. I'm an enginerd and I love data. Right now the data is indicating the S197 is in need of an adjustment. The question is how much and how to obtain it.

 

Since nationals is on people's minds, consider that Ander's car was 300lbs over weight. Consider Chris' car was under power, under sprung, and under braked (as well as under fueled, but that didnt actually help! ). That is one race weekend (not one race) and isnt the only source of data.

 

Nothing of this nature is taken lightly, and Glenn is absolutely right that NASA National is involved to ensure a quality decision. More to come...

[Glenn]

How dare you Al...

Sometimes I think you don't know me at all.

 

 

If anyone was offended by what I said, that was not my goal (this time). When it is my intention, there will be no doubt.

Sorry Chris.

[cmc79]

I'm not following you Nick. Explain more please. Call if you want.

 

At Eagles Canyon. With beer and BBQ.

[Glenn]

I'm not following you Nick. Explain more please. Call if you want.

 

At Eagles Canyon. With beer and BBQ.

That reminds me. I need a bottle of Makers.

[ls168camaro]

Chris-Glenn is right, don't get your panties in a wad over a joke. The only talk I have seen prior to this thread about the S197 is you and others joking about it at nationals.

 

Seriously though do you honestly feel that the S197 is not due any adjustment?

[CF03GT]

If past history is any indication, it takes about seven years from OE model launch until the street prices get down to about where people start considering a car in earnest for CMC. The first 4th gen (Don Trask) was built in 99. I'd say we're right about on track for S197s, maybe accelerated a wee bit.

 

Chris, Glenn is one sarcastic mo-fo. Nine times out of ten he's gonna say something that'll get your hairs on end. Ten times out of ten he means well, you just have to get used to his style

 

Now...yes, the S197 is under consideration for some adjustments. The data is the driver. I'm an enginerd and I love data. Right now the data is indicating the S197 is in need of an adjustment. The question is how much and how to obtain it.

 

Since nationals is on people's minds, consider that Ander's car was 300lbs over weight. Consider Chris' car was under power, under sprung, and under braked (as well as under fueled, but that didnt actually help! ). That is one race weekend (not one race) and isnt the only source of data.

 

Nothing of this nature is taken lightly, and Glenn is absolutely right that NASA National is involved to ensure a quality decision. More to come...

 

Thanks for the (non pissing match) explanation Al. Appreciate that.

 

Just curious, where was all this driver data taken from?

 

So then I'm assuming there will be changes to this platform before next season (written in the SOON to be published 2012 rules)?

 

And since Nationals is still in our minds.. Consider we had two other very VERY well prep'd s197's (one of em a (soon to be) two time Regional Champ), both of which, didnt finish on the podium all week. Hmm..

 

I'll follow up more with you in private Al. Thanks again-

 

-Chris

CMC #14

[Glenn]

If past history is any indication, it takes about seven years from OE model launch until the street prices get down to about where people start considering a car in earnest for CMC. The first 4th gen (Don Trask) was built in 99. I'd say we're right about on track for S197s, maybe accelerated a wee bit.

 

Chris, Glenn is one sarcastic mo-fo. Nine times out of ten he's gonna say something that'll get your hairs on end. Ten times out of ten he means well, you just have to get used to his style

 

Now...yes, the S197 is under consideration for some adjustments. The data is the driver. I'm an enginerd and I love data. Right now the data is indicating the S197 is in need of an adjustment. The question is how much and how to obtain it.

 

Since nationals is on people's minds, consider that Ander's car was 300lbs over weight. Consider Chris' car was under power, under sprung, and under braked (as well as under fueled, but that didnt actually help! ). That is one race weekend (not one race) and isnt the only source of data.

 

Nothing of this nature is taken lightly, and Glenn is absolutely right that NASA National is involved to ensure a quality decision. More to come...

 

Thanks for the (non pissing match) explanation Al. Appreciate that.

 

Just curious, where was all this driver data taken from?

 

So then I'm assuming there will be changes to this platform before next season (written in the SOON to be published 2012 rules)?

 

And since Nationals is still in our minds.. Consider we had two other very VERY well prep'd s197's (one of em a (soon to be) two time Regional Champ), both of which, didnt finish on the podium all week. Hmm..

 

I'll follow up more with you in private Al. Thanks again-

 

-Chris

CMC #14

 

Yep - even bad drivers can fail to finish well. I stopped bragging about all the big money car's I've beat w/ my 230hp CMC car years ago.

I think we call all agree that the platforms other than the S-197 are pretty equal (CMC-2 cars). So if we collect data from a small pool of cars at a single event (many of which run Mid Ohio all the time) and see one car that stick's out above the rest, we can assume an adjustment could be needed. If the same "appearance" of a needed adjustment is seen in a 2nd car of the same type at the same track during the same weekend, we have to believe it is warrented.

I've seen you point out that the F-body's ran laptimes w/in a couple 10ths of the S-197 that set track record. What you leave out is the weight difference between those two cars. If we added 300+lbs to the F-bodies that were there, the difference would be seconds, not 10ths.

So we have....

One S-197 that was under prep'ed (compaired the veteran platforms) and finished 1st.

A second s-197 that was under prep'ed (compairedtothe other veteran platforms) and finished 2nd.

 

And when I say under prep'ed, I mean things like 300lbs over minimum weight , or a car that is not even close to max power (like 30 ftlbs. short).

I have seen the data from Mid Ohio, and I was somewhat shocked by what I saw. Several folks were showed the data and each was allowed to respond not knowing the responce of others. I am pretty sure the responce was the same across the board. Once again pointing to the need for an adjustment.

Nothing is finalized yet and the details will be released as soon as we work on the details. There were several ideas and I do not know what path will be taken.

[wastntim]

Although I'm admittably a newb to CMC and W2W racing, without intending to take anything away from some great drivers,i.e. Anders and Chris, having been at Nationals and later watching the races online, it really appeared that the S197's were in a class amongst themselves. This point is underscored when taken in context with the fact that Anders car is 300# overweight and Chris' car had obvious braking issues, not to mention the limited seat time he had in the car having only run it one other weekend.

 

As for the preparation of other cars at Nats, I know that noone worked harder on their car setup than Kent Owens over the last year. We joke with Kent regularly because he changes more on his car than anyone over the whole weekend, but he does that between each race! Furthermore, I know Bob Denton has done everything he knows how to, which I'm guessing is more than most in our region, to make his car as fast as it can go.

 

Quite frankly, after seeing the difference with my own eyes, I was left with the feeling that I should stop working on getting my car sorted, which admittably is something I need to work hard at, and start looking at building a s197. I even started to make inquiries in that direction.

 

If the data does show a definite advantage of the S197, and I would be surprised if it didn't having seen the difference in the performance with my own eyes, I would hope that something would be done to equate the cars. The biggest draw to me towards CMC, before even getting to know the people, was the perceived parity between the cars and the fact that I could race economicaly (a stretch, I know) and still be competitive. To the extent that I might have to abandon a newly well built third gen to build a s197 to be competitve would diminish my perception of the biggest draw towards CMC.

[Glenn]

Although I'm admittably a newb to CMC and W2W racing, without intending to take anything away from some great drivers,i.e. Anders and Chris, having been at Nationals and later watching the races online, it really appeared that the S197's were in a class amongst themselves. This point is underscored when taken in context with the fact that Anders car is 300# overweight and Chris' car had obvious braking issues, not to mention the limited seat time he had in the car having only run it one other weekend.

 

As for the preparation of other cars at Nats, I know that noone worked harder on their car setup than Kent Owens over the last year. We joke with Kent regularly because he changes more on his car than anyone over the whole weekend, but he does that between each race! Furthermore, I know Bob Denton has done everything he knows how to, which I'm guessing is more than most in our region, to make his car as fast as it can go.

 

Quite frankly, after seeing the difference with my own eyes, I was left with the feeling that I should stop working on getting my car sorted, which admittably is something I need to work hard at, and start looking at building a s197. I even started to make inquiries in that direction.

 

If the data does show a definite advantage of the S197, and I would be surprised if it didn't having seen the difference in the performance with my own eyes, I would hope that something would be done to equate the cars. The biggest draw to me towards CMC, before even getting to know the people, was the perceived parity between the cars and the fact that I could race economicaly (a stretch, I know) and still be competitive. To the extent that I might have to abandon a newly well built third gen to build a s197 to be competitve would diminish my perception of the biggest draw towards CMC.

 

And you my friend "get it". Thank you.

Don't worry about getting an S-197. There is no need. Platform preference should be decided based on brand loyalty and how well you know the chassis or the brand. I'm a GM guy. I started open track events w/ my 98 Camaro (in 1999). I built a 4th gen since I knew 4th gens inside and out. Accually, I bought a 3rd gen first and started gutting it when I was talked into going w/ a 4th gen. I managed to sell the 3rd gen for double what I paid and put the profit into the 4th gen.

[CF03GT]

Guys, my bottom line here is.. Why are the rules being changed based on one weekends data?!

 

Yes, I agree that there was sufficient "appearance" for an inquiry that was "warrented". Wouldent the next logical step be to further investigate? Instead of a knee jerk reaction of an immediate rule change?

 

- Chris

CMC #14