fox max track width accomodations

[MHISSTC]

Below is a picture of the max sized wheel and tire combo on The Pumpkin at max allowed track width in the rear. The front isn't as dramatic, but there is clearly some bodywork that will need to be done to allow the tires/wheels to fit at max track width without being circumcised by the fenders as the suspension compresses. Merely pushing the fender out somewhat with a hydraulic jack and rolling the fender lip inward as folks have done in the past isn't going to work.

 

I found the following rules that apply:

 

4. Ford cars up to and including 1993 may modify the fenders and quarter panels, including adding aftermarket flares, and body mounts as needed in order to gain track width up to the maximum stated in 6.3

5. All allowed bodywork modifications must conform to CCR 18.1.3 and must have no other function than to gain tire clearance.

 

CCR 18.1.3 is basically the 50/50 appearance rule.

 

Those rules seem to be wide open, giving me a large amount of latitude on the modifications that can be done to make that combination fit. I have many questions about that, but we'll start with only a few basic ones.

 

I thought there was a requirement somewhere that the tire had to somehow reside within the bodywork, or at least something that said the top of the tire as viewed from above could not extend past the fender. I can't find any wording to that effect anywhere. What am I missing, or did I imagine this?

 

What I am reading doesn't seem to indicate that I actually have to accommodate the tires within any bodywork whatsoever. Does that mean I can simply cut out a big section of each fender to clear the tire, make sure it looks good, and we're fine?

 

If I did want to contain the tire within the bodywork, it seems I could do anything from adding a 4" strip of black plastic lawn edging around a larger wheel opening, to going all out with a set of box flares hand formed on an english wheel by a 90 year old craftsman who only speaks Italian...as long as they provide no other function than to accommodate the wider track.

 

[Glenn]

The rule your not seeing in the CMC rules was likely removed since it's only purpose in the past was to set a track width limit for the class. Since we now use a set measurment, it was no longer needed.

I can tell you the intent is to have the tires covered w/ bodywork.

[Glenn]

From the 2011 CMC Rules: (Not in the 2012 Rules)

 

7.5.1 Fenders / quarter panels must be OEM stock or an OEM replacement meeting the following requirements:

1. The lips may be rolled inward for tire clearance and may not be flared outwards.

2. Panels may not otherwise be modified / altered / or installed in such a way as to purposely increase width or possible track width over OEM dimensions.

3. A vertical line from the widest point of the fender lip may not intersect the tire contact patch/tread area above the centerline of the wheel when the wheels are straight.4. Plastic interior wheel opening panels may be removed.

[wastntim]

I can tell you that under the current rules, if you use the maximum track width allowed on a third gen, the tire will stick way out on the front and rear. Maybe not as bad as in the picture but close. Plus, on the fronts, as you go into a corner, if the car is too low, you'll rest the fenders on the tire which will prevent you from turning the wheel under braking load. As me how I know how.

[MHISSTC]

From the 2011 CMC Rules: (Not in the 2012 Rules)

 

3. A vertical line from the widest point of the fender lip may not intersect the tire contact patch/tread area above the centerline of the wheel when the wheels are straight.

 

Thanks Glen.

The intent may have originally been to contain the tire within the bodywork, but that's not how it's written now.

 

Crap. Here's another rules revision suggestion I need to remember to submit this year.

 

I could go either way on the suggestion. Either it needs to be clearly stated that we are now allowed to extend the tires out beyond the bodywork, or there needs to be some very good wordsmithing that clearly states just how much of the tire needs to be within the bodywork. If we simply reincorporated that old wording into the current rule, that rule could be met, technically, by incorporating something as simple as a playing card sized rectangle of aluminum riveted to the fender that extends out past the highest point of the tire.

 

For the uninitiated, this is a good example of how changing one rule (track width) could potentially create a cascading waterfall of subsequent rule changes that you may not have even thought of yet.

[Glenn]

Try not to read the rules and take from that how much you can get away w/, but rather what is it the rules are allowing you to do and expect from you.

 

Obviously if this becomes an ongoing issue, the Directors will correct it. When one trys to max the rules, there are pro's and con's of doing so.

Max track.......

Pro's = Faster Car

Con's = Body work required.

[suck fumes1548534743]

You know running the max track width is not always the solution to making the car handle better. Wider track def softens up the corners of the car but you dont necessarily need to push it out to the max. Just depends on track and other setup numbers you are using.

[MHISSTC]

Our current plan is to exercise the option of maximizing The Pumpkin's front and rear track width, which is still the narrowest of all the platforms, for the upcoming 2013 season based on the current rules. Using that as a baseline, we will continue to make further refinements in our setup as required. The questions we are asking and the pictures we are posting here now are to clarify and resolve any issues we, or anyone else, may have well in advance of actually cutting any sheet metal.

[Adam Ginsberg]

Scott - FWIW, I've found running the allowable front track width, coupled with a slightly narrower rear track width works very well.

[Al F.]

When we added the track width numbers, we validated that the tires would be essentially at the fender edge for all except the fox (though maybe we need to look again at the third gen?) the fox rule is of course there to allow modifications to get the bodywork out to the new width. I have no problem adding that the fenders have to extend out to the edge of the top of the tire or something to that effect if it'll help the fox guys figure it out.

 

Regarding how much effort to devote to it...well, its your car, and I would hope that personal pride would keep you from just screwing on some plywood! Boudreaux, Mosty, and Zimmer here in tx have all done an excellent job with theirs, I'm sure they can offer advice.

[MHISSTC]

I would hope that personal pride would keep you from just screwing on some plywood! Boudreaux, Mosty, and Zimmer here in tx have all done an excellent job with theirs, I'm sure they can offer advice.

 

Such information gathering was already in progress.

[Al F.]

I figured as much. All three basically went the same route, so it'll be interesting to see what you decide to do.

[trublu]

So before I create a new string on the same theme are fibreglass replacement fenders and quarter panels an option for the fox to gain max track? I'm looking at a company who produce a reasonably priced set at either 1-1/2" or 3" flare. If I'm off base let me know but the rules seem to accommodate that...

[MHISSTC]

What company and how much is their "reasonably priced" set of front and rear fenders?

[Al F.]

Aftermarket flares are ok. Replacement panels in their entirety are not. At the time we changed the rule we knew of nothing in the marketplace (entire panel wise) that did what we wanted and didnt do anything we didnt (designed with an eye for downforce). If that changes or has changed we can revisit.

[trublu]

Preform Resources in MI. They developed the SVO body kit for Ford Special Vehicles and these flared fenders are from those molds. Cost is $850 for both front fenders and the quarters. Below is their link

 

http://www.preformresources.com/Mustang-Body-Parts.htm

[trublu]

BTW cost is total not each....

 

Talked with the guy who runs the company last week, he's only sold about five kits a year on average. I've got him on the hook to lay up a set depending on the answer here.

[trublu]

Any advice here Al? I'm new to CMC and am trying to get this sorted before MSRH.

[MHISSTC]

Very cool stuff, and for $850 for the set, the price seems reasonable for a complete set of hand laid fiberglass fenders.

 

As the rules are currently written, I'd like to say the rear ones are legal since they are essentially an 'overlay' that is "glued on" to what I'm assuming is a rear quarter that remains nearly completely intact with only the wheel opening and inner fender area being removed/enlarged. That would be similar to how any other flare, extension, lip, or homegrown solution would be installed, but this one incorporates additional material that blends very well into the OEM body lines.

 

However, as the rules are currently written, I'm going to have to say the front ones are not probably legal. This is strictly because it is a fiberglass piece that replaces an OEM metal piece in it's entirety.

 

That's a shame though, since they really aren't that expensive, and they look a whole hell of a lot better than any homegrown solution I can come up with, most other add-on solutions, and most other sheet metal manipulated concoctions. I'm also curious if there is any actual benefit from these fenders by way of a weight savings. The fiberglass looks pretty thick and there is plenty of added material to add weight.

 

Do you know what the weight of the individual front fenders is and how that compares to the OEM metal ones? If you can get the weight of the fiberglass ones, I've got a set or two of fox Mustang and Capri fenders I can weigh for comparison sake if needed.

 

If they are at least as heavy as the OEM front fenders, I'm very willing to suggest submitting a rules change request to allow them, especially if they are a direct bolt-in replacement whose only real benefit would be providing a more OEM looking tire/wheel containment method for maxi-sized tires and wheels. Painting a set of pre-fabbed OEM fit fenders with the needed extensions already included would be oh-so-much easier than slicing, dicing, and fiberglassing in some cheezy-ass minimalistic extension that looks nothing like OEM and results in something that barely covers the top of the tire.

 

EDIT: Another thought... Maybe you could get the weight of the entire package of all 4 fenders. I wonder how much the weight of the complete set of 4 fenders would be compared to a set of OEM front fenders plus the amount of metal that would need to be removed from the rear quarters? Surely the set of 4 fiberglass pieces, plus the glue, plus finishing materials would be more than that. Can you tell I like them and I'm trying to figure out ways to make this happen?

[trublu]

Thanks. They are a bit of a gem aren't they, took a lot of searching too.

 

I see what you mean about the quarter panels, they'd effectively be an overlay. A confirmation before wielding the body saw would be good

 

Now for the front fenders. If the originals were designed for and used by Ford Special Vehicles, which I understand to be a part of Ford, then by default aren't they too OEM?

 

I'll ask Preform for a weight. I think the glass versus steel weights are going to be fairly comparable, particularly when you add on the quarters. They would probably even match the weight if requested given the fiberglass resin is usually mixed by weight rather than volume.

 

How long does a rule change request take to be reviewed? For that matter how do you go about submitting one?

[MHISSTC]

The rules change request period for the upcoming 2013 season was recently just completed. So unless there is a technical update or clarification to an existing rule, it is unlikely anything major, like allowing fiberglass replacement fenders on fox Mustangs, would happen for this upcoming year. I'm anticipating a few of the more vocal folks to be somewhat less than receptive to this idea, so get ready for that.

 

At the end of each season, there is a rules change request period. Once in motion, it really does happen pretty quickly. Some additional clarification can continue for a while, but overall decisions are made pretty quickly and transparently. (yes Al, we are still working on the transmission and swaybar info, but I'm still in family and vacation mode for another couple of days... ...you'll have it next week for sure)

 

EDIT: while the Mustang SVO is a legal platform, you could probably say under a blanket statement that any SVO developed items intended for race cars that were not offered on any OEM vehicles sold to the general public are probably illegal just as any SVT developed Cobra "R" specific items are illegal unless otherwise specifically allowed.

[trublu]

Gotcha.

[trublu]

Scott,

 

Just to run this one to ground. Ford Motorsports apparently offered these fenders in their catalog in 1986/7 for public consumption. Does that get us closer to legal?

[Glenn]

Scott,

 

Just to run this one to ground. Ford Motorsports apparently offered these fenders in their catalog in 1986/7 for public consumption. Does that get us closer to legal?

 

Not a chance. Parts available from the OEM is not the same as OEM parts.

[MHISSTC]

What if, instead of being bolted into position as a direct replacement to the OEM metal fender, it could be trimmed up and applied as an "overlay" to the OEM metal fender beneath it?

 

EDIT: Looking at those pieces some more, I'm not sure they will provide enough clearance, unless you can do some measurement verification or custom widths. They box the fenders a bit, but it looks only moderately wider on the inner fender lip than the OEM fenders since it does away with the wheel arch lip or "eyebrow". I'd really want to do some careful measurements and verification before I ordered a set and started cutting and bonding.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Guest