Jump to content
D Algozine

2012 Rules discussion - Fox suspension help

Recommended Posts

D Algozine

A suggestion for discussion purposes. No I'm not a CMC racer, but I did stay at a...................never mind

Im just surprised no one has brought this up over the years.

Allow the Fox, SN95 & 99 Mustangs some type of third link to compete with the rest of the cars. F-bodies have a torque arm, S197 has the nicely designed third link, old mustangs get the quadrabind,..... or they can cobble together a half a$$ three link with one offset upper control arm and an"air bushing" on the other side. Why not specify a reasonable third lilnk for these cars. By specifying some hard dimensions and attachment points and list "approved" after market torque arms. It only seems fair. Since I'm not a CMCer, I think one of the older Mustang racers (thats old cars,...not drivers) should write up the proper submittal, using the requested formatt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37Stang
A suggestion for discussion purposes. No I'm not a CMC racer, but I did stay at a...................never mind

Im just surprised no one has brought this up over the years.

Allow the Fox, SN95 & 99 Mustangs some type of third link to compete with the rest of the cars. F-bodies have a torque arm, S197 has the nicely designed third link, old mustangs get the quadrabind,..... or they can cobble together a half a$$ three link with one offset upper control arm and an"air bushing" on the other side. Why not specify a reasonable third lilnk for these cars. By specifying some hard dimensions and attachment points and list "approved" after market torque arms. It only seems fair. Since I'm not a CMCer, I think one of the older Mustang racers (thats old cars,...not drivers) should write up the proper submittal, using the requested formatt.

 

That would probably be a good idea to even it out for the older Mustangs... A new set of UCA's for the Mustangs is almost 50% the cost of a MM torque arm and you get the benefit of no more torn up bushings or torque boxes with the PM3L.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bluebandit48

Holiday Inn Express?

 

We can add panhard bars. Thats good enough.

 

People would be against this because not everyone can do this modification. But I have seen this done and would be intrested in doing this. Oh wait.. We would have to run on 235s if we make this mod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37Stang
Holiday Inn Express?

 

We can add panhard bars. Thats good enough.

 

People would be against this because not everyone can do this modification. But I have seen this done and would be intrested in doing this. Oh wait.. We would have to run on 235s if we make this mod

 

The panhard bar just adds to the bind of the four link. Going to the PM3L places an enormous amount of stress on the upper torque box and UCA bushing not to mention non-equal handling in right and left turns. Permitting a torque arm would make the Fox, SN95 and new edge cars safer and would be cheaper in the long run.

 

Installing a torque arm is a relatively easy modification, certainly easier than doing sub frame connectors.

 

The GM cars already have torque arms from the factory... They get to still run on 275's so it would only make sense to permit the Fox, SN95 and new edge cars to stay on 275's...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CMC#11
The GM cars already have torque arms from the factory... They get to still run on 275's so it would only make sense to permit the Fox, SN95 and new edge cars to stay on 275's...

To some that makes sense, but not to the GM guys that think everything is perfectly equal currently.

 

I have been told that if the Mustang runs the same parts the GM has that is would put the Mustang at an advantage. I guess I missed the class in school that taught "equal" means "advantage".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn
To some that makes sense, but not to the GM guys that think everything is perfectly equal currently.

 

Funny how when your told no, it the GM's fault. Ever ask how the Ford Directors voted? You likely should before you keep making these comments.

 

 

I have been told that if the Mustang runs the same parts the GM has that is would put the Mustang at an advantage. I guess I missed the class in school that taught "equal" means "advantage".

 

I've told you time and time again, I would be all for the T/A if you would run at 3200lbs and decrease your track to a width that is under the OEM fenders. Seems you want all the adjustemnts you have now and add a T/A. Not gonna happen. It also would not be fair to allow the aftermarket stuff to be added on the Ford and require the GM's to retain the stock stuff w/ the stock geometry. Install a stamped steel T/A that mounts to the tailhousing of the trans and you will have a good shot at getting it approved. Sinc that is not likely to be found, the result is a non-OEM part for the GM's. One that mounts to the chassis instead of the trans.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CMC#11
To some that makes sense, but not to the GM guys that think everything is perfectly equal currently.

 

Funny how when your told no, it the GM's fault. Ever ask how the Ford Directors voted? You likely should before you keep making these comments.

 

 

I have asked for this for the last 2 years and I have received nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CMC#11
I have been told that if the Mustang runs the same parts the GM has that is would put the Mustang at an advantage. I guess I missed the class in school that taught "equal" means "advantage".

 

I've told you time and time again, I would be all for the T/A if you would run at 3200lbs and decrease your track to a width that is under the OEM fenders. Seems you want all the adjustemnts you have now and add a T/A. Not gonna happen. It also would not be fair to allow the aftermarket stuff to be added on the Ford and require the GM's to retain the stock stuff w/ the stock geometry. Install a stamped steel T/A that mounts to the tailhousing of the trans and you will have a good shot at getting it approved. Sinc that is not likely to be found, the result is a non-OEM part for the GM's. One that mounts to the chassis instead of the trans.

 

Do you seriously believe this crap you are typing?

Let me get this straight:

I run a T/A, run the same weight as you, and reduce my track width to under an unmodified fender which would be about 71" front / 69.5" rear.

In no way on this Earth is that equal when you run a front / rear track width of 74.5". I don't care how crappy your stock t/a is compared to an aftermarket Mustang piece, I doube it will make up for 4-5" of track width difference. We also haven't even started to talk about aero, coil overs, front/rear weight, front sla design, etc.

 

If you are wanting to make it equal, how about we put the Mustang at 3200, allow both Mustangs and Camaro's to run an aftermarket T/A, put the track width at the exact same for all platforms, and then race the cars.

Would you be good w/ that or do you think the Mustang would have an advantage with these new imaginary rules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn

Lets stop acting like I'm the only one who disagrees w/ you. I am one of many.

 

If SLA was everything, the 3rd gens would have been biult w/ them. GM made that car for roadracing and autocross.

Or do the 3rd gens need the same help?

 

How does the coilover make a car faster? Locating the spring over the shock makes it faster? There are race shocks available for Fox's.

 

But you tell me how much weight (accell and decel) and track needs to be accounted for aero, track, SLA, coilover, T/A? What about power curves? Rev rate from 2K to 5K?

If you want to race cars that are the same, CMC is not it. CMC is about differet cars racing under very equal conditions.

 

Sorry your not happy. Send in your rules request. Perhaps your arguments here have changed some of the Directors minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CMC#11
Lets stop acting like I'm the only one who disagrees w/ you. I am one of many.

 

If SLA was everything, the 3rd gens would have been biult w/ them. GM made that car for roadracing and autocross.

Or do the 3rd gens need the same help?

 

How does the coilover make a car faster? Locating the spring over the shock makes it faster? There are race shocks available for Fox's.

 

But you tell me how much weight (accell and decel) and track needs to be accounted for aero, track, SLA, coilover, T/A? What about power curves? Rev rate from 2K to 5K?

If you want to race cars that are the same, CMC is not it. CMC is about differet cars racing under very equal conditions.

 

Sorry your not happy. Send in your rules request. Perhaps your arguments here have changed some of the Directors minds.

I don't have the answer to every question Glenn, I'm the first to admit I don't know a lot about suspension design and mathematics.

 

I just find it comical that directors are out there trying to tell me that track width, wheelbase, coil overs, sla's, and other stuff doesn't make a difference but there is no way YOU would want to do without it. Heck, I even had Al tell me earlier this year that the Fox had an advantage when it comes to its short wheelbase b/c it is more "nimble" than the longer wheelbase platforms. Are you kidding me? Is every Mustang AI racer out there just wasting money when some of the first mods they do are coil overs and an increased wheel base?

That is the same thing as being told that the wider track width doesn't make a car faster yet you complain if we ask to set all platforms at the same track width.

 

I understand the cars are never going to be the same, I just want them to be equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bluebandit48

I know this is fun and all but did any one submit a RCR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn

I have not seen one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bluebandit48

Ok.. Well I have been thinking about putting a panhard bar setup on the car but I keep asking myself why?

 

Tubular lower control arms with polly bushings helps with that side to side snap.

 

With a panhard bar arn't you just causing more of a bind? I believe it was said before about the binding problem.

 

If mustangs are allowed to add a T/A then why cant we just have the gm cars be able to upgrade theirs? I do not know gm cars so thats my idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37Stang
Ok.. Well I have been thinking about putting a panhard bar setup on the car but I keep asking myself why?

 

Tubular lower control arms with polly bushings helps with that side to side snap.

 

With a panhard bar arn't you just causing more of a bind? I believe it was said before about the binding problem.

 

If mustangs are allowed to add a T/A then why cant we just have the gm cars be able to upgrade theirs? I do not know gm cars so thats my idea.

 

Adding a panhard bar to the quadlink suspension will cause more bind. The UCA is trying to locate the rear housing and so is the panhard bar - they end up fighting one another...

 

Take away the weight break for the Fox and SN95, give the GM's an aftermarket torque arm, keep the track widths at their current specs and give the Fox, SN95 and new edge the option to run a torque arm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
suck fumes1548534743

You would think a T/A would be in everyones best interest cause it will prolong the life of our chassis! Just let every car have one then sort out the small details later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bluebandit48

RCR submitted. Sorry Al, I'm up to two of them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blk96gt

The fuel lines run all the way to the back!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D Algozine

With parity in mind, the bar has been set by the S197.

Every chassis should be permited to have a chassis mounted third link. The S197 has the classic three link, then all others should be permitted to use a chassis mounted torque arm. Again specify the dimensions, attachment points, and approved after market. As it stands now, there is a great deal of differences within the platforms in the very important and basic geometry of the rear suspension. Why not equal it out?

Ever watch the start of a CMC race? What chassis almost always has the advantage? The one with the best rear suspension. Same goes for exiting a corner, its just not as significant as an advantage at speed, but it is there.

For a few hundred dollars, per car, the class would gain a huge amount of parity. Then the weight breaks and penalities may need adjusting for true parity, but thats pretty simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D Algozine
With parity in mind, the bar has been set by the S197.

Every chassis should be permited to have a chassis mounted third link. The S197 has the classic three link, then all others should be permitted to use a chassis mounted torque arm. Again specify the dimensions, attachment points, and approved after market. As it stands now, there is a great deal of differences within the platforms in the very important and basic geometry of the rear suspension. Why not equal it out?

Ever watch the start of a CMC race? What chassis almost always has the advantage? The one with the best rear suspension. Same goes for exiting a corner, its just not as significant as an advantage at speed, but it is there.

For a few hundred dollars, per car, the class would gain a huge amount of parity. Then the weight breaks and penalities may need adjusting for true parity, but thats pretty simple.

 

The Fox suspesion was given a panhard bar early on, because basically that entire rear suspension sucks. Panhard may help, but compared to the rest, it still is poor, so it gets a weight break. The Fbody comes stock with a panhard and torque arm, which is ok, but still is lacking in optimum design. S197 is very well designed and gets a tire and weight penality. All of which is complicated, needs to be reviewed and adjusted often, and likely still is not equal. No, it will never be exactly equal, but it can be damn close, and still remain inexpensive (relatively)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom P
Glenn
With parity in mind, the bar has been set by the S197.

Every chassis should be permited to have a chassis mounted third link. The S197 has the classic three link, then all others should be permitted to use a chassis mounted torque arm. Again specify the dimensions, attachment points, and approved after market. As it stands now, there is a great deal of differences within the platforms in the very important and basic geometry of the rear suspension. Why not equal it out?

Ever watch the start of a CMC race? What chassis almost always has the advantage? The one with the best rear suspension. Same goes for exiting a corner, its just not as significant as an advantage at speed, but it is there.

For a few hundred dollars, per car, the class would gain a huge amount of parity. Then the weight breaks and penalities may need adjusting for true parity, but thats pretty simple.

 

The Fox suspesion was given a panhard bar early on, because basically that entire rear suspension sucks. Panhard may help, but compared to the rest, it still is poor, so it gets a weight break. The Fbody comes stock with a panhard and torque arm, which is ok, but still is lacking in optimum design. S197 is very well designed and gets a tire and weight penality. All of which is complicated, needs to be reviewed and adjusted often, and likely still is not equal. No, it will never be exactly equal, but it can be damn close, and still remain inexpensive (relatively)

 

I'm confused......

Are you arguing w/ yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
suck fumes1548534743

I've been eyeballing that MM T/A for a month hoping it gets approved for next yr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
suck fumes1548534743

I've been eyeballing that MM T/A for a month hoping it gets approved for next yr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al F.

Interesting...I looked back as far as 2008 and couldnt find record of a formal RCR. Based on prior history, I wouldnt hold my breath. Adding a torque arm to the Mustang fundamentally changes the suspension design and turns a CMC platform from one where you play with spring rates and sway bars to one where you play with roll centers, anti dive/squat, etc. That is counter to the entire premise of CMC. If the mustang needs help, there are easier and cheaper ways to get there, namely slowing the GM cars down by making them narrower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...