2012 Rules discussion - Fox suspension help

[bluebandit48]

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.

 

Al, you would have to slow down GM cars and the 197s.

 

Why not just make the sn95 and foxes a little faster. Upgrade the GM cars to catch the 197 instead of slowing everything down.

 

I dont think 3 link is the way to go. It would be too much for some people i think. Just allow the T/A for the older mustangs, allow GM cars to upgrade and dont change the 197. That would fix the disadvantages in the cornners compared to the 197.

 

When do we get to look over the data collected from nationals?

[D Algozine]

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.

 

I don't think I have all the answers, and I certainly don't have the data and knowledge you guys have accumulated over the years. But, as a somewhat knowledgeable person who doesn't have a horse in the race (at this time), I don't believe there is parity between the platforms, and the Fox,sn95/99 cars are at the short end of the stick.

It was a little lopsided with the fbody's and Fox based Mustangs, but with the inclusion of the S197, the difference is significant.

If I understand your statement, fbodys and to more of an extent the S197s get a better roll center, antidive/squat and better ability to tune with springs and shocks but the Fox, Sn95/99 cars get a weight break and need to work with the very limited suspension options that they have available and still compete. That is too much to ask from too little to work with.

I get the point, that it's supposed to be "stock type" muscle cars that are equal. But they just simply are not equal, and the very basic and most important geometry of the suspension is very far apart. They just simply are not even close. A little weight added or subtracted may help to level the playing field, but I personaly dont think it is enough. Weight changes would help if the cars were closer.

[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)

 

I'm confused......

Are you arguing w/ yourself?

 

I may be alittle off center, but I haven't started arguing with myself...yet.

 

The second statement is supposed to be additional thoughts that further my opinion. I hope it didnt get lost in translation.

[bluebandit48]

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.

 

Al, you would have to slow down GM cars and the 197s.

 

Why not just make the sn95 and foxes a little faster. Upgrade the GM cars to catch the 197 instead of slowing everything down.

 

I dont think 3 link is the way to go. It would be too much for some people i think. Just allow the T/A for the older mustangs, allow GM cars to upgrade and dont change the 197. That would fix the disadvantages in the cornners compared to the 197.

 

When do we get to look over the data collected from nationals?

[Glenn]

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.

 

I don't think I have all the answers, and I certainly don't have the data and knowledge you guys have accumulated over the years. But, as a somewhat knowledgeable person who doesn't have a horse in the race (at this time), I don't believe there is parity between the platforms, and the Fox,sn95/99 cars are at the short end of the stick.

It was a little lopsided with the fbody's and Fox based Mustangs, but with the inclusion of the S197, the difference is significant.

If I understand your statement, fbodys and to more of an extent the S197s get a better roll center, antidive/squat and better ability to tune with springs and shocks but the Fox, Sn95/99 cars get a weight break and need to work with the very limited suspension options that they have available and still compete. That is too much to ask from too little to work with.

I get the point, that it's supposed to be "stock type" muscle cars that are equal. But they just simply are not equal, and the very basic and most important geometry of the suspension is very far apart. They just simply are not even close. A little weight added or subtracted may help to level the playing field, but I personaly dont think it is enough. Weight changes would help if the cars were closer.

 

So what evidence do you bring to the table that shows a Fox cannot run the same lap times a 4th gen can? I understand the suspensions are not the same. So do we give a 50lb penalty for TA's, and another 50lbs for aero, and another 50lbs for front A arms........ You get my point?

 

The GM's are also not running near as aggressive cams as the Fox and SN-95's. What is that worth in lbs?

It appears there is more to it than just the differences in the suspensions. W/ that in mind, it is better to use on track performance of each platform. We try to use the best performing car or each platform to gauge parity. If one guy can turn a track record in a Fox, then all Fox's are capable of that lap (I under stand not all drivers can though). Same goes for all platforms. No driver is capable of getting a lap time out of a car that the car isn't capable of doing - not a single one. So show me where there is data indicating this difference in lap times?

 

Here we see tracks where Fox/SN-95 rule (Hallett). Low speed track w/ lots of 2nd/3rd gear corners. That 100lb difference shows w/ the braking and acceleration coming out of the corners. The 4th gens seem to rule fast high speed track like Texas World Speedway. Good aero and great high speed stability are surely factors. But in the end, it all averages out. It would be nice to be able to balance each platform for each track. CMC isn’t there and likely never will be. Same can be said where some regions have more high speed tracks than low speed. So the issue could appear to be a problem in some regions and not others. So how do we balance out those situations using a single National rule set?

 

Short of having a Stockcar chassis w/ a CMC legal platform body on it, I don't see an answer. Up to that point, there will always be enough differences for someone in the series to complain of a lack of parity. Then it will be aero, aero, aero...... Never stops.

 

So, all the Directors hear this all the time from one group or another. Everyone feels there platform is at some type of disadvantage. That’s OK, but I'm not going to take someone’s word on blind faith and give them what they want. Provide data. Provide data. Provide data! Give the Directors something to work w/ more tangible than your gut feeling or opinion.

[CMC#11]

We try to use the best performing car or each platform to gauge parity. If one guy can turn a track record in a Fox, then all Fox's are capable of that lap (I under stand not all drivers can though). Same goes for all platforms.

Really? You base the rules off of the fastest driver / platform? Why not base it off every competitor in the series? The data from all drivers will give more accurate information.

 

So show me where there is data indicating this difference in lap times?

 

Just look at the track record data. Is there a Fox that holds a track record anywhere in this country? I know in TX I only had 1 track record at MSR-C with a 1.24.2 and that record was smashed this year by Cody Powell at a 1.23.6 in a 4th gen.

 

Here we see tracks where Fox/SN-95 rule (Hallett). Low speed track w/ lots of 2nd/3rd gear corners. That 100lb difference shows w/ the braking and acceleration coming out of the corners.

Ok, lets look at the fast lap data from Hallett this year where the Fox "rules":

Me (fox body) - R1 - 1.28.4 / R2 - 1.29.0 / R3 - 1.28.6 / R4 - 1.28.6

Dan (4th gen) - R1 - 1.28.5 / R2 - 1.29.0 / R3 - 1.28.9 / R4 - 1.28.9

James (4th g) - R1 - 1.28.2 / R2 - 1.28.9 / R3 - 1.28.8 / R4 - 1.28.0

So James has the two fastest laps of the event and has the fastest by .4 seconds, and also won 3 of the 4 races. What platform "rules" at Hallett?

 

Everyone feels there platform is at some type of disadvantage.

Glenn, I'd be interested to hear your opinion on where you think the 4th gens disadvantage is. I understand they are heavier than some of the other platforms but I'm curious your opinion on any other disadvantages.

 

Provide data. Provide data. Provide data! Give the Directors something to work w/ more tangible than your gut feeling or opinion.

Will do!!! I have already looked at race result data from 2011 and will work on getting a list from the current 2012 events as well.

I'd also be interested in knowing what data the directors are using to make their decisions. I think main thing is that everyone wants to be kept in the loop.

[Glenn]

Not sure how much longer I'll do this.

 

We try to use the best performing car or each platform to gauge parity. If one guy can turn a track record in a Fox, then all Fox's are capable of that lap (I under stand not all drivers can though). Same goes for all platforms.

Really? You base the rules off of the fastest driver / platform? Why not base it off every competitor in the series? The data from all drivers will give more accurate information.

 

So we should base parity off the performance of a rookie? Really?

 

So show me where there is data indicating this difference in lap times?

 

Just look at the track record data. Is there a Fox that holds a track record anywhere in this country? I know in TX I only had 1 track record at MSR-C with a 1.24.2 and that record was smashed this year by Cody Powell at a 1.23.6 in a 4th gen.

 

So at what point after this happened should action have been taken? Surely 1 point for your argument. This alone is not enough though. We knew the track had it though since Wirtz ran a 1:23.7 once in qual.

 

Here we see tracks where Fox/SN-95 rule (Hallett). Low speed track w/ lots of 2nd/3rd gear corners. That 100lb difference shows w/ the braking and acceleration coming out of the corners.

Ok, lets look at the fast lap data from Hallett this year where the Fox "rules":

Me (fox body) - R1 - 1.28.4 / R2 - 1.29.0 / R3 - 1.28.6 / R4 - 1.28.6

Dan (4th gen) - R1 - 1.28.5 / R2 - 1.29.0 / R3 - 1.28.9 / R4 - 1.28.9

James (4th g) - R1 - 1.28.2 / R2 - 1.28.9 / R3 - 1.28.8 / R4 - 1.28.0

So James has the two fastest laps of the event and has the fastest by .4 seconds, and also won 3 of the 4 races. What platform "rules" at Hallett?

OK, I missed Hallett 2 years running. Likely things have changed. Were you having any issues w/ the car that weekend?

So for R1 you were .2 off best, R2 you were .1 off best, R3 you were .2 off best, R4 (2 times longer than R1-3) you were .4 off best. Did you have to ballast up for R4? Did James and Dan do the same? 4 tenths is something to look at, but R1-R3 is pretty damn close. If this proves to be the case at all events, then a trend would be established. I see one race.

 

 

 

Everyone feels there platform is at some type of disadvantage.

Glenn, I'd be interested to hear your opinion on where you think the 4th gens disadvantage is. I understand they are heavier than some of the other platforms but I'm curious your opinion on any other disadvantages.

No real reason to sidetrack the thread more. I'm not the one complaining.

 

Provide data. Provide data. Provide data! Give the Directors something to work w/ more tangible than your gut feeling or opinion.

Will do!!! I have already looked at race result data from 2011 and will work on getting a list from the current 2012 events as well.

I'd also be interested in knowing what data the directors are using to make their decisions. I think main thing is that everyone wants to be kept in the loop.

Glad to see you taking point on this. As vocal as you have been, it would be well received by all the Directors. As a verteran of the class you will be setting an example for others to follow.

As for the data..... A couple years ago I know data was collected for CMC2 (now CMC) to ensure the headers and cam changes allowed for the Fox/SN-95 didn't miss the target and over perform. This data included Fox, SN-95, 3rd gen, 4th gen (LT1). All the data showed the cars were very equal w/ each having an area of strength and weakness. I don't have the data and I don't have the authority to release it. Gotta go to Al for that. I love keep folks in the loop (and being transpartent). So much so, I've been threatened to be banned as recently as yesterday. Again, want more "in the loop" and transparentcy, contact Al.

 

One thing that is always considered is the driver, even if they are the top performing driver of that platform. In your case, you have compaired yourself to 2 very experianced drivers. James started DE's w/ me back in 1999. He has about twice the wheel-2-wheel racing I have and (I know for sure) you have. Then there is Dan. I'm thinking he has about as much as myself, you and James all combined. That is a tough group to be compaired to.

 

One last thing about the Directors looking into this issue....

There are Directors who race Fox/SN-95's and I don't recall any of them mentioning a lack of parity on the behalf of the Fox/SN-95. You can bet your ass if I felt the 4th gen is not getting a fair shake, I'll say so to all the Directors (and have at times).

 

So if it makes it easier to voice your opinion to a Director who drives a 4th gen, I'm OK w/ than, but to blame me for a lack of changes you feel should be made is not fair. I'm 1 of 10 (I think).

[CMC#11]

Glenn, I'm not trying to drag this out. I think we are both passionate and very solid in our beliefs and I am going to try to reply to your comments with data that proves my point.

 

Regarding parity, I would like to see it based off a larger data set than just a select few of each platform. I understand that "rookie" data might be skewed but it isn't skewed if we are using rookies from all platforms. Another thing that could be done is drop off the extreme highs and extreme lows and use the meat of the racers for the data set.

 

@ Hallett I did add ballast for R4. I weigh before every race and come off track 10-20 lbs heavy each time. I am not sure what James + Dan did or where they were weight wise.

 

Regarding the 4th gen disadvantages, you mentioned every platform has its down sides and I was just curious your thoughts on it. I know myself and others have stated the downside of the Mustang in the past but I have never heard anyone list areas where the fox/SN95 has an advantage over the 4th gen. Obviously weight is 1 thing but I am curious to hear the rest of the list. Feel free to start another thread or I can as well so we don't muck up this one any further.

 

Finally, regarding data, I will be happy to compile a fancy data sheet. I already have done so for all platforms from a large group of regions (TX, CO, CA, and Great Lakes) from 2011. I will do the same for the 2012 season up to this point.

[Glenn]

Glenn, I'm not trying to drag this out. I think we are both passionate and very solid in our beliefs and I am going to try to reply to your comments with data that proves my point.

 

Regarding parity, I would like to see it based off a larger data set than just a select few of each platform. I understand that "rookie" data might be skewed but it isn't skewed if we are using rookies from all platforms. Another thing that could be done is drop off the extreme highs and extreme lows and use the meat of the racers for the data set.

 

@ Hallett I did add ballast for R4. I weigh before every race and come off track 10-20 lbs heavy each time. I am not sure what James + Dan did or where they were weight wise.

 

Regarding the 4th gen disadvantages, you mentioned every platform has its down sides and I was just curious your thoughts on it. I know myself and others have stated the downside of the Mustang in the past but I have never heard anyone list areas where the fox/SN95 has an advantage over the 4th gen. Obviously weight is 1 thing but I am curious to hear the rest of the list. Feel free to start another thread or I can as well so we don't muck up this one any further.

 

Finally, regarding data, I will be happy to compile a fancy data sheet. I already have done so for all platforms from a large group of regions (TX, CO, CA, and Great Lakes) from 2011. I will do the same for the 2012 season up to this point.

 

Remember, the goal is to balance the cars, not the drivers. I don't see using average or something alongs those lines as useful in any way.

[Al F.]

Cool, good discussion! (just dont get overly emotional )

 

Michael, I think Glenn is right regarding having to carefully select the "cars" used as yardsticks. We all know there is a world of difference between driving skill, driver willingness to let it all hang out (which is not to be confused with skill!), and investment in car setup (not raw dollars, I'm talking testing, tuning, and adjusting). If the point is to ensure equal performance capacity of the platform, then we have to (try) to take those variables into account.

 

Now then, Michael is assembling some data that should be pretty interesting to look at: winners by platform. That has to be normalized using "top shelf" platform cars available though IMHO in order to be meaningful.

 

Another interesting angle to look at is how many cars of each platform are out there. I wish I could post pictures up here, but I cant...so I'll throw out some numbers:

 

Each year there are about 100 CMC cars that collect points in at least one region. The Fox %of total cars was 24, 26, 19, and 21 for 2009-June 2012. The 3rd gen and SN95 also lost "market share" with 22, 23, 22, 16 and 25, 27, 25, 21 percent respectively. The 4th gen gobbled that up 24, 21, 28, 36. Now...2012 data is only for the first few events of the year and its entirely possible that its skewed somehow, but it certainly looks like there is a trend for people to move towards 4th gens. A big part of that is obviously GM guys moving to a 4th gen over a 3rd since they had to upgrade to 260hp and they wouldnt be caught dead in a Ford

 

Interestingly enough, that population swing isnt due to rookies!!! Rookie platform choice is steady over the years and about equal with mustangs having a slight edge.

 

My take away...real or not, there is certainly a perceived advantage to the 4th gen. Michael doesnt help the cause though a few tenths here and there slower? Thats not significant. Would he be half a second or more faster than the Proctors and Allfords of the world if he were in a 4th gen?

 

A little history (and sorry about the long post...) once upon a time before CMC was big outside of Ca everyone was convinced you had to have a 3rd gen to win. There were two 4th gens, and they werent fast. Tony G went out and built a beautiful SN95 and started driving circles around people with it. Before you know it everyone wanted an SN95. This was in the 2001-2003 time frame. Times have changed

[Al F.]

Oh, Rob...nationals had only 4th gens and s197s so it isnt really helpful with regards to parity between 4th gens and foxes/sn95s.

[mitchntx1548534714]

I can only imagine what Wayne Manor or Eric Varner would do to the field if the Foxx were any more disadvantaged.

[bluebandit48]

Oh, Rob...nationals had only 4th gens and s197s so it isnt really helpful with regards to parity between 4th gens and foxes/sn95s.

 

Well I will send you my data to look at if you want. I noticed the times and there is no way I could drop 3 seconds off my lap time.

 

I wanted to be at nationals but my wife wouldn't let me take the 2 week old. They dont make ear muffs quite that small!!

[MHISSTC]

Why not just make the sn95 and foxes a little faster. Upgrade the GM cars to catch the 197 instead of slowing everything down.

 

From my viewpoint, the main flaw in that plan is the same platforms are being tasked to shoulder the burden of the time and expense needed to bring about parity instead of sharing it equally.

[BADVENM]

Can we look at the lap times from the participants at Nationals? A 4th gen did win a qual race if I remember correctly.

 

How many tenths of a second does one consider a rule change to be needed for platform pariyy? What about one second? Does one second difference in lap time necessitate a rules change? Could one second a lap mean that the faster car had a better setup for that session, a better set of tires, no driver errors? Go into a turn hot and have to let off briefly could certainly take a second. What about letting off one second later then another car at the end of a long straightaway before having to brake for an upcoming turn.

 

I guess I'm wondering (and I think we all are at some point) at what difference in a single lap lap time or number of seconds in a 20 or 30 minute race from first to second or first to last is needed to say that one platform needs some help to keep up with another. Maybe its not the platform, its the driver. The driver cant drive the car to its potential and/or the cars potential isnt meeting the potential of the driver. Its so confusing to think about.

[mitchntx1548534714]

Can we look at the lap times from the participants at Nationals? A 4th gen did win a qual race if I remember correctly.

 

How many tenths of a second does one consider a rule change to be needed for platform pariyy? What about one second? Does one second difference in lap time necessitate a rules change? Could one second a lap mean that the faster car had a better setup for that session, a better set of tires, no driver errors? Go into a turn hot and have to let off briefly could certainly take a second. What about letting off one second later then another car at the end of a long straightaway before having to brake for an upcoming turn.

 

I guess I'm wondering (and I think we all are at some point) at what difference in a single lap lap time or number of seconds in a 20 or 30 minute race from first to second or first to last is needed to say that one platform needs some help to keep up with another. Maybe its not the platform, its the driver. The driver cant drive the car to its potential and/or the cars potential isnt meeting the potential of the driver. Its so confusing to think about.

 

Excellent post and directly on point.

 

In 2010 I won a race at Hallett. It wasn't because I'm Joe Stud, rather I was able to weave through traffic a LOT easier than the Kellams, Gunters, Mostys, Proctors atc. In reality ... I'm 3 or 4 seconds off the FTOD

 

Basing platform changes on an aggragate for one platform and comparing it to the top finishers of another platform is lunacy. They do that kind of handicapping in bowling leagues. And If I were the top runner of that aggragate pool I'd be lobbying for it too. There is no downside ... everyone will be faster.

 

CMC is becoming special olympics where the expectation is the rules will allow everyone, regardless of talent, prep or desire to get a trophy. Just show up and fog a mirro and you get a podium.

 

Is that really what is wanted?

[wastntim]

Can we look at the lap times from the participants at Nationals? A 4th gen did win a qual race if I remember correctly.

.

 

Not to try to take anything away from anyone but I believe most of the racers were on rains but the winner was on shaved tires for this race.

 

This type of information must be taken into account when looking at race results. You have to account for variables and be willing to throw out data that might be skewed by something.

 

For example, last year when we went to Road America Kent was fighting an electrical gremlin (a wire got pinched in the valve cover). It was killing power all for him all weekend, but we are about to head back to Road America this weekend. It being Kent's home track, I'm expecting he will be schooling the rest of us all weekend.

 

The point is, just accumulating race results without a detailed analysis of what was going on is a mistake. You need to look at:

What cars were in the race?

What track were they at?

What was the participants level of experience?

What was their level of experience at that Track?

Was everybody's car operating at 100%? not just engine, but also - how old was everyone's tires?

 

It is impossible to account for all of the variables but we need to look at the major ones before using data from any event.

[CMC#11]

Mitch, I'd ask that you please edit your last post to remove the off-color comment regarding individuals with special needs. I know it was not meant negatively but I would prefer to keep those comparisons off the forum. Thank you.

[D Algozine]

Evaluating the platforms for partiy is very difficult. Many vaviables to consider, but at some point you need to look at all the info together and look for trends in the data.

 

So, my point (for what its worth) is that the cars are very different, but one method to equalize the characteristics of each platform is to try and make them similliar, within reason. Start with the very basic and major components (basic suspension desgin) and try to keep it similiar in design without requiring major fabrication or cost.

Examle: the Fox suspesion is very different then all other platforms. so, by giving those cars a weight break and hotter cam, it may help level lap times, but the cars drive entirely different. And as stated earlier, depending on the track, set up, conditions, and even different points on the track, they will perform very different from other platforms. Its such a wide margin.... is 100lb enough or too much?

The more variables the more diffuclt it is to provide parity. It may be too late to make such a radical change, but if the Fox style cars had torque arms, permitted to be wider, then the need for weight breaks and/or cams would not be necessary or perhaps both wouldn' be necessary. The cars would drive similiar to the other platforms in the class.... then adjust with weight to fine tune.

I don't think I'm making sense. I just think its to diffucult to make it equal when the suspension designs are so different. And it's a fairly simple solution to add a torque arm, they bolt up, cost a few hundred...Yes springs and other adjustment would need to be made, but in my opinion well worth it.

[mitchntx1548534714]

Mitch, I'd ask that you please edit your last post to remove the off-color comment regarding individuals with special needs. I know it was not meant negatively but I would prefer to keep those comparisons off the forum. Thank you.

 

Noted

[CMC#11]

Mitch, I'd ask that you please edit your last post to remove the off-color comment regarding individuals with special needs. I know it was not meant negatively but I would prefer to keep those comparisons off the forum. Thank you.

 

Noted

Noted, but not edited???

[ls168camaro]

Too many variables in drivers, setups, tires, traffic, beers, etc. to use everyone's lap times as a way to set the benchmark. It has to be what the car is capable of doing and there isn't the available money to make this IROC. It's also tough to use one year of data to determine whether there is parity. I have said it before and will say it again. If you are using one year of Texas data there will be skewed performance values depending on who was racing a specific platform. Meaning in 2012 the 3rd Gen and SN95/99 won't look as strong without certain people

 

What needs to be used is the actual track data from the cars they test during races. Unfortunately our directors choose to keep that information to themselves. Although I do remember when Adam posted the S197 data after the 2011 Nationals race it showed the clear advantage of that platform under braking. Of course that post was quickly deleted.

 

With the exception of the S197 I believe that we are pretty close on parity. The disclaimer is that I am not privy to the data that the directors get to use in making the rules. I would request seeing that info. from the directors to illustrate how close the platforms are or are not.

 

Al-how about you put them on the trophy girls this weekend and show us the data while at the track?

[Adam Ginsberg]

I can only imagine what Wayne Manor or Eric Varner would do to the field if the Foxx were any more disadvantaged.

 

There we go - let's post some ridiculous comment, from someone no longer racing in CMC, about drivers who haven't raced in several years, regarding "information" that is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

 

This is exactly the kind of post that muddies the waters when discussing rules, and leads us down the rabbit hole.

 

Varner and Manor were both running Foxes in regular CMC trim, not CMC2 trim. Additionally, this was several years ago, and driver skill within CMC has increased. Considerably. Neither has raced in CMC for several years. As such, it has no bearing on our current discussion.

 

Can we leave unneeded comments like this, especially from a driver no longer racing in the class, out of the equation?

[bluebandit48]

Why don't we just allow free data sharing. I don't care if people looked at my data? So would it be a bad thing if I posted my data on here?

[Tom P]

If there isn't enough track data available to compare platforms, maybe an old fashioned Road & Track type comparison test would be easy and helpful. Lets see if I can remember the criteria: 0-60, 100-0, skid pad lateral G's, slalom speed, rear seat legroom.....etc.

Possibly the SpeedNews magazine crews would conduct and publish the tests.