2012 Rules discussion - Fox suspension help

[Glenn]

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?

Problem is that you assume the drivers used to collect the data are OK w/ it. In some cases, they are very much against this.

To give you an idea of how sensative drivers can be about data collected....

At one time I collected a copy of all the CMC (and AI) annual dyno sheets. At somepoint along the lines I wanted to make this info public. That created a total shitstorm. Not only was there worry of how the dyno data could be used against one another to exploit weaknesses in that persons car, but then the Directors were accused of being privleged to that info and using themselves to exploit those weakness. I can assure you nothing is further from the trueth, but there was no way to stop the "sky from falling". So asking Directors to realese data logger type data on other drivers would surely cause problems.

For me, I'm OK w/ it. You can place your own logger on my car and log away. Share the data w/ me and we and I'm good. Post it for all to see.

The Directors on the other hand have to respect the rights of the drivers to some degree and respect the results of thier hard work.

 

In fact, take a look at this rule from the NASA CCR's:

 

17.4 Confidentiality

A competitor has a right to protect information about legal modifications and setup pertaining to their vehicles from other competitors. If a competitor feels that inspection by the Tech Inspector (i.e. if the Inspector is another competitor) will result in loss of information to another team, he/she may lodge such an objection with the Inspector.

Once an objection has been lodged, the Tech Inspector will remain in impound while the competitor locates the Race Director. The Race Director will then make the determination of legality. The tech inspector may watch the vehicle or assign someone to watch it, but shall not conduct any inspectons, other than those agreed upon between himself/herself and the driver.

 

So the driver has the right to protect thier set-up. I will assume this to include all data regardless of type. I have always asked for copies of my data and wouldbe glad to share w/ anyone who asks.

[mitchntx1548534714]

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?

 

I still have a vested interest in the series. Old CMC No9 might be gone, doesn't mean a new one won't unload off of a trailer some day.

 

Based upon your response, I see you too sense how Varner and Manor would skew the curve had they remained racing.

[37Stang]

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.

 

This is probably the best way to have parity among the various platforms... Permit the platforms to have similar suspensions. I know the premise for CMC is basically stock configurations but if a platform is that much below other platforms in the sense of performance potential then why not permit those platforms to perform basic modifications in the interest of parity... We are talking about the addition of a torque arm not a major fabrication project.

 

The pushrod Fords were given the B and E cams so they could make the power required for the CMC2 level. Why not give the Fox, SN95 and new edge a rear suspension equal to the GM cars and S197 and take away the weight break?

[ls168camaro]

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?

Problem is that you assume the drivers used to collect the data are OK w/ it. In some cases, they are very much against this.

To give you an idea of how sensative drivers can be about data collected....

At one time I collected a copy of all the CMC (and AI) annual dyno sheets. At somepoint along the lines I wanted to make this info public. That created a total shitstorm. Not only was there worry of how the dyno data could be used against one another to exploit weaknesses in that persons car, but then the Directors were accused of being privleged to that info and using themselves to exploit those weakness. I can assure you nothing is further from the trueth, but there was no way to stop the "sky from falling". So asking Directors to realese data logger type data on other drivers would surely cause problems.

For me, I'm OK w/ it. You can place your own logger on my car and log away. Share the data w/ me and we and I'm good. Post it for all to see.

The Directors on the other hand have to respect the rights of the drivers to some degree and respect the results of thier hard work.

 

In fact, take a look at this rule from the NASA CCR's:

 

17.4 Confidentiality

A competitor has a right to protect information about legal modifications and setup pertaining to their vehicles from other competitors. If a competitor feels that inspection by the Tech Inspector (i.e. if the Inspector is another competitor) will result in loss of information to another team, he/she may lodge such an objection with the Inspector.

Once an objection has been lodged, the Tech Inspector will remain in impound while the competitor locates the Race Director. The Race Director will then make the determination of legality. The tech inspector may watch the vehicle or assign someone to watch it, but shall not conduct any inspectons, other than those agreed upon between himself/herself and the driver.

 

So the driver has the right to protect thier set-up. I will assume this to include all data regardless of type. I have always asked for copies of my data and wouldbe glad to share w/ anyone who asks.

 

Glenn- I disagree. Though that attempt is the best explanation I have seen of a rule from the CCR. But that rule is about legal modifications and setup. We aren't talking about looking at what kind of shocks/springs a guy is running, their settings, aligment, etc. There is already data that any racer is allowing others to see by virtue of everyone's lap times. By racing you are subjecting yourself to certain scrutiny and I don't see why this is any different. It shouldn't be up to the driver but the series like most other racing series. The directors who we race against already get to see this information anyway.

Do the directors already feel there is parity based on the actual data that has been logged? If so then it would certainly help if it could be released in a way that wouldn't show the individual driver but only by platform.

 

Mosty-when you compile your data make sure you look at Kellam's in the Sn95 or 99 when he won the national championship as well as when the other model like Kellam's won the national championship. And this weekend while drinking your wedding present tell me the differences between a Fox and SN95/99 if both are maxed out per our ruleset.

[Glenn]

Perhaps an RCR should be submitted that allows for data loggers to be used and data made public.

[CMC#11]

Bryan, there is only so much research I am willing to do. You ask me to get data regarding 2010 when Kellam raced, should I also get data from 08 when Burch raced? How about 04 when Varner raced? What about in 2000 from the CA region?

 

The fact is that there are fast drivers and slow drivers that currently race and also no longer race with us. I am interested in the current racers racing under the current rules.

 

Rules have changed since Jeremiah raced in 2010 and there were legal items on his car at that time that have since been deemed illegal. How is that relevent to the current racers and current rules?

In TX we also had Jeff Burch and Jeff Wirtz who in the old CMC1 trim both have put down faster laps than Jeremiah ever did. Should we bring them in to the equation? Why use their data when none of the three mentioned have raced in the last 2+ years?

 

Bottom line is IMO, the most important data will come from the 2012 results from all regions across the nation.

[D Algozine]

If there are conserns and racers don't want there data shared publicly, then leave the competitors name and info off of the list.

Example:

Car X, sample from sometime in 2011 or 20012, SN95 chassis

Car Y, 2011 or 2012, 4th gen f body

 

Or the directors, collectively review (which I assume they already do) and just present the general results to the masses, without names. Or don't publish and just report on your conclusions.

[ShadowBolt]

If there are conserns and racers don't want there data shared publicly, then leave the competitors name and info off of the list.

Example:

Car X, sample from sometime in 2011 or 20012, SN95 chassis

Car Y, 2011 or 2012, 4th gen f body

 

Or the directors, collectively review (which I assume they already do) and just present the general results to the masses, without names. Or don't publish and just report on your conclusions.

 

 

If the directors get to see the dynos and GPS data then race with those of us that don't get to see it then I have a problem with that (not a huge problem that would keep me from racing but still.......). Personally I would like the dynos and all the data compiled from the GPS available to everyone (and we should be getting more of that info at every event). If we have to take the persons name off then okay but I don't care if all my info is shown with my car number and who was driving. CMC is friends racing friends for plastic medals. If everyone is sure that the car they drive is as good as the next guys (or at least it's possible to get it there) then I think we could grow the series faster that we are now. Between all the cars (except the S-197) I don't think we are talking seconds a lap but I think it's possible that we are talking .25 to .500 of a second a lap. Maybe I'm all wrong on that but can't the GPS data prove it one way or another? No doubt the cars are close that with enough seat time and car prep time a great driver can win in any platform.

 

JJ

[ls168camaro]

Bryan, there is only so much research I am willing to do. You ask me to get data regarding 2010 when Kellam raced, should I also get data from 08 when Burch raced? How about 04 when Varner raced? What about in 2000 from the CA region?

 

The fact is that there are fast drivers and slow drivers that currently race and also no longer race with us. I am interested in the current racers racing under the current rules.

 

Rules have changed since Jeremiah raced in 2010 and there were legal items on his car at that time that have since been deemed illegal. How is that relevent to the current racers and current rules?

In TX we also had Jeff Burch and Jeff Wirtz who in the old CMC1 trim both have put down faster laps than Jeremiah ever did. Should we bring them in to the equation? Why use their data when none of the three mentioned have raced in the last 2+ years?

 

Bottom line is IMO, the most important data will come from the 2012 results from all regions across the nation.

 

I hear you Michael just have to be careful how you skew the data. I still say you need to take your ride to Miller next year for the Nats.

 

Lap times will only tell you so much but I understand that is all you have access too which is too bad. I wouldn't go back that far if I was you either due to the time involved and it doesn't matter that much to me, but you are the only one with a dog in this fight and I feel for you. But I can easily look at the TX lap records and see that of the 5 listed 3 are in a SN95/99 and 2 in a 4th Gen. So what is different about a SN 95/99 and a Fox if they are both maxed out per the ruleset?

 

If you are interested in current racers that are beating you ask Al and the other trophy girls about logging the data for this weekend for all of us to review if its okay with all the girls.

 

How do you want the rules changed to make the Fox closer? If its track width ask the trophy girls to run without their wheel spacers. I'll gladly run a back to back experiment with it this weekend but one of the trophy girls would be better. I just don't think its going to make that big of a difference to narrow my track width 1 inch. Is Allford much slower this year compared to last after running less track width?

[CMC#11]

Bryan, there is only so much research I am willing to do. You ask me to get data regarding 2010 when Kellam raced, should I also get data from 08 when Burch raced? How about 04 when Varner raced? What about in 2000 from the CA region?

 

The fact is that there are fast drivers and slow drivers that currently race and also no longer race with us. I am interested in the current racers racing under the current rules.

 

Rules have changed since Jeremiah raced in 2010 and there were legal items on his car at that time that have since been deemed illegal. How is that relevent to the current racers and current rules?

In TX we also had Jeff Burch and Jeff Wirtz who in the old CMC1 trim both have put down faster laps than Jeremiah ever did. Should we bring them in to the equation? Why use their data when none of the three mentioned have raced in the last 2+ years?

 

Bottom line is IMO, the most important data will come from the 2012 results from all regions across the nation.

 

I hear you Michael just have to be careful how you skew the data. I still say you need to take your ride to Miller next year for the Nats.

 

Lap times will only tell you so much but I understand that is all you have access too which is too bad. I wouldn't go back that far if I was you either due to the time involved and it doesn't matter that much to me, but you are the only one with a dog in this fight and I feel for you. But I can easily look at the TX lap records and see that of the 5 listed 3 are in a SN95/99 and 2 in a 4th Gen. So what is different about a SN 95/99 and a Fox if they are both maxed out per the ruleset?

 

If you are interested in current racers that are beating you ask Al and the other trophy girls about logging the data for this weekend for all of us to review if its okay with all the girls.

 

How do you want the rules changed to make the Fox closer? If its track width ask the trophy girls to run without their wheel spacers. I'll gladly run a back to back experiment with it this weekend but one of the trophy girls would be better. I just don't think its going to make that big of a difference to narrow my track width 1 inch. Is Allford much slower this year compared to last after running less track width?

The obvious differences b/w the Fox + SN95/99 is the 50 lb break the fox gets and an aero advantage to the SN95. There are also differences in track width, wheelbase, and front end suspension geometry.

 

Regarding data, I know earlier in the year myself, James, and Dan were all in favor of sharing our data and hopefully we can collect more this weekend from the magnetic pucks.

 

The main rules change I am in favor for is reducing the GM track width to become "closer" to the Fox / SN95's. There is no way I would want to see that experiment this weekend b/c James and Dan are in a super tight championship points chase, unless they both want to reduce their track width.

I have no clue what a track width reduction would do to lap times. I just know that when I increased mine 2 years ago it was a noticeable change. Wade also mentioned a noticeable increase when he widened his Fox this year.

[cozog1548534733]

Too many variables in drivers, setups, tires, traffic, beers, etc. to use everyone's lap times as a way to set the benchmark. <...>

What needs to be used is the actual track data from the cars they test during races.

^^^ Most intelligent thing said in this thread.

[Al F.]

Believe me, I am not opposed to people sharing their data. It is, after all, theirs. However, don't assume that just because you don't mind sharing yours that everyone else feels the same.

 

A few years ago, I posted a picture of a graph showing the acceleration rates of several cars to prove a point. There were no names on the graph. Within hours I had Jerry Kunzman on the phone reprimanding me for sharing driver data to non officials without express permission. He doesnt read these forums, so obviously someone got pretty upset if they were willing to immediately call Nasas top dog. I sort of got off the hook when I said there were no names, but even with that he still said I needed express permission because the drivers could be inferred or figured out somehow. So...ever since then I ask, in writing, and carefully explain what data and for what purpose it might be shared. If true sharing is what you guys want, it needs to be a grass roots volunteer effort, not a requirement in the rules. Our volunteer dyno days are a great example of that in action.

 

By the way, fastest lap time of the session is public information and available on mylaps for everyone in every session.

[ls168camaro]

Believe me, I am not opposed to people sharing their data. It is, after all, theirs. However, don't assume that just because you don't mind sharing yours that everyone else feels the same.

 

A few years ago, I posted a picture of a graph showing the acceleration rates of several cars to prove a point. There were no names on the graph. Within hours I had Jerry Kunzman on the phone reprimanding me for sharing driver data to non officials without express permission. He doesnt read these forums, so obviously someone got pretty upset if they were willing to immediately call Nasas top dog. I sort of got off the hook when I said there were no names, but even with that he still said I needed express permission because the drivers could be inferred or figured out somehow. So...ever since then I ask, in writing, and carefully explain what data and for what purpose it might be shared. If true sharing is what you guys want, it needs to be a grass roots volunteer effort, not a requirement in the rules. Our volunteer dyno days are a great example of that in action.

 

By the way, fastest lap time of the session is public information and available on mylaps for everyone in every session.

 

I understand some people don't want to share that info. and apparently Kunzman falls in that camp, but why? Why does permission have to be given. I just don't understand why it isn't allowed to be shared or why it is different than allowing others to see lap times? Is it somewhere in the rules? My opinion is that if you are racing you are submitting yourself to certain scrutiny, rules, inspections, etc.

 

If that is the official stance does NASA even have the right to put data loggers on anyones car? Does everyone have the right to disallow you putting it on their car if they choose to do so?

 

I don't want to assume but since there is always parity talk during the rules silly season. Do the directors feel there is platform parity based on the data loggers?

Al-I'm stealing your cigs sometime this weekend until I get the answer how the data looks among the various platforms. I also have dibs on the 4 wheeler after dark on sat night!

[rsmith350]

I also have dibs on the 4 wheeler after dark on sat night!

I already called it and you have a Honda 50!

[Al F.]

Bryan, I cant tell you why Jerry thinks the way he does. I can understand the logic that competitors could have that someone pouring over their car's data would enable them to learn things (braking point, turn in point, etc) that would result in their competitiveness being diminished in relation. I believe the overwhelming majority of CMC drivers are not that way, hell, I'm used to CMC guys freely sharing every nitpicky detail about their car and coaching other drivers while sharing beers...but again, dont make the mistake of assuming everyone else feels the same as you.

 

As to the legality or enforceability of gps based systems...its pretty clear in section 3.10:

NASA tech inspectors and CMC Officials have the right to request disassembly or any other procedure required to verify car compliance with these rules including a dynamometer re-certification.

 

As to your last point...I honestly feel that other than the S197 the different platforms are closer now than they ever have been. That doesnt mean they're as good as could possibly be, or that we wont keep adjusting little things here and there.

[ls168camaro]

Thanks Al-you da man even in your cupcake car. I agree with everything you said.

 

That certainly helps clear up some of my questions. Believe me I understand how you would use the data to make a pass on me and why people don't want it shared. But since we know you have the data it could help the parity talk if we were told that the data shows the cars are even. Maybe there isn't a good way to show the data freely.

[supermac]

I think it is crazy that people won't share their data? Is that winner sticker really that important to you?

We had Traqmates in every car and every session at our last race.

And I can tell you all of that information should be public.

We are trying to schedule an informal meeting to go over that as group, although Dave B. has asked for a non-drinking event, so I'm not sure how many people will show up?

I will try and get permission from everyone to post useful info here or at least get it to BIG AL

[AllZWay]

I have had a tracker on my car a couple of different times. While I really haven't seen my own data, I don't really care who does or has seen it.

[supermac]

I have had a tracker on my car a couple of different times. While I really haven't seen my own data, I don't really care who does or has seen it.

I know your not James, that's what I don't get, who is worried? You are one of the fastest guys in the country and you are an open book. What are the other guys hiding....slow secrets?

[cmc35]

Okay, this is silly: all you guys saying "why won't everyone post their data?"

 

Because we're all out there to win.

 

Sheesh...

 

and no, I'm not being sarcastic.

[ShadowBolt]

I have had a tracker on my car a couple of different times. While I really haven't seen my own data, I don't really care who does or has seen it.

I know your not James, that's what I don't get, who is worried? You are one of the fastest guys in the country and you are an open book. What are the other guys hiding....slow secrets?

 

 

I'm not in the same zip code as James on the track but any info from the 55 can be published anytime.

 

 

JJ

[soundguydave1548534741]

I think this is getting wayyy off-topic. There will always be those "alien" drivers that can just get more out of a car than others, and they will be at he front, regardless of chassis type. Also, remember that there are three types of falsehoods, as well; Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. Forget about a statistical analysis of who won what, there are just far too many variables involved to draw a reasonable inference. Let's just look at a few facts, though.

 

S197 and F-bodies have a fully articulating 3-link rear suspension. The Fox and SN95 (which is really only a warmed-over Fox) have a 4-link that was designed FROM THE FACTORY to bind in roll conditions.

 

The "fix" for the Fox/SN95 is to run the "poor man's 3-link," with some form of low-durometer bushing (nerf or air) on one of the uppers. In roll conditions, this puts so much stress on the torque box that it literally rips it from the chassis. Unsafe, expensive to maintain, expensive to repair.

 

The Fox/SN95 chassis is at best nearly 10 years old, and at worst, 33, older than some of the drivers. "Cheap, junkyard parts" are becoming rare, difficult to find, and frequently in need of a great deal of work before they are usable. There are a great many examples of "aftermarket race parts" that impart no significant performance benefit save longevity, yet they are illegal per the rules.

 

The end result, at least in MW, and I think GL as well, has been a parade of F-bodies and S197s at the front, followed, after a pause, by a few SN95s. I don't recall any Foxes participating this year. It's not a power issue, really, although area under the curve may be a factor, but it's the corners where the SN95s are getting killed. Put it in hard enough, the suspension binds, the car gets twitchy and unstable, at least with the 4-link intact. With a PM3L, it turns better, at least in one direction, until the torque box rips apart, the remaining "active" UCA self-destructs (good luck finding a decent replacement for a reasonable cost), and you are left with large repair bills.

 

There is a RCR out now to allow torque-arms for the FOX/SN95, and also to allow aftermarket torque arms for the F-bodies. I urge you all to email your Congressmen (er, series directors) and ask them to weigh in favorably on this.

 

1) It will reduce cost (maintenance, repair, replacement parts)

2) It will enhance platform parity

3) It will enhance safety (GM failures at the trans tailshaft could be nasty!)

[Glenn]

GM failures at the trans tailshaft could be nasty!

 

Neven happens on anything other than a drag car. Not an issue at all for CMC.

[soundguydave1548534741]

In the final race of the MW/GL season (Road America, 10/6), we had a 4th Gen with a torque arm failure on the out lap... Cut the driveshaft into two pieces.

[rsmith350]

GM failures at the trans tailshaft could be nasty!

 

Neven happens on anything other than a drag car. Not an issue at all for CMC.

Tell that to BryanL lol