2012 Rules discussion - Fox suspension help

[Al F.]

I agree that win data is very useful...but mostly for determining what platforms are more popular or favored by whom. I will wholeheartedly agree more fast guys are choosing 4th gens than ever before. That doesnt tell us anything about actual capability...though it does imply it since fast drivers arent exactly dummies.

 

Unfortunately there just arent a whole pile of really fast non-s197 mustang guys out there. Mosty is tremendously fast, Kellam was when he was racing but he isnt any more. I'm hoping I can get a file uplodaded by Adam soon so we can post to it here and you guys can see some of the Traqmate data from ECR. Spoiler: there's nothing there that would lead you to believe that his car is any slower than Proctor.

 

If you havent seen the cmc2 final from 2010, you owe it to yourself to watch it.

Since then the Fox/SN95s have gotten wider, the GMs are the same. Watch that video and tell me where Kellam's SN95 is giving it up against those two 4th gens.

[soundguydave1548534741]

Al, yes, I have seen that video before, and yes, Kellam was driving the wheels off that thing. I also spotted at least four instances if incipent "Mustang Snap" (not my description!) that are more a tribute to Kellam's ability to keep a handle on it than it is a tribute to the stability of the platform.

 

Take a look at the front wheels on a 4th gen both static and in bump, and you'll see what I mean about camber gain. As a result, the 4th gen cars would be able to run less static negative camber, which will give them a slight advantage (all other things being equal) in braking from the increased contact patch. I'm honestly not whining about that, and no, I don't want an SLA kit for the SN95, either. It's just a point where there is a tiny bit of superior OE design compared to the other chassis, and one easily compensated for in the ruleset.

 

Also, just as an observation, the push-back to this RCR (also not mine) seems to be very Texas-centric. Yes, you have at least one hot-shoe in a Mustang, but if you look around at other regions (MW, GL and Nationals at least) it's been an F-Body show, for half a decade.

 

Anecdotal evidence is legion... We had a Mustang TT driver (SN95 chassis) come in last year, but did it by buying a 4th-gen. Another SN95 driver in my region has also driven F-bodies (in an enduro), and commented on how EASY they were to drive. Yet another racer has run CMC in both a 3rd Gen and an SN95, and said that the F-body was a LOT more predictable. When the car is more predictable, you're willing to push it closer to the edge, and you, as a driver, are faster. The "aliens" simply have the innate skill and ability to take an unpredictable car and live with it, on the edge, beyond what an average driver, like me, and I would bet most of us, are capable and comfortable with. We also have a national champion in our region that sold his SN95 to build an S197. Did he do that because the SN95 is such a superior or even just competitive chassis?

 

As for your question about whether the SN95 was competitive when it was a CMC-1 car, seemed to hint that it wasn't. Add more power, add more grip, and you will get more stress on the chassis. If the chassis goes into bind (and oh brother, does it!), it ceases to be predictable and comfortable to drive. It's also the only chassis with snap-oversteer issues, and that's all related to the opposing-angle 4-link rear suspension design. I don't know this for a fact, but I would be willing to bet that the Panhard bar option for the FOX/SN95 came about as a direct result of the racers running PM3L.

 

In the end, and to slide into Bryan's question, I honestly don't know if the torque-arm will decrease lap times in the hands of a Mosty, or a Kellam, but it will certainly make the car a LOT more comfortable to drive. Will that cut lap times for us mid- and rear-packers? Possibly. Are we suddenly going to be up at the front, beating up on all the S197s and F-bodies? That, I would highly doubt. Will it help pull the pack a little tighter together? I hope so, because that's good racing, and that's what we're all here for.

[CMC#11]

I agree that win data is very useful...but mostly for determining what platforms are more popular or favored by whom. I will wholeheartedly agree more fast guys are choosing 4th gens than ever before. That doesnt tell us anything about actual capability...though it does imply it since fast drivers arent exactly dummies.

 

Unfortunately there just arent a whole pile of really fast non-s197 mustang guys out there. Mosty is tremendously fast, Kellam was when he was racing but he isnt any more. I'm hoping I can get a file uplodaded by Adam soon so we can post to it here and you guys can see some of the Traqmate data from ECR. Spoiler: there's nothing there that would lead you to believe that his car is any slower than Proctor.

 

If you havent seen the cmc2 final from 2010, you owe it to yourself to watch it.

Since then the Fox/SN95s have gotten wider, the GMs are the same. Watch that video and tell me where Kellam's SN95 is giving it up against those two 4th gens.

Hmm, the graph you sent me appears that Proctor shows more cornering g's in almost every turn. Maybe I'm looking at it incorrectly. I'm interested to hear everyone else's thoughts when it gets posted.

[bluebandit48]

I have a question. This may be a duh..and maybe I missed it in the other 7 pages.

 

If a torque arm was made legal for the mustang fox and sn95, would it be faster (decrease lap times) or just easier to drive?

 

Little bit of Both.

[suck fumes1548534743]

Maybe if every mustang owner writes a letter we'll get a bone thrown to us in the shape of a torque arm.

[bluebandit48]

I am just going to buy a camaro

[suck fumes1548534743]

I honestly don't see what the big deal is... It's for increased durability, safety, and predictability. I highly doubt anyone will go significantly faster than they already are. It will prolong our chassis life keeping us from having to build a new car every couple years and it will tighten the gap on the S197's. Especially on the standing starts!

[mitchntx1548534714]

The problem with taking a single year's data and formulating change based upon that single data point is that it has to be done each year.

 

Many of us have backed out waiting for the rule set to settle out. Right now its a circus.

 

 

 

The Fox has its achilles heal ... it rips apart the torque box. No one is arguing that.

 

The 4th gen has it's own ... the TA rips the floor pan and trans mount.

 

I've had the privilege of working on both, seen the carnage inflicted to both and I can say that neither is a perfect world.

 

As owners, we are taking these cars, engineered for street duty, and taking them far beyond ANY factory design standard. The weak points bubble to the surface.

 

Adding a TA isn't fixing anything, just moving the point of failure. Plus its adding a whole new demension into compliance such as length, mounting, material, reinforcement and performance.

 

Every aftermarket TA is a unique design.

 

So if a TA is allowed for 2013, I guarantee that similar debates will occur this time next year.

 

And this kind stratification of the series is NOT healthy.

[Glenn]

The "nevers" and "always", along with Mommy and Daddy fighting are why every single one of these rules threads should be followed with an endorsement of the term limit proposal.

 

Sorry, I digress....

 

Not sure if allowing aftermarket t-arms is the answer, but I don't run a drag car, and I've repaired one torque arm and ripped another one right off the pumpkin. Yes, yes, I know, it's my set-up and I'm an idiot because YOU'VE never had a failure, but it still would be nice to at least be able to repair the damage without the OTHER one DQing me at nats for 10" of weld.

 

And term limits should be #1 on the list (did I already say that?)

 

Keeping parts tight is key. 4th gens are well known for torque arm bolts not staying tight (on both ends). It is a common problem what would not be fixed w/ an aftermarket replacement. If you don't torque stuff properly and check pre-race, you asking for a failure. I've been tracking 4th gen since 1999, and from 1999-2004 it was in a car w/ 2x the CMC power and twice the tire. I've had all the TA failures you guys mention. In fact, I ripped the mounts off the axel end of a LGM torque arm on a road course. But w/ CMC power and CMC grip, the OEM one is more than adequate.

 

What about the extra grip of the new Toyo causing more issues?

 

JJ

 

More worried about brakes than TA's by a long shot.

[Glenn]

 

Wouldn't that equate to those "aliens" being faster still?

 

Then what?

 

Mitch, you're just clouding the waters. This thread is about chassis equalization, NOT driver equalization. The only way to make drivers of varying talent, ability, and financial resource have parity is through "reward ballast," like some non-NASA series run.

 

 

Please ... follow along ...

 

If a Fox driver(s) can consistently run with and be competitive with a 4th gen, whose driver(s) have also been consistently competitive, that should tell even the most casual competitior, its the driver that makes the difference, not the platform.

 

The Fox and similar derivatives, have shown time and time again that they are indeed competitive. In Texas, Mosty, Kellham and Gunter have shown they can run at the front with racers like Proctor and Landrum.

 

And if the lowly Fox needs the help you (and others) have convinced yourself it needs, the Fox driver referenced above would be dominant, correct?

 

Then what do you do in the "name of parity"?

 

My guess? You would no longer care.

 

Brilliant, Mitch... Let's take a look at the 2012 CMC results from TX, shall we?

 

You hold up the names of Mosty, Gunter and Kellham as the "shining knights" of the Mustang clan... Mosty did well, with 5 wins and 13 total podium efforts out of 20 races. Gunter raced twice, no podiums. Kellham didn't even race! So, for the three of them combined, you have 5 wins, 14 podiums. Now, let's look at Proctor: ALONE, he had nearly twice as many wins (eight), and more podiums (18 of 20!) as your three cited Mustang drivers COMBINED. So it looks like you have one hot-shoe Mustang driver, and the best he could do season-long was sixth place. Did you fail to notice your top three spots in 2012 were F-bodies? You did have a Mustang in fourth (Tilton) who racked up precisely NO wins and NO podiums. I don't think any of that data exactly helps your case. Just so that there's no confusion: 2012 Texas region: F-bodies swept 1, 2, 3. The F-bodies also took THREE TIMES AS MANY wins (15, versus 5) and THREE TIMES AS MANY podium spots (45 versus 15) as the Mustangs did. In fact, outside of Mosty, only one other podium spot (3rd place, once) went to a Mustang driver.

 

Now, let's take a step away from Texas for a moment...

 

2007 Nationals: P1-P5 were all F-bodies. From P6-P17, they were all Mustangs, with two F-bodies thrown in for good measure. I’m discounting the CMC-2 results, since NONE of them turned in a lap time faster than P9 in the CMC field. Net: F-body dominant, Mustangs in the back.

2008 Nationals: A little better! P1-3 with two F-bodies and a Mustang came in within a second of each other, (and best as I can tell) the rest of the field, 3 Mustangs and one F-body, came in around 13+ seconds behind. Net: F-body dominant, Mustangs in the back.

2009 Nationals: F-bodies in P1, P3, and P4, Mustangs in P2, and P5 for CMC; F-bodies P1&2, Ford P3, F-bodies P4-6, Fords P7-8. Net: F-body dominant, Mustangs in the back.

2010 Nationals: Finally, a change! CMC: Mustangs P1-3, and P1&3 in CMC-2. Completely different bunch of racers, though, at Miller, as well as a lot of DQs post-race. NET: Mustangs dominant, F-bodies still in the hunt.

2011 Nationals: No more CMC-1, and in come the S197s… No usable data, except to infer that the FOX/SN95 chassis IS NO LONGER COMPETITIVE. Every Ford entered was an S197 chassis. F-body did grab P2, though!

2012 Nationals: Again, ALL the Fords present were S197s. Where are all those fast FOX/SN95 chassis cars? S197 1-2, F-body P3.

 

So, in the last SIX YEARS, the FOX/SN95 chassis had a total of five podium spots out of a total 18 possible. The F-bodies had nine, and the S197 had 4. With the 2010 debacle, though even these results would have been skewed a bit more in favor of the F-body.

 

Let’s take a peek at the Midwest region, then:

2007: F-body 1st, Mustangs P2-3

2008: F-body P1-P3, clean sweep.

2009: F-body P1-P3, clean sweep.

2010: F-body P1-P3, clean sweep. Highest FOX/SN95 finisher was seventh.

2011: F-bodies P1-P7, excepting P2, to an S197. Highest FOX/SN95 finisher was eighth.

2012: F-bodies P1-P7, with an S197 in P2. Highest FOX/SN95 finisher was seventh.

NET PODIUM COUNT: F-Body: 14 of a possible 18. S197 had two, and the FOX/SN95 had two, and none in the last half-decade.

 

The numbers just don't add up for your argument, Mitch. They add up to a DISparity between the FOX/SN95 chassis and the F-Bodies and S197s.

 

Historically, the FOX/SN95 chassis has been disadvantaged. When they were all converted over to the "CMC-2" trim, power went up, grip went up, and it created more of a disparity, mostly in the rear suspension. Time to fix the problem, not whine about what used to be.

 

 

Your data is very full of errors.

 

Use data from when Kellam accually raced. Pointless to use 2012 for him when he isn't racing. Same for Gunter. hasn't has a car w/ a good motor for the 1 weekend has raced. Look at previous years results. The other Ford guy you used as a reference (Tilton) has less than a year of wheel to wheel, again, not a valuable data point.

So we have 3 Fords as data points. 2 are many seconds off pace. So those can be excluded. The one remaining is in 3rd place for season points, not 6th. Our season is not over in case you didn't know. Both guys ahead of him have about 2 times the racing background. And the average difference is 2 tenths of a second. And this is not close enough?

[Glenn]

Dave, first off I'm glad to see the effort you have put in to gathering data from your region, other regions, as well as Nationals. There are definitely "trends" that pop up depending on specific year or specific region. The situation I see is the same "trend" happens every year....Camaro wins.

 

One point in data you need to correct though is in regards to the 2012 TX region points. TX still has 1 more event to run and the standings you see do not have any drops calculated. TX will have 24 races this year and the top 19 races will be counted towards final points. If we took points as they sit now and assumed 4 (of 5 total) drops, I am currently in 3rd position.

 

 

Every year the Mustang drivers ask for rules help. The directors have asked Mustang drivers to provide data to show the platforms are not equal. Data has been presented on this forum as well as submitted to the directors. To me the data looks pretty obvious, but maybe I'm looking at it wrong.

 

Race results are not what I call data. Too many variables that range from accident avoidance to machanical failures. My 2nd National win at Miller in 2009 was only due to Dave B having a mechanical while he was in the lead. A lead he was making bigger lap after lap.

I have seen data logger results from the past TX event that shows accell/decell rates and latteral G rates that are so close it isn't even funny. If we had results here in TX that included 2 more drivers like Mosty, I would be voting for changes as well. At this point, there is noth enough data in the Fox's favor. 1 local data point cannot be grounds for a National adjustment.

[soundguydave1548534741]

Come on, Glenn! Mosty himself pointed out that your season is still running, 13 posts up. I agree that the one remaining weekend can still change the overall data, but even if Mosty wins both races, it'll still be an F-Body dominated season in your region. Also, looking at the top 10 drivers in your region for 2011, Mosty is the only Mustang driver that has anything for the F-bodies, racking up 6 wins (vs. 12 for GM), ALL of the Ford 2nd place finishes (5) and HALF the 3rd place finishes (4 of 8 for Ford). Again, if you discount him, the Mustang chassis was responsible for a total of four third-place finishes, and that's it. Again, it sounds like you have a Mustang driver in-region that has serious talent, but it's not about equalizing the drivers, it's about equalizing the chassis.

 

The specific names mentioned were based on Mitch's assertion, not mine. I don't know your guys, their experience, or their racing pedigree. From my perspective, calling out Kellham as an example when he's no longer racing, is simply disingenuous.

 

And, as far as getting data from "when Kellham was still running," the TX website, as of last night, only had results posted from 2011 and 2012. I will also toss back the idea that "one season doesn't make a trend," which was Mitch's comment, not mine. If you have a bunch of data that we common folk don't have, post it up, and let's talk about it. I will also add that "one region doesn't make a trend." MY home regions, MW and GL, have years of history showing pure dominance by the F-Body drivers, and we have a two-time national champion Mustang driver in our region!

 

If we want to do any sort of viable "statistical analysis" of what's happening NATIONALLY, we need to include data from as many regions as we can, not just our own. I've given you six years' worth from MW, six years' worth from Nationals, and if you want, I can add six years' worth from GL as well, but it WILL tell the same GM-dominant story.

 

Again, this debate isn't about what's good for one single region, or one single driver, it's about what's good for overall competition, and the FOX/SN95 chassis is starting to fade away nationally. If you want to keep them in the series, something will have to be done, and correcting the gross inadequacies of the rear suspension I think will do a lot towards that goal. The Maximum Motorsports "race" torque-arm kit is under $500, involves MINIMAL welding, and is not length adjustable. Spec that one in the rule set as an allowable piece, and your scrutineering remains simple.

[ShadowBolt]

As a Mustang driver I know if you spend the time and money on the cars set-up and enough seat time you can win it all in a Fox/SN95/SN99 Mustang. Kellam showed us this. To me that is not the question. The question is if the Mustang is harder to drive fast than the Camaro, not if it's possible to win in one. James Proctor would still beat me if I got 50 extra H/P!

 

I know the Torque arm will not put me at the front. I don't know if it would make me a one 10th quicker per lap but I do know the Mustang is not going to stay together running the PM3 link long term. Also just getting the stock upper control arms is getting very hard. I only found one place (Max. Motorsports) that had them and they are $225.00 a set. I go through a set in six weekends running the PM3 link. I would hate to have to throw my car away when the other side tears out. I assume I will not be allowed to run this.

 

http://wildridesracecars.com/store/product.php?productid=16211&cat=249&bestseller=Y

 

 

 

JJ

[CMC#11]

There has been data presented by the Mustang drivers (both on these forums and to all regional directors) to support their opinions regarding the imbalance in the platforms.

 

1 question:

If the directors think everything is equal regarding the platforms, where is "your" data to prove this?

 

I read lots of opinions getting thrown around, and that is great. I love a good conversation. However, the only "data" I see is from Mustang drivers.

[D Algozine]

The problem with taking a single year's data and formulating change based upon that single data point is that it has to be done each year.

 

Many of us have backed out waiting for the rule set to settle out. Right now its a circus.

 

 

 

The Fox has its achilles heal ... it rips apart the torque box. No one is arguing that.

 

The 4th gen has it's own ... the TA rips the floor pan and trans mount.

 

I've had the privilege of working on both, seen the carnage inflicted to both and I can say that neither is a perfect world.

 

As owners, we are taking these cars, engineered for street duty, and taking them far beyond ANY factory design standard. The weak points bubble to the surface.

 

Adding a TA isn't fixing anything, just moving the point of failure. Plus its adding a whole new demension into compliance such as length, mounting, material, reinforcement and performance.

 

Every aftermarket TA is a unique design.

 

So if a TA is allowed for 2013, I guarantee that similar debates will occur this time next year.

 

And this kind stratification of the series is NOT healthy.

 

I'm not aware of any chassis mounted torque arms tearing up cars. It is the exact opposite. The whole point of mounting them to the chassis is to prevent the carnage. They transfer the loads to portions of the chassis that are capable of supporting them. Plus, there are a few proven aftermarket torque arms for both Mustangs and F bodies. Very simple to just specify those dimensions, measurements and attachment points. Someone could always make their own, if desired.

So, we know that the parts are getting torn up, but rather then fix the problem, the plan is that everyone should just know that those parts will fail, and plan on continually replacing those parts. That does not make much sense, especially in a class that is designed to keep costs down. Besides, this is a significant safety item.

Bracing torque boxes or the like is insufficient, and it just transfers the load to another weak point.

[mitchntx1548534714]

I'm not aware of any chassis mounted torque arms tearing up cars. It is the exact opposite. The whole point of mounting them to the chassis is to prevent the carnage. They transfer the loads to portions of the chassis that are capable of supporting them. Plus, there are a few proven aftermarket torque arms for both Mustangs and F bodies. Very simple to just specify those dimensions, measurements and attachment points. Someone could always make their own, if desired.

So, we know that the parts are getting torn up, but rather then fix the problem, the plan is that everyone should just know that those parts will fail, and plan on continually replacing those parts. That does not make much sense, especially in a class that is designed to keep costs down. Besides, this is a significant safety item.

Bracing torque boxes or the like is insufficient, and it just transfers the load to another weak point.

 

Sorry you have been out of the loop. It was pointed out to me by Alan Blaine.

 

Spot welded trans mount rips away from the floor pan.

 

I even had to repair the blind nut holding the cross member to the chassis.

 

Again ...

 

As owners, we are taking these cars, engineered for street duty, and taking them far beyond ANY factory design standard. The weak points bubble to the surface.

 

The alternative is spec, tubular chassis.

[CMC#11]

Mitch, what about an alternative in between? One where you don't have to run a tube chassis but also can fix safety / breakage issues with a factory tub.

Wouldn't that be the best of both worlds?

[D Algozine]

I'm not aware of any chassis mounted torque arms tearing up cars. It is the exact opposite. The whole point of mounting them to the chassis is to prevent the carnage. They transfer the loads to portions of the chassis that are capable of supporting them. Plus, there are a few proven aftermarket torque arms for both Mustangs and F bodies. Very simple to just specify those dimensions, measurements and attachment points. Someone could always make their own, if desired.

So, we know that the parts are getting torn up, but rather then fix the problem, the plan is that everyone should just know that those parts will fail, and plan on continually replacing those parts. That does not make much sense, especially in a class that is designed to keep costs down. Besides, this is a significant safety item.

Bracing torque boxes or the like is insufficient, and it just transfers the load to another weak point.

 

Sorry you have been out of the loop. It was pointed out to me by Alan Blaine.

 

Spot welded trans mount rips away from the floor pan.

 

I even had to repair the blind nut holding the cross member to the chassis.

 

Again ...

 

As owners, we are taking these cars, engineered for street duty, and taking them far beyond ANY factory design standard. The weak points bubble to the surface.

 

The alternative is spec, tubular chassis.

 

No, Im pretty sure there are a lot of simple things that can be done before you have to use a tubular chassis.

 

There are specific chassis mounts that bolt and/or weld to the subframe. I've never heard of these type failing. Are you sure we are talking about the same pieces? I think you are talking about something else.

Here's an example of an Fbody one

http://www.umiperformance.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=7_116&products_id=204

Click on the image for installed photos. You can use the stock t arm with this particular set up. I'm sure some guys with mad fab skills could make their parts if they wanted to.

 

Heres the Maximum torque arm and chassis brace. Never heard of these failing.

http://www.maximummotorsports.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=514_21_89&products_id=231

[Al F.]

Ok, I'll appologize if most of my examples are from Texas. Thats where I live and know the drivers the most. All of my California examples are too old (nobody remebers James Griffith...)

 

Michael, you've said (multiple times) that "evidence has been submitted to the directors", implying that there's this big and blatantly obvious set of evidence that we're ignoring. I must have missed the memo. All I recall being submitted is the information on platform wins. What else did you submit?

 

So lets look at platform wins... In the GL and MW region the GM cars are cleaning up. However, there are no foxes there, there are three SN95s, and no SN99s. Those three SN95s make up less than 30% of the population, but more importantly two are rookies. Shouldnt they have taken 30% of the races? Not when they're stacked up against the likes of Sjoblom, Denton, Owens, Wright, etc. and two of those three SN95 guys are rookies! The GL/MW region is GM country and third gen country until recently.

 

Lets look at Rocky Mountain, where GMs have won every race this year. So you have a happy group of happy CMC drivers, and suddenly a band of former AI marauders led by guys like Tommy Schlender and Raybob and Cody decimate the field. Is it the platform's fault or the fact that the top guys in their 4th gens are just that fast? 69% of RMR cars are GMs but that doesnt matter, Cody and Tommy have taken like 95% of the races themselves.

 

In Mid-Atlantic, where the Fox makes up 24% of the population, its taken 50% of the wins. The Fox and SN95s make up 52% of the population but have taken a stagering 80% of the wins! Meanwhile, the 4th gen has 29% of the population but only 10% of the wins. WHAT? Clearly the Fox is superior...in Mid-A. Go Kent Go

 

Nationally speaking, for 2012, Fox/SN95/SN99 was 46% of the population with 16% of the wins. S197 was 5% of the population with 21% of the wins, GM was 49% of the population with 63% of the wins.

 

Again, I 100% agree that the 4th gen is the most popular car, particularly if you're looking at a list of "whos who" of drivers. That is directionally important, but it isnt hard evidence that it is actually better.

 

I actually beat Michael to the punch and submitted an RCR asking for .75" less track width on GMs and 50lbs less weight on non-s197 fords based primarily on the above and the results here in Texas between our top three guys. Michael wanted something like 73.25 for the GMs when he submitted his

[suck fumes1548534743]

DAlgozine:

 

Well said my friend! Too bad our concerns are just in one ear and out the other.

[CMC#11]

Al, the win data from this year is the only data I have submitted.

 

IMO, the data is more important when viewed as the entire Nation. Every region is going to have their preferred platform and their hot shoe drivers. I would hope we don't base rules changes off 1 specific region, or 1 specific driver in a certain platform. Wouldn't combining it all together give us the most accurate view of the series?

 

Here is what the data tells us:

 

4th gen.................35% of nation.....51% of the wins

S197......................5% of nation......21% of the wins

fox/sn95/3rd gen...60% of nation.....28% of the wins

 

Doesn't look very fair to me.

[soundguydave1548534741]

Al, great info! While we can go back and forth all day long with numbers, statistics, etc., it still comes out to where the FOX/SN95 chassis (there is no SN99, it's an "upgraded" SN95) is at a disadvantage, nationally. 46% of the population, 16% of the wins. Compared to the F-Body, 49% of the population, but 63% of the wins. That's a difference of 4% in car count, but a difference of nearly 400% in terms of wins. IF the platforms were equal, there would be a more random distribution of "talent" across the various chassis. Wright, for example, jumped from an SN95 TT car to a 4th gen when he came in last year as a rookie. I think that right there speaks volumes; he's not exactly a stupid guy.

 

I'm sure that every region has their "hot shoes," but I would also be willing to bet that the vast majority of them are in any chassis BUT a FOX/SN95. Why? Is it the "Mustang snap" that makes it so hard to drive at the limit? Is it the self-destructing, consumables-eating nature of the rear suspension when "fixed" to allow running at the edge? If it's not, then why did Anders dump his in favor of an S197? Denton just sold his F-Body, but there's no way in hell he'd come back in with an SN95...

 

I trust you guys to sort out the S197 relative to the F-Bodies, and it seems like there's pretty good parity between the 3rd and 4th Gen, but the FOX/SN95 is still lagging. As one driver put it, "...the S197 to the 4th gen is the exact same as the 4th gen to the fox/SN95." Obviously, I happen to agree with that. The cars are a cast-iron bitch to drive hard, and lead to a much greater chance of sitting in the "sin bin" if you do. Not all rookies coming in suck, but it seems like all rookies in SN95s do. And no, this is not an attempt to make the rookies get trophies! Personally, I won't run a PM3L, since I simply can't afford to feed repairs into the chassis above and beyond all the stock stuff that keeps blowing up already. A torque-arm, installed, is roughly the equivalent of two sets of upper control arms in terms of cost. So far, we've seen a six-race lifespan from the upper cited in PM3L configuration, so in terms of cost-containment, the torque arm would pay for itself in about a year, just by eliminating the upper control arm issues completely. This says nothing, of course, about the cost of repairing and reinforcing the upper torque boxes that get destroyed with the PM3L.

 

So far, I haven't seen ANY evidence, whatsoever, that the torque-arm will be such a game changer that it will put the FOX/SN95 in the same category as the S197. I think that all it will do is allow us to drive them as close to the edge as the F-Body guys can without fear of body-contact forms.

 

In the end, it comes down to a few choices: We can allow torque arms for a small, one-time expense, or we can keep what we have, and keep feeding in new arms and tub repairs, for recurring expense. Or we can just kill the cars in the series, and all go buy 4th gens or S197's, because that's what will happen to the FOX/SN95 if there aren't changes made.

 

When it's one guy in a region, that's the guy, but when the top spots are regularly held by a platform driven by fewer than half the total CMC population, that's a lack of parity.

 

So: Torque arm:

WILL increase series parity by equalizing the FOX/SN95 chassis.

WILL increase safety by making the chassis predictable at the limit.

WILL reduce costs by containing consumable suspension and tub repairs.

WILL further series participation by making the affordable Mustang chassis more appealing to "aspiring racers."

 

What's the downside? One or two regions that have hot-shoe FOX/SN95 drivers are afraid that the F-Bodies won't completely cover the podium? Again, look at the national trend, not the regional. 46% of the population is garnering only 16% of the wins. That is nothing even approaching parity. And those are your numbers, not mine.

[CMC#11]

So we have 3 Fords as data points. 2 are many seconds off pace. So those can be excluded. The one remaining is in 3rd place for season points, Both guys ahead of him have about 2 times the racing background. And the average difference is 2 tenths of a second. And this is not close enough?

Glenn, does the fact that James and Dan have 2 times the racing background than me, mean that I need to focus more on my seat time?

 

Is racing the same car for 7 years straight and making 41 out of the last 42 events the reason I'm 3rd behind James and Dan in season points?

 

You act like I shouldn't be as fast as them and the fact that I'm a 1/4 (or 1/2) a second off pace, I should be thankfull.

[AllZWay]

Dave, first off I'm glad to see the effort you have put in to gathering data from your region, other regions, as well as Nationals. There are definitely "trends" that pop up depending on specific year or specific region. The situation I see is the same "trend" happens every year....Camaro wins.

 

Except Texas in 2010...which everyone in a Mustang seems to just gloss over.

 

I think I won only two races all year...you and Kellam won them all.

 

I guess we should have lobbied for rules changes against the Mustangs then.

[CMC#11]

Dave, first off I'm glad to see the effort you have put in to gathering data from your region, other regions, as well as Nationals. There are definitely "trends" that pop up depending on specific year or specific region. The situation I see is the same "trend" happens every year....Camaro wins.

 

Except Texas in 2010...which everyone in a Mustang seems to just gloss over.

 

I think I won only two races all year...you and Kellam won them all.

 

I guess we should have lobbied for rules changes against the Mustangs then.

Good question. It would be interesting to see a comparison b/w the 2010 and 2012 seasons. Maybe you got faster? Maybe I got slower? I'd be curious to find out.