2012 Rules discussion - Fox suspension help

[D Algozine]

Dave, nice presentation.

In reading your last post, I had to stop and question the explantion of the PM3L. That has got to be the most jerry rigged, crappy exuse for a suspenion part (no less), on a race car. How could anyone argue keeping that as a solution to such a poorly designed rear suspension.

[Glenn]

Come on, Glenn! Mosty himself pointed out that your season is still running, 13 posts up

 

I was still reading and catching up on 2 pages I obviously missed on Sunday. I was commenting as I went along.

[cmc35]

Dave, nice presentation.

In reading your last post, I had to stop and question the explantion of the PM3L. That has got to be the most jerry rigged, crappy exuse for a suspenion part (no less), on a race car. How could anyone argue keeping that as a solution to such a poorly designed rear suspension.

 

The PM3L has been presented as a solution to the world's ills for as long as I've been in CMC. It's a joke. I tried it for one season, and it resulted in a bent rear axle. I went back to the factory design, but substituted spherical bushings.

[suck fumes1548534743]

Considering that the PM3L is probably one of the most dangerous suspension tweaks I have ever seen or heard of, I would think something needs to be done whether it be a torque arm or something just for our own well being on the track and others around us. I know u don't have to do it but if you want to keep life in your rear tires you'll be forced to do it. Kinda crazy that NASA would even allow people to do this. I was in shock when I heard people were doing this back when I was still researching the class. I'm going to do a lot of testing before I resort to the PM3.

[Glenn]

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

 

I'm going to go out of my way to be clear and hope you understand.

In OEM form the TA is mounted to the trans via a bracket and bushing. The trans is mounted to the trans crossmember. Trans crossmember is mounted to the chassis. Its this point where the 4th gen is failing - pulling the spotwelds out of the floor where the stamped mount is welded to the car. The stamped mount has threaded bolt hols for the trans crossmember to attach.

 

The link you provided only moved the TA mount bracket from the trans and places it on the trans crossmember. The same loading is still seen at the chassis. And that TA you links is crap for roadracing. That is a drag racing part. The OEM unit would work much better.

The only time I have seen an OEM TA bracket fail (at the trans) is when the upper bolt holding the two part together comes out and allows the outter part to fall off. That is a maint issue, not a weak point issue.

[roadracerwhite]

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

 

I'm going to go out of my way to be clear and hope you understand.

In OEM form the TA is mounted to the trans via a bracket and bushing. The trans is mounted to the trans crossmember. Trans crossmember is mounted to the chassis. Its this point where the 4th gen is failing - pulling the spotwelds out of the floor where the stamped mount is welded to the car. The stamped mount has threaded bolt hols for the trans crossmember to attach.

 

The link you provided only moved the TA mount bracket from the trans and places it on the trans crossmember. The same loading is still seen at the chassis. And that TA you links is crap for roadracing. That is a drag racing part. The OEM unit would work much better.

The only time I have seen an OEM TA bracket fail (at the trans) is when the upper bolt holding the two part together comes out and allows the outter part to fall off. That is a maint issue, not a weak point issue.

 

I have not had a torque arm bracket fail. I have cross threaded the top bolt and have been lucky enough to have a TKO which broke the mounting ears on the trans once a year.

[ls168camaro]

Funny. Kellam won Nats and dominated in Texas without the pm3l. Didn't anders win Nats in an sn95 too. Was he running the pm3l?

For the relatively new guys on here this is nothing new and comes up every year at least. It will always be this way as long as their is cmc.

I'm just hoping a certain 3rd gen would come out next season and go to Nats. That would likely make all of this even more interesting. Would love to hear Mosty complaining of the dominate chassis of the 3rd gen designed in the 70's.

[AllZWay]

I think I got the numbers from the 2010 Texas season.

 

SN95: 14 wins. 7 2nds, 6 3rds

Fox: 5 wins, 7 2nds, 5 3rds

4th gen: 3 wins, 7 2nds, 12 3rds

3rd gen (Bob Denton): 1 win, 2 2nds

[BADVENM]

My Fox placed 2nd yesterday! First podium for me in the 6 or so years I've been racing

 

Why? Because nearly all of the remaining 10 or so cars crashed or had mechanical issues.

 

Video for this race is available in the "events" section.

 

Just thought I'd add that and wonder if it happens enough (slower/mid pack cars finishing up front because of the issues mentioned above) to skew the data in any one direction. I dont think it does.

 

I'll also add that myself and 3 others were running traqmates Saturday, for Sundays race I know I was running one, not sure how many of the remaining 3 we had were.

 

We (Rocky Mountain region) have agreed to share our traqmate data amongst eachother, nobody objected.

 

We have gathered alot of data the past 3 events for all platforms...except S197 because we dont have any.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Guest

[Glenn]

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.

 

Your 100% right - we need to use all regions for data. But race result data is not very usefull when looking for platform parity across a National class. If we could have a single track layout that was raced by reach region and all those regions collected data w/ dataloggers it would help paint a usefull picture. For now, we have what we have, one region and 1 Fox. I'm not saying it is the best we can do, but it is what we have.

[Glenn]

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?

Nope, but it could explain the difference in laps times. 2 tenths is pretty close.

 

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?

Nope. Its the reason your not racing mid pack like you was in 2006, 2007 and so on.

 

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.

Never acted like that, and never said it. You can take it that way if you want.

[soundguydave1548534741]

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.

 

Your 100% right - we need to use all regions for data. But race result data is not very usefull when looking for platform parity across a National class. If we could have a single track layout that was raced by reach region and all those regions collected data w/ dataloggers it would help paint a usefull picture. For now, we have what we have, one region and 1 Fox. I'm not saying it is the best we can do, but it is what we have.

 

Actually, we HAVE TWO track layouts that were raced by multiple regions... Mid-Ohio and Miller. Granted, no datalogging, but the results can still speak volumes.

 

Reposted:

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. Given that Nationals is supposed to represent the creme of the crop for drivers and car prep, you would expect a little more alignment in terms of podium spots to total population, but the numbers roughly reflect what we've been seeing regionally. F-bodies in the front, Mustangs in the back. The telling tale, though, is just the sheer lack of participation from the FOX/SN95 chassis in the last two years. Could it possibly be because it's just no longer competitive?

 

Oh, and at the risk of stirring up old crap, Anders in his SN95 actually crossed the line third at the 2010 Nationals, and inherited P1 when the two ahead of him (F-Body and another SN95 IIRC) were DQ'd in Impound.

[Glenn]

Why not use 2006 as well?

[soundguydave1548534741]

Why not use 2006 as well?

 

That's as far back as the results archive for Midwest went, so to keep all the data sets cohesive, I just used that as the start point for all the number crunching. No other reason.

[Glenn]

Nats 2006 - SN95 wins.

[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.

 

Your 100% right - we need to use all regions for data. But race result data is not very usefull when looking for platform parity across a National class. If we could have a single track layout that was raced by reach region and all those regions collected data w/ dataloggers it would help paint a usefull picture. For now, we have what we have, one region and 1 Fox. I'm not saying it is the best we can do, but it is what we have.

Race result data is not very usefull when looking for platform parity across a National class???? Seriously???

 

You tell me Glenn. What data do you think is the most important to use for platform parity?

Fast lap data?

Qualifying times / poles?

Wins?

 

Please tell me the data you think is most important and lets work together to collect that data and present it.

 

IMO, you can't get better data than data that includes every driver in the nation, but hey we can't all agree on everything.

[CMC#11]

Nats 2006 - SN95 wins.

I thought that specific driver got kicked out of the series for cheating?

[soundguydave1548534741]

Nats 2006 - SN95 wins.

 

And F-bodies came in 2nd and 3rd. And 4th and 5th....

 

Remember: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics!

Edited October 23, 2012 by Guest

[Al F.]

Michael, Why group 3rd gens with mustangs? They have the same rear suspension as 4th gens, the same track, same weight, and in sme cases the same motor and trans.

[Glenn]

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.

 

Your 100% right - we need to use all regions for data. But race result data is not very usefull when looking for platform parity across a National class. If we could have a single track layout that was raced by reach region and all those regions collected data w/ dataloggers it would help paint a usefull picture. For now, we have what we have, one region and 1 Fox. I'm not saying it is the best we can do, but it is what we have.

Race result data is not very usefull when looking for platform parity across a National class???? Seriously???

 

You tell me Glenn. What data do you think is the most important to use for platform parity?

Fast lap data?

Qualifying times / poles?

Wins?

 

Please tell me the data you think is most important and lets work together to collect that data and present it.

 

IMO, you can't get better data than data that includes every driver in the nation, but hey we can't all agree on everything.

 

Lap times is one.

Leteral G's. Accell G's. Decell G's.

 

Data has already been posted that shows lap times are under .25 seconds.

Data has already been posted that shows accell G's (rate) is the same.

I'll hold comment on the others for now.

[CMC#11]

Michael, Why group 3rd gens with mustangs? They have the same rear suspension as 4th gens, the same track, same weight, and in sme cases the same motor and trans.

I was just comparing the 4th gen to all other platforms combined. When I remove the 3rd gen, the data just looks even worse for the fox/sn95.

 

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

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

3rd gen.................16% of nation.....12% of the wins

fox/sn95...............42% of nation.....16% of the wins

 

The fox/sn95 has more drivers than the 4th gen but not even 1/3 of the wins.

[K Shaw]

Just wondering. How many CMC racers besides me has track time behind both a 3rd gen and a fox mustang?

 

I can tell you that the 3rd gen is considerably easier to drive fast and hard. The fox has to be driven carefully and with respect.

 

The RM hot shoes are running faster lap times than the AI guys and pretty darn close to the lap times that they ran in AI cars.

 

In RM the 4th gen is dominating. Is it driver skill. Maybe. However we have "new" racers beating up on sesoned mustang drivers in 4th gens.

 

And I am not really sure how any one can complain about making track width and rear suspension somewhat equal between the mustang and the camaro. Especially if took away the fox weight break.

 

I am no engineer however I have been working on cars for a living for most of my life and this isnt my first rodeo. And it seems to me that some of the Camaro racers have blinders on if they think that equalizing the track width and the rear suspension would give the fox a advantage after taking away the wiehgt break. Go ahead and comment about the cams allowed to the fox and then remeber that you camaro guys have 50+ cubic inchs on the mustang.

 

And jsut to stir the pot a little bit those fast hot shoes in RM think the 4th gen is the bomb and that your crazy for starting with a fox chassis. Heck the ONE fast fox guy told me to just start with a sn95 and not waste my time getting back into fox.

 

The S197 is opening pandoras box. Not going to even comment on that one.

 

Have a nice day.

 

kyle

[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.

 

Your 100% right - we need to use all regions for data. But race result data is not very usefull when looking for platform parity across a National class. If we could have a single track layout that was raced by reach region and all those regions collected data w/ dataloggers it would help paint a usefull picture. For now, we have what we have, one region and 1 Fox. I'm not saying it is the best we can do, but it is what we have.

Race result data is not very usefull when looking for platform parity across a National class???? Seriously???

 

You tell me Glenn. What data do you think is the most important to use for platform parity?

Fast lap data?

Qualifying times / poles?

Wins?

 

Please tell me the data you think is most important and lets work together to collect that data and present it.

 

IMO, you can't get better data than data that includes every driver in the nation, but hey we can't all agree on everything.

 

Lap times is one.

Leteral G's. Accell G's. Decell G's.

 

Data has already been posted that shows lap times are under .25 seconds.

Data has already been posted that shows accell G's (rate) is the same.

I'll hold comment on the others for now.

I will save the lateral, accell, decell G's for another conversation.

 

Regarding your want of lap times:

For 2012 in TX the following is a list of the drivers and number of fast laps they have gotten so far this season.

Mosty (fox body) - 3 fast laps

Proctor (4th gen) - 8 fast laps

Allford (4th gen) - 9 fast laps

 

I'll let other guys chime in regarding lap times for their regions.

Is this data sufficient Glenn?

[Glenn]

Again w/ stats.....

Give me data. Data.

[BADVENM]

I cant provide any data cause I dont have it (but it was collected and the Traqmate files will be sent to me) but I can provide stats for the 2012 season in Rocky Mountain region.

 

We had a total of 22 points races this year...looking through MyLaps at the fastest lap time of each of those 22 races yields:

 

Firebird - 14 fastest laps

4th gen - 8 fastest laps

 

Of those 4th gens, they were (for the exception of 1 race) generally split or close to it between 2 drivers.

 

EDIT: just for kicks I went back and looked at 2010 for 2 tracks for a now CMC car and driver that were an AI car and driver. They drive the same platform now as they did then. I could only do 2 because one of the tracks was repaved and a bit different lay out this year and the other we ran a different direction (which we did not do in 2010).

 

At one track their 2010 AI best lap was 1.579 seconds faster than this years CMC best lap time. At the other track their 2010 AI best lap time was .126 seconds slower then their 2012 CMC best lap time. Yes, they were faster in their CMC car vs their AI car.