Jump to content

2012 Rules discussion - Fox suspension help


D Algozine

Recommended Posts

Glenn, I will not "quote" this again and have this one post take up the entire page.

 

You state you have posted the "data" you want more than once.

You also stated "actual races are the data we try and use".

I gave you this "data" but you called it "statistics", and you then asked for me to give you "data". Make up your mind!!

 

If it is "actual races" that you want for data then you have it. I submitted every race result for every region for the entire 2012 season to every regional director 2-weeks ago.

If that is not sufficient then tell us what you want.

 

I don't want this to be a complete waste of everyone's time but I feel that is what this is turning into.

 

Data = Traqmate/Data Logging

I agree, but it has only been done at 1 TX event over the period of 2 races and a total of 3 cars?

It looks like they also got data from the CO event this last weekend.

 

Is there other data that has been gathered from other regions throughout the 2012 season that hasn't been mentioned yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 203
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Glenn

    33

  • CMC#11

    28

  • D Algozine

    19

  • mitchntx1548534714

    15

Glenn, I will not "quote" this again and have this one post take up the entire page.

 

You state you have posted the "data" you want more than once.

You also stated "actual races are the data we try and use".

I gave you this "data" but you called it "statistics", and you then asked for me to give you "data". Make up your mind!!

 

If it is "actual races" that you want for data then you have it. I submitted every race result for every region for the entire 2012 season to every regional director 2-weeks ago.

If that is not sufficient then tell us what you want.

 

I don't want this to be a complete waste of everyone's time but I feel that is what this is turning into.

 

Data = Traqmate/Data Logging

 

Are the racers supposed to get data from other racers and compare them. I don't see that as a realistic request for "data". All each individual has access to is my laps and thier own data, if they even own a traqmate.

I've got to say, I'm not sure what Glenn is asking for either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn, I will not "quote" this again and have this one post take up the entire page.

 

You state you have posted the "data" you want more than once.

You also stated "actual races are the data we try and use".

I gave you this "data" but you called it "statistics", and you then asked for me to give you "data". Make up your mind!!

 

If it is "actual races" that you want for data then you have it. I submitted every race result for every region for the entire 2012 season to every regional director 2-weeks ago.

If that is not sufficient then tell us what you want.

 

I don't want this to be a complete waste of everyone's time but I feel that is what this is turning into.

 

Data = Traqmate/Data Logging

I agree, but it has only been done at 1 TX event over the period of 2 races and a total of 3 cars?

It looks like they also got data from the CO event this last weekend.

 

Is there other data that has been gathered from other regions throughout the 2012 season that hasn't been mentioned yet?

 

One of the things I mentioned in the Directors call last week was collecting more data (using a data logger) and doing it all year. This needs to be done in the other regions as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like they also got data from the CO event this last weekend.

 

Indeed. We ran NASA Trackmates in the cars this weekend at Pueblo and at PPIR. We are eagerly anticipating the release of data to the drivers and we plan on sharing ours with others. I think others are planning as well. We mounted ours on the trans tunnel up front, so I'm interested in seeing if we also have a "noisy" trace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn, I will not "quote" this again and have this one post take up the entire page.

 

You state you have posted the "data" you want more than once.

You also stated "actual races are the data we try and use".

I gave you this "data" but you called it "statistics", and you then asked for me to give you "data". Make up your mind!!

 

If it is "actual races" that you want for data then you have it. I submitted every race result for every region for the entire 2012 season to every regional director 2-weeks ago.

If that is not sufficient then tell us what you want.

 

I don't want this to be a complete waste of everyone's time but I feel that is what this is turning into.

 

Data = Traqmate/Data Logging

 

Are the racers supposed to get data from other racers and compare them. I don't see that as a realistic request for "data". All each individual has access to is my laps and thier own data, if they even own a traqmate.

I've got to say, I'm not sure what Glenn is asking for either.

 

What I want is data logger data collected during race laps. If you use a system other than Trackmate, be sure to install it in other peoples cars to allow data from the same type system to be compaired. Al has a data logger for this. Ask him to place it in a car, and them move it to another, then another. Obviously Al had a goal at the last event to log data from Mosty's car, Proctors car and Alfords car. Going forward we plan to log data at all TX CMC races. Mosty will likely get a data logger each weekend along w/ the top GM's and any other Fords that find themselves at the front.

 

Most guys I know will allow you to place a data logger on thier car. You can place one on mine and you don't even need to ask.

 

Data ='s info pulled from a data logger.

Stats ='s race results and finish positions.

 

F me....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Right about this time during a normal track weekend Ballingit shows up with more beer, or a pan of brownies

 

Yes, lap times are important. They are not as good as gps data, but often its what we have. Hell, we didnt have gps boxes at all until just a couple of years ago! The main problem is the sample size is tiny. We cant use every car/driver out there, sorry, and no offense. We have to try to limit it down to cars that are generally considered to be near the top end. On top of that, they have to be driven by someone generally considered to be on the top end. Anyone can buy a great car, that doesnt mean there's a rule problem when they're still near the back.

 

From my perspective, the data on hand is not perfect, but its never going to be and a lot better than what we've had in other years making similar decisions. To me, its not a matter of whether the fox/sn95 needs help, rather how much and where.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2013 RCR - Trackmate data loggers should be required for the sole purpose of platform parity. All data must be turned in w/in 30 minutes of release from impound. Failure to do so could result in disqualification from the prior race. Data logger malfunctions will not be an acceptable reason for failure to provide data files. The use of 2 data loggers (or more) may be needed to ensure compliance with this rule. The driver accepts sole responsibility for managing the required level of redundancy needed to ensure compliance with this rule.

 

Entry fees will also go up to assist NASA w/ adding fulltime position(s) needed to aid in the collection and review of all required data logger files.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those that are opposed to permitting torque arms on the Fox, SN95 and new edge cars why are you against the proposed rule change?

 

Is it:

a-) additional cost of purchasing a torque arm?

b-) not keeping within the "spirit" of CMC?

c-) fear that the Mustangs will have an advantage?

d-) other, or a combination of the above?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2013 RCR - Trackmate data loggers should be required for the sole purpose of platform parity. All data must be turned in w/in 30 minutes of release from impound. Failure to do so could result in disqualification from the prior race. Data logger malfunctions will not be an acceptable reason for failure to provide data files. The use of 2 data loggers (or more) may be needed to ensure compliance with this rule. The driver accepts sole responsibility for managing the required level of redundancy needed to ensure compliance with this rule.

 

Entry fees will also go up to assist NASA w/ adding fulltime position(s) needed to aid in the collection and review of all required data logger files.

 

 

 

Wow....those "tractor mates" (hillbilly impression) is way more expensive then those damn spring height adjusters...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2013 RCR - Trackmate data loggers should be required for the sole purpose of platform parity. All data must be turned in w/in 30 minutes of release from impound. Failure to do so could result in disqualification from the prior race. Data logger malfunctions will not be an acceptable reason for failure to provide data files. The use of 2 data loggers (or more) may be needed to ensure compliance with this rule. The driver accepts sole responsibility for managing the required level of redundancy needed to ensure compliance with this rule.

 

Entry fees will also go up to assist NASA w/ adding fulltime position(s) needed to aid in the collection and review of all required data logger files.

 

 

 

I know ....I know........I should stop, but I never do

 

You also need to be yelling this at the top of your lungs

 

"Dogs and cats living together.......mass hysteria....Real rath of god type stuff"

 

 

 

Ok I'm really done this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2013 RCR - Trackmate data loggers should be required for the sole purpose of platform parity. All data must be turned in w/in 30 minutes of release from impound. Failure to do so could result in disqualification from the prior race. Data logger malfunctions will not be an acceptable reason for failure to provide data files. The use of 2 data loggers (or more) may be needed to ensure compliance with this rule. The driver accepts sole responsibility for managing the required level of redundancy needed to ensure compliance with this rule.

 

Entry fees will also go up to assist NASA w/ adding fulltime position(s) needed to aid in the collection and review of all required data logger files.

 

 

 

Wow....those "tractor mates" (hillbilly impression) is way more expensive then those damn spring height adjusters...

 

Yep, but we all will have F'ing data falling out our ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al has my data, I qualified second twice at mid o in April, and I was practically running Anders off the track in the rain until I ran off the track myself. My rear suspension, Completely stock, No PM3L, no panhard bar, and my bushings are about shot. the sn95 is a good and reliable set up, It just has its disadvantages like every other platform. My car other than motor and brakes is still in CMC-1 platform. and it isn't that far off pace.

 

I did not go to nationals because my son was 1 week old or there would have been a sn95 at nationals.

 

I do not want to go to a different class and race, and I do not think those comments are appropriate on a public forum where anyone can post anything..

 

Cue the cat pic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Dogs and cats living together.......mass hysteria....Real rath of god type stuff"

 

Cue the cat pic!

 

tethercat.jpg

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow... let me start by saying I did not read all 13 pages and I dont realy have a feel for everything that is realy on the table. But I would like to weigh in on one item.

 

Torque arms on Mustang is not a great idea or should I say is not the best idea. I assume someone offered it as an option to the crapy 4 link on the Fox. Can I throw out the idea that a proper 4link with a panhard should also be an option. Here is an example of one such system that replaces the splayed upper arms.

 

http://www.steeda.com/store/steeda-5-link-rear-suspension-system-for-ford-mustang.html

 

If torque arme are being considered please consider this 5 link as well.

 

Robin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow... let me start by saying I did not read all 13 pages and I dont realy have a feel for everything that is realy on the table. But I would like to weigh in on one item.

 

Torque arms on Mustang is not a great idea or should I say is not the best idea. I assume someone offered it as an option to the crapy 4 link on the Fox. Can I throw out the idea that a proper 4link with a panhard should also be an option. Here is an example of one such system that replaces the splayed upper arms.

 

http://www.steeda.com/store/steeda-5-link-rear-suspension-system-for-ford-mustang.html

 

If torque arme are being considered please consider this 5 link as well.

 

Robin

 

I would bet you torque arms are not really being considered and this five link has ZERO chance of being considered.

 

 

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow... let me start by saying I did not read all 13 pages and I dont realy have a feel for everything that is realy on the table. But I would like to weigh in on one item.

 

Torque arms on Mustang is not a great idea or should I say is not the best idea. I assume someone offered it as an option to the crapy 4 link on the Fox. Can I throw out the idea that a proper 4link with a panhard should also be an option. Here is an example of one such system that replaces the splayed upper arms.

 

http://www.steeda.com/store/steeda-5-link-rear-suspension-system-for-ford-mustang.html

 

If torque arme are being considered please consider this 5 link as well.

 

Robin

 

I would bet you torque arms are not really being considered and this five link has ZERO chance of being considered.

 

 

JJ

 

Why not? The mustang already has the panhard bar. The only difference is different upper control arm angles I believe. I would much rather do this than a torque arm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would much rather do this than a torque arm.

 

FYI, the pictures on the Steeda site only show the right side upper arm installed for illustration purposes and not the left upper side arm. I wish they'd get around to updating that and/or stating that a bit more clearly on there.

 

If you're going to change the whole way the rear suspension works on a Mustang by considering a torque arm, I would also much prefer this setup to be considered in addition to, or instead of it.

 

However, at $1200, it would not be part of my budget. Of course, neither are a lot of the other more expensive parts and upgrades that I'm "allowed", but not "required" to install.

 

The stock angled 4-link isn't the best design for racing, but we can deal with it cheaply. Modifying the stock setup into a PM3L may be more effective and cost effective, but it introduces other issues that create more problems and expenses down the road. A different design like the torque arm is a bigger expense that supposedly gets rid of some of the PM3L problems, but may introduce some problems of it's own. I think the Steeda 5-link is the best solution out there to "fix" the Mustang rear suspension, but it's another another rung up on the price ladder from the torque arm. I'm really not sure where the best balance of performance/cost/benefits/problems lies, but for now, I'm going to stick with the OEM arrangement with the MM Extreme Duty non-adjustable lower control arms that have been legal and have been used in the series for many years.

 

I hope that a few years from now we are not having a similar discussion on why we should/shouldn't allow a front SLA suspension on the older Mustangs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't you have to run a panhard bar with a torque arm? So its 400 for a torque arm and 400 for a panhard bar. Only 400 more and you get the type of rear suspension that actually works.

 

Either way. This is unlikey to pass, so lets go get some coil overs!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow... let me start by saying I did not read all 13 pages and I dont realy have a feel for everything that is realy on the table. But I would like to weigh in on one item.

 

Torque arms on Mustang is not a great idea or should I say is not the best idea. I assume someone offered it as an option to the crapy 4 link on the Fox. Can I throw out the idea that a proper 4link with a panhard should also be an option. Here is an example of one such system that replaces the splayed upper arms.

 

http://www.steeda.com/store/steeda-5-link-rear-suspension-system-for-ford-mustang.html

 

If torque arme are being considered please consider this 5 link as well.

 

Robin

 

I would bet you torque arms are not really being considered and this five link has ZERO chance of being considered.

 

 

JJ

 

Why not? The mustang already has the panhard bar. The only difference is different upper control arm angles I believe. I would much rather do this than a torque arm.

 

Don't get me wrong I like your idea but I don't see it getting through the directors. Now if I could just figure out why $2500.00 big brakes are okay?

 

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al posted this back in 2010...not sure what or if any testing was done and if any information was gained?

 

"Its becoming pretty common for Ford drivers to go to the poor man's three link, which is great because it really does work. Unfortunately we've seen an increase in upper link bushing failures. Instead of just throwing rules at it we're going to do some selective testing next year to ensure we get the results we want without any unintended consequences. More info to follow as we study and learn more."

 

The only reason I found this quote was because I was looking at rules requests the past few years and thinking about what the harm would be going back to CMC1 hp/tq levels. I havent looked at detail the past few years but a quick glance doesnt show anything that would require a good sum of money. I may be wrong but it wasnt til the S197 came into CMC when we're now upping horsepower and discussing ways to prevent tears in the chassis, welding of chassis parts, upgrading diff covers for cooling and ease of maintanence, etc.

 

So, do you think we'd be discussing the items that we are for this year if we were at the original CMC power and torque allowances? Maybe this should be a seperate thread. I guess my point is look at some of the rules change requests the past several years and what is proposed this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be wrong but it wasnt til the S197 came into CMC when we're now upping horsepower and discussing ways to prevent tears in the chassis...

 

My understanding was the LS1 would have to richen up so much to drop power that it was washing their cylinders down... which isn't good... Almost stock LS1's make good AI power without any work...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...