Jump to content
D Algozine

7) Allow threaded spring adjusters on all four corners, all

Recommended Posts

Glenn
Sorry Bryan, I'd bet there are at least a handfull of racers from this year who corner-weight their cars plus another handfull of racers from years past who I know did as well.

It simply is a must do.

 

If you're not doing it, you are flushing money down the toilet. Even you have to pay to have it cornerweighted, you will save money in the extended life of your tires.

 

I still do not understand why under the current rules the perches must be fixed. If is an ajdustabel piece what is the sense in making people also use shims if they want to do adjustments at the track?

 

If somebody doesn't want to buy the perches, they can use the shims as an inexpensive alternative but to force the use of shims seems pointless.

 

I can understand and appreciate trying to keep costs down but is there some reason we need to make our lives more difficult at the same time? At a certain point, the directors need to realize they are making the class less attractive because to make the car fun to drive, you are making the racers have to spend hours upon hours of finding a way to make that happen.

 

I don't have an endless racing budget AND I also don't have an endless time budget either. So stop forcing us to cut 12 sets of spacers to accomplish what could be done with the turn of a socket!

 

I would go out ona limb and say your case is likely the most extream case I have ever heard of. I have checked mine and decided I was close enough. w/out adding anything. I have never had anyone tell me corner weighting will improve tire life and make a 50% improvement in the handeling of the car. At best, I was told this will get the last 10ths out of the car. Perhaps your chassis is the issue or you got a bad mismatch on a set of springs. I also think every Director will feel the same about your complaint/issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn
Can't you somewhat tweak the corner weights by shimming one side of the sway bars?

 

 

Another question. How much will screw adjusters cost? Is there a bolt in kit available?

 

Preloading the bars is a very bad idea.

 

Perhaps someone needs to submit an example of costs for these adjusters for each platform. Be sure to include the cost of fabrication and welding when done by a qualified shop. Some guys can do this at home, and some can't. We try our best to consider those that don't have the skill or tools to do this themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soundguydave1548534741

F-bodies: $419, along with a set of springs to your spec

http://www.ground-control-store.com/products/description.php/II=21/CA=86

Same vendor mentioned in the rule set for 4th gens.

 

FOX/SN95: $375, also with springs to spec

http://www.maximummotorsports.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=514_2_78&products_id=507

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn
F-bodies: $419, along with a set of springs to your spec

http://www.ground-control-store.com/products/description.php/II=21/CA=86

Same vendor mentioned in the rule set for 4th gens.

 

FOX/SN95: $375, also with springs to spec

http://www.maximummotorsports.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=514_2_78&products_id=507

 

Sleeves for the 4th gen are about $40 a pair if you know where to shop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soundguydave1548534741

Oh, I forgot to mention, outside of the alignment, the Mustang kit is easily done at home. No welding, no fabrication, just common hand tools (socket set, prybar, floor jack, a hammer and a file), I would assume roughly the same for the F-bodies. It looks like 90 minutes or so for install time, not much more than just doing struts alone.

 

Also, good to know that the sleeves are even cheaper! I'll admit, I didn't spend a lot of time searching them out, so I guess we could consider those worst-case prices. You could also cut costs by buying the kits without springs, and supplying your own, from used sources if you wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve91T

I'm not racing in CMC yet, but I am building a CMC 4th gen. I will be racing in the 2013 season.

 

I'm all about cheap racing. I can't even afford to race right now, but next year will be a different story. That being said, one of the attractive things about CMC is that the cars are relatively fast. I seriously thought about Spec E30 and Spec Miata. The problem is I have ridden in many Spec E30's and they are so boring. I know the racing is fun, but they didn't do anything for me. And there was no way I was going to have a Miata as a race car.

 

If a $500 upgrade allows so much easy adjustments, then I'm all for it, especially if allows me to spend less time wrenching on the car and more racing it.

 

The faster we can make this class for cheap, the more attention is will get, and the more people will want to join us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smike

That Mustang kit really changes the motion ratio of the front suspension. Will change wheel rate a large amount. And clearance issues for 275/40R17s on OE Cobra wheels. You'd have to space the front as well.

 

Throwing $500 around? Not game. And old school shimming to corner balance works fine. Once a suspension is set; it's set. Why does there have to be threads to do it track side?

 

Come race CMC, its already fast in the Great Lakes/Midwest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nape1548534725
I don't think this should turn into a class where american iron cars come to run when they finally decide they don't have enough money to run with Dean Martin. Keep what we have in regards to coil overs. We are already spending 2k on shocks and I cant afford that.

 

I've run AI long enough to come down the the realization that if you want to run at the front you'll, at the minimum, have to spend time OR money.

 

As far as $2k on shocks, my AI car has a $150 shock package. Learn to drive junk and you'll go even faster with good equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve91T

What kind of adjustments do you guys make from track to track?

 

I guess I retract my statement that I'm all for it if you guys get it set and then don't touch it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
suck fumes1548534743

Cross and corner weights are adjusted and changed depending on each track. I never leave the cross alone all year. That's crazy! If you want to be up front you have to setup the car based on track to maximize handling. At least that's what I do. If you guys only do it once a year you're not maximizing the cars potential. Every track is different, has different style turns and sometimes we drive CW to change it up. You cant leave the same setup on the car and expect to win. Or maybe you can in this class??? I'd be surprised if you could!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FBody383
Cross and corner weights are adjusted and changed depending on each track. I never leave the cross alone all year.
I've made one spring change since I started in '09. I've run within a couple tenths of the "show ponies" this year on a track I knew and a decent run last outing chasing the fast guys fighting some brake issues.

 

And I'm still on 16s.

 

My sense is there's more speed for me by developing the driver once I get the car dependable under braking again.

 

I'm against this rule change from the perspective that you can accomplish the same thing now... and I believe allowing the adjusters turns into another "must have."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al F.

I dont see the connection between threaded adjusters and being able to run springs that are cheap and available in reasonable rate increments. In order to change the size of the spring but maintain it in the OE location you have to install some sort of adapter, which is already legal. I also dont see how threaded adjusters makes corner weighing dramatically cheaper than shims. Easier yes, but cheaper? The logic is that a threaded adapter costs less than a non-threaded adapter, and by a substantial margin. I dont see that.

 

On the back of my 4th gen is an aluminum T shaped doughnut that centers the spring and has a section extending into the ID of the coil to enable spacers to be stacked on. I have a stack of 1/8" shims that I use to adjust ride height. I could use this to corner weight it, but never have. It was made by a friend who had access to a lathe. I'd be pretty shocked if it'd cost more to have that piece turned than to buy an adjustable perch designed to fit in the stock location (even if I could find one!). It happens to be that the 5.5OD pigtail springs the GMs use in back are readily available for roundy round cars so I stuck with that so I didnt have to buy springs. I coud've just as easily made the doughnut center a 2.5" coil over spring (I think thats what Nick did).

 

The same logic applies to the back of any car and the front of anything other than the 4th gen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wastntim
Sorry Bryan, I'd bet there are at least a handfull of racers from this year who corner-weight their cars plus another handfull of racers from years past who I know did as well.

It simply is a must do.

 

If you're not doing it, you are flushing money down the toilet. Even you have to pay to have it cornerweighted, you will save money in the extended life of your tires.

 

I still do not understand why under the current rules the perches must be fixed. If is an ajdustabel piece what is the sense in making people also use shims if they want to do adjustments at the track?

 

If somebody doesn't want to buy the perches, they can use the shims as an inexpensive alternative but to force the use of shims seems pointless.

 

I can understand and appreciate trying to keep costs down but is there some reason we need to make our lives more difficult at the same time? At a certain point, the directors need to realize they are making the class less attractive because to make the car fun to drive, you are making the racers have to spend hours upon hours of finding a way to make that happen.

 

I don't have an endless racing budget AND I also don't have an endless time budget either. So stop forcing us to cut 12 sets of spacers to accomplish what could be done with the turn of a socket!

 

I would go out ona limb and say your case is likely the most extream case I have ever heard of. I have checked mine and decided I was close enough. w/out adding anything. I have never had anyone tell me corner weighting will improve tire life and make a 50% improvement in the handeling of the car. At best, I was told this will get the last 10ths out of the car. Perhaps your chassis is the issue or you got a bad mismatch on a set of springs. I also think every Director will feel the same about your complaint/issue.

 

When I checked my cornerweights the first time, they were 155lbs off. Other racers had theirs within 10-15lbs of one another. The next event at my home track, a track I have spent the most time on, I took 2.5 seconds off my lap time from a1.42.7 to a 1.40.2. This was the difference between me running at the end of the pack to actually being able to keep up. Furthermore, since my left front was running cooler, my lap times stayed more consistent.

 

As far as the tire wear issue, I can tell you when I took 150 pounds extra off of my left front and right rear, those tires wore less during a 40 minute race. How could they not? It's simple common sense that when you have more equalized weight on 4 tires rather than extra weight on 2, the four tires will wear more evenly.

 

You can try to minimize the importance of corner weighting but the fact remains it will have major impact on how your car handles. Ever been to a professional race? What is every car in the paddock sitting on in the pits? Scales! They're not doing it cause they have nothing better to do. It's important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wastntim
I dont see the connection between threaded adjusters and being able to run springs that are cheap and available in reasonable rate increments. In order to change the size of the spring but maintain it in the OE location you have to install some sort of adapter, which is already legal. I also dont see how threaded adjusters makes corner weighing dramatically cheaper than shims. Easier yes, but cheaper? The logic is that a threaded adapter costs less than a non-threaded adapter, and by a substantial margin. I dont see that.

 

On the back of my 4th gen is an aluminum T shaped doughnut that centers the spring and has a section extending into the ID of the coil to enable spacers to be stacked on. I have a stack of 1/8" shims that I use to adjust ride height. I could use this to corner weight it, but never have. It was made by a friend who had access to a lathe. I'd be pretty shocked if it'd cost more to have that piece turned than to buy an adjustable perch designed to fit in the stock location (even if I could find one!). It happens to be that the 5.5OD pigtail springs the GMs use in back are readily available for roundy round cars so I stuck with that so I didnt have to buy springs. I coud've just as easily made the doughnut center a 2.5" coil over spring (I think thats what Nick did).

 

The same logic applies to the back of any car and the front of anything other than the 4th gen.

 

How is it cheaper to have a custom made part rather than buy a readily available adjustable spring perch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CMC#11
I dont see the connection between threaded adjusters and being able to run springs that are cheap and available in reasonable rate increments. In order to change the size of the spring but maintain it in the OE location you have to install some sort of adapter, which is already legal. I also dont see how threaded adjusters makes corner weighing dramatically cheaper than shims. Easier yes, but cheaper? The logic is that a threaded adapter costs less than a non-threaded adapter, and by a substantial margin. I dont see that.

 

On the back of my 4th gen is an aluminum T shaped doughnut that centers the spring and has a section extending into the ID of the coil to enable spacers to be stacked on. I have a stack of 1/8" shims that I use to adjust ride height. I could use this to corner weight it, but never have. It was made by a friend who had access to a lathe. I'd be pretty shocked if it'd cost more to have that piece turned than to buy an adjustable perch designed to fit in the stock location (even if I could find one!). It happens to be that the 5.5OD pigtail springs the GMs use in back are readily available for roundy round cars so I stuck with that so I didnt have to buy springs. I coud've just as easily made the doughnut center a 2.5" coil over spring (I think thats what Nick did).

 

The same logic applies to the back of any car and the front of anything other than the 4th gen.

 

How is it cheaper to have a custom made part rather than buy a readily available adjustable spring perch?

If you have a buddy with the knowledge that will make it for free.

Doesn't everyone have one of those or is it just the 4th gen guys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn
Cross and corner weights are adjusted and changed depending on each track. I never leave the cross alone all year. That's crazy! If you want to be up front you have to setup the car based on track to maximize handling. At least that's what I do. If you guys only do it once a year you're not maximizing the cars potential. Every track is different, has different style turns and sometimes we drive CW to change it up. You cant leave the same setup on the car and expect to win. Or maybe you can in this class??? I'd be surprised if you could!

 

I can see that when the class (SPEC Miata) is allon the same parts down to the spring rates. CMC rules limit so much that it leave alot on the table. Adjusting cross weights for each track is really just crazy.

When you start racing CMC, let me know how that works out for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn
Sorry Bryan, I'd bet there are at least a handfull of racers from this year who corner-weight their cars plus another handfull of racers from years past who I know did as well.

It simply is a must do.

 

If you're not doing it, you are flushing money down the toilet. Even you have to pay to have it cornerweighted, you will save money in the extended life of your tires.

 

I still do not understand why under the current rules the perches must be fixed. If is an ajdustabel piece what is the sense in making people also use shims if they want to do adjustments at the track?

 

If somebody doesn't want to buy the perches, they can use the shims as an inexpensive alternative but to force the use of shims seems pointless.

 

I can understand and appreciate trying to keep costs down but is there some reason we need to make our lives more difficult at the same time? At a certain point, the directors need to realize they are making the class less attractive because to make the car fun to drive, you are making the racers have to spend hours upon hours of finding a way to make that happen.

 

I don't have an endless racing budget AND I also don't have an endless time budget either. So stop forcing us to cut 12 sets of spacers to accomplish what could be done with the turn of a socket!

 

I would go out ona limb and say your case is likely the most extream case I have ever heard of. I have checked mine and decided I was close enough. w/out adding anything. I have never had anyone tell me corner weighting will improve tire life and make a 50% improvement in the handeling of the car. At best, I was told this will get the last 10ths out of the car. Perhaps your chassis is the issue or you got a bad mismatch on a set of springs. I also think every Director will feel the same about your complaint/issue.

 

When I checked my cornerweights the first time, they were 155lbs off. Other racers had theirs within 10-15lbs of one another. The next event at my home track, a track I have spent the most time on, I took 2.5 seconds off my lap time from a1.42.7 to a 1.40.2. This was the difference between me running at the end of the pack to actually being able to keep up. Furthermore, since my left front was running cooler, my lap times stayed more consistent.

 

As far as the tire wear issue, I can tell you when I took 150 pounds extra off of my left front and right rear, those tires wore less during a 40 minute race. How could they not? It's simple common sense that when you have more equalized weight on 4 tires rather than extra weight on 2, the four tires will wear more evenly.

 

You can try to minimize the importance of corner weighting but the fact remains it will have major impact on how your car handles. Ever been to a professional race? What is every car in the paddock sitting on in the pits? Scales! They're not doing it cause they have nothing better to do. It's important.

 

I didn't say it wasn't important, just that your case is so extream that there must be other issues at play and your corner weight adjustments covered it up. I don't doubt your faster. I also don't think your car is the "norm".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
suck fumes1548534743

Ill let u know in January.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MHISSTC

Corner weighting? We've never done it, although I think we wrote down the numbers once a few years back when we were being weighed after a race just out of curiosity sake. If my memory is correct, we figured we were close enough, so we didn't ever consider messing with it. We have since upgraded to the SN95 suspension parts and plan additional changes for the 2013 season, so we may have to try to fine tune it a bit in 2013.

 

A couple other items mentioned in this thread:

Multiple sets of springs? HA! We have one set per car unless we wanted to run OEM or modified OEM springs.

$2k in shocks and struts = I'm not participating in CMC.

Torque arms in Mustangs = I'm not participating in CMC.

 

So many are so serious about eeking the last few tenths of seconds out of the cars and establishing parity to the point of considering coil-overs and torque arms on Mustangs just because other platforms have them, along with aftermarket sway bars and widening track widths to the point that gaping holes need to be cut in fenders, that the fun is being sucked right out of the series for me. I'm willing to make a car that's safe and legal within a basic rule set and then go out and have fun with it followed by a few beers, but we're very quickly approaching the point in this series that I'm no longer willing to do the work to make the modifications that are deemed needed to become or remain competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mitchntx1548534714

So many are so serious about eeking the last few tenths of seconds out of the cars and establishing parity to the point of considering coil-overs and torque arms on Mustangs just because other platforms have them, along with aftermarket sway bars and widening track widths to the point that gaping holes need to be cut in fenders, that the fun is being sucked right out of the series for me.

 

Awesome post, Scott.

CMC2 was the beginning of the end. And I regret feeding that monkey.

 

Raping CMC to accomodate LS and other modern platforms was basically turning their back on the racers that made CMC what it was in order to cater to an "influx" of a more modern appearing series.

 

Backfired ... and now look at the series.

 

It's a mere shell of what it once was. The big deal about rules change was ... well, there wasn't any. The package worked.

 

Now trying to bridge carbed & FI, chassis designed with a protractor and lead pencil vs modern chassis designed by mordern technology and drivers only caring about the big check is impossible and creates a rift that might not ever be mended.

 

At this point ... not sure its salvagable. But, from where I sit, bring back CMC1 and create a CMC2 class based upon AI lite and not CMC1 heavy.

 

/soap box

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wastntim
At this point ... not sure its salvagable. But, from where I sit, bring back CMC1 and create a CMC2 class based upon AI lite and not CMC1 heavy.

 

/soap box

 

Sounds like the classes should be called Vintage CMC & CMC by the ways the lines are drawn amongst the racers on their posts.

 

I'm all for keeping costs down, but at the same time, I prefer not to drive a complete piece of junk, otherwise I'd be in a 944.

 

Seriously though, the way that some changes are allowed and some are not seems nonsensical. To me, the idea of putting an adjustable spring perch on the car and then making it non-adjustable defies common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soundguydave1548534741
Corner weighting? We've never done it, although I think we wrote down the numbers once a few years back when we were being weighed after a race just out of curiosity sake. If my memory is correct, we figured we were close enough, so we didn't ever consider messing with it. We have since upgraded to the SN95 suspension parts and plan additional changes for the 2013 season, so we may have to try to fine tune it a bit in 2013.

 

You ought to give it a try.... The car feels more balanced, consistent in right and left-hand turns, and the even loads can and will even out tire wear, so you can go longer on a given set of tires. Also, if you have a track that just punishes one corner, you can take a bit of load off, and have the tire live longer, and be consistent longer thought the race. The net result is that it will save you money in consumables.

 

A couple other items mentioned in this thread:

Multiple sets of springs? HA! We have one set per car unless we wanted to run OEM or modified OEM springs.

With a developed chassis. For those that are doing development, multiple sets of OE-style replacement springs can get awfully expensive. Sleeves or other adapters just allow you to try differing rates with less cash outlay. Nobody says you have to do it, and there honestly is NO performance advantage worth mentioning to the altered spring location. The RCR is all about cutting costs during development, and ease of adjustment.

$2k in shocks and struts = I'm not participating in CMC.

It's already here, Tech Bulletin issued 2/28/12. Do you need them to be competitive? Dunno, but they're here, and that's a fact.

Torque arms in Mustangs = I'm not participating in CMC.

I'd never try to put a driver out of a series, but you have to admit, there is an inequity between the FOX/SN95 chassis and the F-Bodies that needs to be addressed if we're going to avoid a "Camaro-Firebird Challenge" series. Again, you don't have to do a torque arm if you don't want. If your stated purpose is to go out, race, have some fun, and drink a couple of beers, that's great, but there are others that have an interest in seeing a Mustang chassis OTHER than an S197 do well.

 

So many are so serious about eeking the last few tenths of seconds out of the cars and establishing parity to the point of considering coil-overs and torque arms on Mustangs just because other platforms have them, along with aftermarket sway bars and widening track widths to the point that gaping holes need to be cut in fenders, that the fun is being sucked right out of the series for me. I'm willing to make a car that's safe and legal within a basic rule set and then go out and have fun with it followed by a few beers, but we're very quickly approaching the point in this series that I'm no longer willing to do the work to make the modifications that are deemed needed to become or remain competitive.

 

I don't want to sound harsh, but that's called "racing." Part of it is exploiting the grey areas, pushing the envelope, and building to the maximum extent that the rule set will allow. What we're trying to do here is adjust the ruleset so that parity is maintained. I seriously doubt that what is being commonly done in the series was ever even considered by the rules committee when they sat down to draft the ruleset. There's an RCR out right now about transmission ratios, whose intent is to prevent somebody from custom-building a gear box at ridiculous expense that would provide a huge performance gain. Nobody thought that anybody would even consider that in a "low cost series," but the rules allow it, so in theory, it could become a "must have" item. I REALLY don't want to have a gearbox that cost more than the car! In the end, as the racers find and exploit loopholes, the rule set needs to grow with them, to maintain parity between the participating platforms. Going backwards is NEVER a good thing, and stubbornly sticking to your guns in the face of overwhelming evidence of a problem simply isn't healthy for the series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K Shaw
At this point ... not sure its salvagable. But, from where I sit, bring back CMC1 and create a CMC2 class based upon AI lite and not CMC1 heavy.

 

/soap box

 

Sounds like the classes should be called Vintage CMC & CMC by the ways the lines are drawn amongst the racers on their posts.

 

I'm all for keeping costs down, but at the same time, I prefer not to drive a complete piece of junk, otherwise I'd be in a 944.

 

Seriously though, the way that some changes are allowed and some are not seems nonsensical. To me, the idea of putting an adjustable spring perch on the car and then making it non-adjustable defies common sense.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soundguydave1548534741

CMC2 was the beginning of the end. And I regret feeding that monkey.

 

Raping CMC to accomodate LS and other modern platforms was basically turning their back on the racers that made CMC what it was in order to cater to an "influx" of a more modern appearing series.

 

Backfired ... and now look at the series.

 

It's a mere shell of what it once was. The big deal about rules change was ... well, there wasn't any. The package worked.

 

Now trying to bridge carbed & FI, chassis designed with a protractor and lead pencil vs modern chassis designed by mordern technology and drivers only caring about the big check is impossible and creates a rift that might not ever be mended.

 

At this point ... not sure its salvagable. But, from where I sit, bring back CMC1 and create a CMC2 class based upon AI lite and not CMC1 heavy.

 

/soap box

 

Mitch, have you submitted an RCR to mandate mule-power yet? I know the perfect series for you to go and drive in: A-Sedan. Pushrods, carbs, 12" brakes, and a STABLE ruleset that hasn't and won't change. Go have fun. Also, big check???? Since when are we getting paid to drive? Seriously, man, give it up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sidney

I know the perfect series for you to go and drive in: A-Sedan. Pushrods, carbs, 12" brakes, and a STABLE ruleset that hasn't and won't change. Go have fun. Also, big check???? ...

 

Dave,

 

Don't think you've been following A-Sedan as closely as you think. They now allow 17 inch wheels and fuel injection through their Limited/Restricted Prep rules.

 

Don't be fooled to think the SCCA is sitting on outdated rules waiting for all their racers to move to NASA AI or CMC. They are making changes to allow AS to evolve. It's slow and not as open as AI but they are moving.

 

Sidney

Share this post


Link to post
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...