Jump to content
D Algozine

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

Recommended Posts

CMC#11
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.

 

Haha, best thing I've read all week!!!

You hear that Al? Get rid of that fart can and come racing again in the Camaro!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FBody383
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.
OR, is "racing," participating with a simple, straight foward ruleset that limits development and stresses driver competance?

 

What we're trying to do here is adjust the ruleset so that parity is maintained.
Which "parity" are we maintaining? There WAS pretty good parity in the 230/300 CMC1 ruleset. Yes, there were brand loyalties and remaining minor tweaks. Did the Fourth Gen slot in there well? It seemed to fit the original intent better than the S197 does now.

 

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.
So rolling back wings, big brakes and an "over developed factory race car" is a bad thing for what started out as a grassroots series? And I looked at A Sedan before I found CMC - a protest over the screws used to hold on the throttle plates in the carb? Yeah, because those cars are cheap to be competitive in...

 

For me, this is as much about working on car I don't have to drive on Monday, just being a "race car driver," and hanging out with a bunch of similarly minded folks - who can have a good "fight" on the interwebs in between racing/BBQ/beer events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soundguydave1548534741

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Don't be fooled to think the SCCA is sitting on outdated rules waiting for all their racers to move to NASA AI or CMC.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

 

Thanks for the info, Sidney. I miss seeing you around! As for the AS rule changes, I guess that's the death knell for the series; just ask Mitch.

 

17" wheels and fuel injection? Whatever are they thinking?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soundguydave1548534741
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.
OR, is "racing," participating with a simple, straight foward ruleset that limits development and stresses driver competance?
Unfortunately, or not, the nature of the beast is to gain an advantage when you can. Look at the spec series, where the rule set is as closed as it can be, and they're STILL finding ways to push the boundaries. Let's face it, racing is competitive, on and off-track. Nobody ever said "Oh, I can't do that. Even if it's legal, it would give me an unfair advantage." We defend positions on track, and don't give point-bys for position, and that sense of competitiveness (most generally friendly!) extends into the paddock and the garage as well. In the paddock, we assess which set of RA1's to run, calculate fuel load to run minimum weight at the end of the race, etc. In the garage, we move weight around in the car for better balance, re-run the brake ducts to keep the brakes cooler for longer, etc. All done for competitive advantage, which is what racing is all about, and which leads to development of a chassis when the loopholes and grey areas are toyed with. Development will happen unless we run an IROC style series, and when it does, the initial parity adjustments become obsolete.

 

What we're trying to do here is adjust the ruleset so that parity is maintained.
Which "parity" are we maintaining? There WAS pretty good parity in the 230/300 CMC1 ruleset. Yes, there were brand loyalties and remaining minor tweaks. Did the Fourth Gen slot in there well? It seemed to fit the original intent better than the S197 does now.
Detroit hasn't made a "pony car" that fit the 230/300 limit in a decade. This is where the ruleset needs flexibility, or else the series becomes a time capsule waiting for obsolescence.

 

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.
So rolling back wings, big brakes and an "over developed factory race car" is a bad thing for what started out as a grassroots series? And I looked at A Sedan before I found CMC - a protest over the screws used to hold on the throttle plates in the carb? Yeah, because those cars are cheap to be competitive in...

 

For me, this is as much about working on car I don't have to drive on Monday, just being a "race car driver," and hanging out with a bunch of similarly minded folks - who can have a good "fight" on the interwebs in between racing/BBQ/beer events.

 

Amen. I have no interest personally in garnering an unfair advantage to the ends of obtaining a $12 plastic trophy and a $1 sticker. I want to have fun with a bunch of good, close racing against drivers of equal skill level, regardless of platform. The hot-shoes give us mid-packers and back-markers a target to shoot for, but it's just not an achievable target if our chassis can't hang with theirs... As for the S197, that's a WHOLE 'nother ball of wax...

 

Edited to fix lack of clarity in statement. --DL

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
suck fumes1548534743

Some people like to race to win others just do it as a weekend vacation. Either way is fine but the people that want to further the reliability and performance of their cars and progress the class shouldn't be given the cold shoulder and be ignored. The class will not attract new people if they know nothing will ever evolve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve91T
Some people like to race to win others just do it as a weekend vacation. Either way is fine but the people that want to further the reliability and performance of their cars and progress the class shouldn't be given the cold shoulder and be ignored. The class will not attract new people if they know nothing will ever evolve.

 

 

I agree. The rules have to evolve and change with the times. I'm not saying we need 400 hp, but some inexpensive upgrades to allow adjustability would be nice. And it will definitely be more attractive to people looking to get into racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MHISSTC
We defend positions on track, and don't give point-bys for position, and that mentality extends into the paddock and the garage as well.

 

Really? That's a shitty attitude I'm not familiar with in our regional CMC group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D Algozine
And it will definitely be more attractive to people looking to get into racing.

 

Very important statement, in my mind. I would subsitute "CMC" for the word "racing" in the above quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cozog1548534733
We defend positions on track, and don't give point-bys for position, and that mentality extends into the paddock and the garage as well.

 

Really? That's a shitty attitude I'm not familiar with in our regional CMC group.

Maybe Dave had a little red mist going on when typing that.

 

I have never, ever, been turned down info when asking questions in the CMC paddock at GL/MW events. Racing craft, suspension setup, brakes, etc have all been covered and the fastest guys are ALWAYS willing to help. Taking time from their cars/issues to help us get faster is what I love about our group. Now amongst the top 3-4, there might be some secrets kept away from each other. But in general, everyone is open about their data, especially the mid pack slackers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve91T
And it will definitely be more attractive to people looking to get into racing.

 

Very important statement, in my mind. I would subsitute "CMC" for the word "racing" in the above quote.

 

Not necessarily. When I decided to make the jump from HPDE's to W2W, I looked at just about everything that I could and couldn't afford. I was really close to getting into Legends or Thunder Roadsters. They are cheap, very adjustable, and fast. I also liked that they are easy to repair after a crash. I realized that I don't want to do circle track, and that's where I would end up if I bought one.

 

Spec Miata, E30, and 944....not for me. I really though about FFR, but the cost is too high.

 

So then I started to look at CMC. One of the things that I liked was that I could race my Camaro, a car that I already know well. And also, they are fast! Not mention they sound awesome.

 

So, someone wanting to get into "racing" has many options. What are we doing to help promote CMC? Updating the rules to change with the times. Back when CMC fist started in the 90's, Camaro's had 275 hp and it was considered fast. Now soccer mom's are driving around in minivans that have over 300 hp!

 

People watching from the sidelines should see an old Camaro or Mustang tear up the track. That'll make them ask, "how much are those cars? That's it? Sign me up!" Not, "are we watching an HPDE from the 80s? Wake me up when the Miata's are on track".

 

I also believe that updating the rules will keep people in CMC and not force them to jump to AI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
suck fumes1548534743

See I was afraid of this before I even bought a car to build. SCCA is very stubborn when it comes to change and I thought maybe NASA and this class would be more open to evolving with updates to keep the cars from tearing themselves apart. Now I'm having second thoughts. If people looking to get into racing see that our cars rip themselves apart after a season or two because we are not allowed to use a torque arm or other means or if they know they can't adjust ride height without pulling the car apart, They will pass on the class!!! It's stupid to know you will have to eventually build a new car just because your old one has so many chassis repairs that it's not safe anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MHISSTC
"are we watching an HPDE from the 80s? Wake me up when the Miata's are on track".

 

Serious LOL. I needed that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn
See I was afraid of this before I even bought a car to build. SCCA is very stubborn when it comes to change and I thought maybe NASA and this class would be more open to evolving with updates to keep the cars from tearing themselves apart. Now I'm having second thoughts. If people looking to get into racing see that our cars rip themselves apart after a season or two because we are not allowed to use a torque arm or other means or if they know they can't adjust ride height without pulling the car apart, They will pass on the class!!! It's stupid to know you will have to eventually build a new car just because your old one has so many chassis repairs that it's not safe anymore.

 

I could see this as a 50/50 split. Some guys could very well be glad the limits are in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wastntim
See I was afraid of this before I even bought a car to build. SCCA is very stubborn when it comes to change and I thought maybe NASA and this class would be more open to evolving with updates to keep the cars from tearing themselves apart. Now I'm having second thoughts. If people looking to get into racing see that our cars rip themselves apart after a season or two because we are not allowed to use a torque arm or other means or if they know they can't adjust ride height without pulling the car apart, They will pass on the class!!! It's stupid to know you will have to eventually build a new car just because your old one has so many chassis repairs that it's not safe anymore.

 

I could see this as a 50/50 split. Some guys could very well be glad the limits are in place.

 

If put to the class, I don't think it would be 50/50. It might be amongst the directors, but I think that is a result of many of the directors being in CMC from the beginning and them being afraid of losing CMC's roots of beging a low budget class of racing. The problem is that some of these changes i.e. adjustable spring perches are not really a high budget item they are just different from what was and to some anything different is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soundguydave1548534741
We defend positions on track, and don't give point-bys for position, and that mentality extends into the paddock and the garage as well.

 

Really? That's a shitty attitude I'm not familiar with in our regional CMC group.

 

Yeah, Todd got it in one... Re-reading it now, after some time, it's clear that my intent wasn't mirrored in my statement. The attitude you're used to in your CMC group, I'm nearly positive, is the same one we have in MW/GL. What I was TRYING (and failing miserably) to say was that the sense of competitiveness will extend, not that it was obstructionist in any way... If I came up with a legal tweak on the car, I would certainly spread the word, or at the very least be more than willing to talk about it with anybody that asked. My intent was to say that what we do to the cars, within the rules, is done for the purpose of competitive advantage, or at least the maintenance of parity, and that none of us, by nature, will just roll over and play dead at the drop of a hat. That's all. I certainly wasn't clear about that in my original statement, and I am editing the original post to more closely reflect my intent... Thank you for calling me on that, you were indeed correct, and I most certainly wouldn't want that as part of the "permanent record."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MHISSTC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn
See I was afraid of this before I even bought a car to build. SCCA is very stubborn when it comes to change and I thought maybe NASA and this class would be more open to evolving with updates to keep the cars from tearing themselves apart. Now I'm having second thoughts. If people looking to get into racing see that our cars rip themselves apart after a season or two because we are not allowed to use a torque arm or other means or if they know they can't adjust ride height without pulling the car apart, They will pass on the class!!! It's stupid to know you will have to eventually build a new car just because your old one has so many chassis repairs that it's not safe anymore.

 

I could see this as a 50/50 split. Some guys could very well be glad the limits are in place.

 

If put to the class, I don't think it would be 50/50. It might be amongst the directors, but I think that is a result of many of the directors being in CMC from the beginning and them being afraid of losing CMC's roots of beging a low budget class of racing. The problem is that some of these changes i.e. adjustable spring perches are not really a high budget item they are just different from what was and to some anything different is bad.

 

I took his comments as refering to inbound drivers, and I commented accordingly.

 

You are 100% correct that the Directors are doing thier dead level best to keep CMC what it was when they started. Otherwise, we all may as well move to AI and start bitching about that we don't like about it and see if we can dumb down that class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nape1548534725

Rules creep is a bitch. The problems with slippery slopes is that you'll eventually have to head back uphill again.

 

People can want adjusters, but it's not hard to do with rear shims (at least on F-bodies). You can make them with some scrap steel plate, some 2" EMT conduit, and a few hole saws. The rear is the easiest way to get your adjustment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wastntim
Rules creep is a bitch. The problems with slippery slopes is that you'll eventually have to head back uphill again.

 

People can want adjusters, but it's not hard to do with rear shims (at least on F-bodies). You can make them with some scrap steel plate, some 2" EMT conduit, and a few hole saws. The rear is the easiest way to get your adjustment.

 

TJ, your fabrication skills are not as easily replicated as you think and by the time I pay someone to do this, I'll have spent more than the adjustable perches. Plus, there is still the issue that the rules currently allow adjustable perhes in the front, they just can't be adjustable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soundguydave1548534741
Rules creep is a bitch. The problems with slippery slopes is that you'll eventually have to head back uphill again.

 

People can want adjusters, but it's not hard to do with rear shims (at least on F-bodies). You can make them with some scrap steel plate, some 2" EMT conduit, and a few hole saws. The rear is the easiest way to get your adjustment.

 

TJ, your fabrication skills are not as easily replicated as you think and by the time I pay someone to do this, I'll have spent more than the adjustable perches.

 

Exactly. Nobody says you need to buy them, even if you want them. You can fab them up if you want. But, for those of us without time/equipment/resources, purchasing is the least expensive way to go. "You can build it, but you can't buy it." Kinda nuts, eh?

 

Plus, there is still the issue that the rules currently allow adjustable perhes in the front, they just can't be adjustable.
They do, but only for certain chassis. Namely, the fast ones...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roadracerwhite
They do, but only for certain chassis. Namely, the fast ones...

 

you can have adjustable perches in the front, they just can't be adjustable in the car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al F.

 

I dont have data from a lot of cars because...well, because I dont. I can tell you that from the cars at this years nationals, the average difference between front weights was 80lbs and the average difference between rear weights was 32lbs. Standard dev was 47 and 19 respectively. I'm just throwing this out so that guys that go do this soon dont think they need to be within 10lbs to be up front. I'd say anything approaching those numbers and you're doing pretty good, but maybe my standards are low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al F.
If people looking to get into racing see that our cars rip themselves apart after a season or two because we are not allowed to use a torque arm or other means or if they know they can't adjust ride height without pulling the car apart, They will pass on the class!!!

 

With all due respect, I think you're distorting reality. There are CMC cars that have been competing as CMC cars for decades, not "a season or two". If someone is going to pass on a class because they dont agree with something as insignificant as a threaded ride height adjuster, I dont think there is a race class in the world they'll not pass. Every rulebook has things each driver likes, and things they dont. Pick your battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn
If people looking to get into racing see that our cars rip themselves apart after a season or two because we are not allowed to use a torque arm or other means or if they know they can't adjust ride height without pulling the car apart, They will pass on the class!!!

 

With all due respect, I think you're distorting reality. There are CMC cars that have been competing as CMC cars for decades, not "a season or two". If someone is going to pass on a class because they dont agree with something as insignificant as a threaded ride height adjuster, I dont think there is a race class in the world they'll not pass. Every rulebook has things each driver likes, and things they dont. Pick your battles.

 

Al hit the nail on the head. For F-bodys and Mustangs, the alternative is AI. I know I sure dislike that alternative alot more than any single rule in CMC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37Stang
For F-bodys and Mustangs, the alternative is AI. I know I sure dislike that alternative alot more than any single rule in CMC.

 

I couldn't agree with you more Glenn. However, as I stated earlier in one of these "rules" threads, it has been proven over and over again in all forms of motorsports that rules intended to keep costs down do exactly the opposite.

 

Permitting coilover conversions will do two things: 1-) reduced overall costs due to reduced spring costs and 2-) make corner weighting the car convenient. Nothing more...

 

For those that have decided they do not want coilover conversions in the class it is not going to change anything by not permitting them. Corner weighting is being done now and racers are changing springs. Why not permit a way of doing it more cost effectively and make it more convenient at the same time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...