Jump to content

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


D Algozine

Recommended Posts

I'm not trying to make this a pissing match to see who's ding dong is bigger than the others. Let me just make that clear. All I was trying to say was it sounded silly to think that people would spend $500-$1000 to just go run and have a beer. If I wanted to go relax I would stay in town and do something a lot cheaper. I'm not trying to talk down to anyone just trying to understand logic behind your thinking. Just FYI I'm not a jerk in person haha I'm actually a pretty likable guy, I just wanted some answers on certain things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Glenn

    29

  • soundguydave1548534741

    17

  • wastntim

    15

  • D Algozine

    14

Bottom line, I feel if you want to wrench on the car (change ride height, etc) between sessions, that should be fine. If you want to eat a sandwich and take a nap, that's cool too.

 

With this rule request, I think this is the attitude most guys would take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn, I give you a lot of credit for doing what you do on these forums. It's not an easy job. I will admit that the people who said they want to unload the car, do some racing and then drink beer were lazy. I realize this isn't the case, but it came off like that. I absolutely want to be competitive and race there every weekend I can. Drinking beer and BSing would be nice, but that's after I'm confident the car is ready for the next day. Usually when I don't have time for beer is when something breaks and I'm scrambling to get it fixed. Most of my adjusting would be done at home. But tweaking something at the track by turning a wrench isn't going to take away from miller time.

 

When I first saw a CMC car, I was surprised at how modified they are. Two things confuse me for a mostly stock series. Why coil overs? What's wrong with stock style springs? Also, how did adjustable spoilers make it into the rules?

 

I don't know, sometimes I want more adjustability, and sometimes I want a more stock series. I'll probably be happy either way as long as it doesn't end up like AI and more expensive than I can afford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn, I give you a lot of credit for doing what you do on these forums. It's not an easy job. I will admit that the people who said they want to unload the car, do some racing and then drink beer were lazy. I realize this isn't the case, but it came off like that. I absolutely want to be competitive and race there every weekend I can. Drinking beer and BSing would be nice, but that's after I'm confident the car is ready for the next day. Usually when I don't have time for beer is when something breaks and I'm scrambling to get it fixed. Most of my adjusting would be done at home. But tweaking something at the track by turning a wrench isn't going to take away from miller time.

 

When I first saw a CMC car, I was surprised at how modified they are. Two things confuse me for a mostly stock series. Why coil overs? What's wrong with stock style springs? Also, how did adjustable spoilers make it into the rules?

 

I don't know, sometimes I want more adjustability, and sometimes I want a more stock series. I'll probably be happy either way as long as it doesn't end up like AI and more expensive than I can afford.

 

Why on the stock style springs.....

Once you get out on track and realize how undersprung you are on those 550lb'ers, you will know why the 4th gen was allowed this modification. There are zero manufactures of OEM style springs for a 4th gen over 550lbs. Due to the odd design of the OEM spring, something had to give.

 

Stock style also demands a much higher cost. The limited market restricts sales. Allowing commonly available springs and reducing the cost of putting a good spring on the car.

Also, stock does not always equate cheep. Ever run SCCA T2 w/ a 4th gen? I know folks who have and spent AI type money doing it (season racing costs not car build costs).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn, I give you a lot of credit for doing what you do on these forums. It's not an easy job. I will admit that the people who said they want to unload the car, do some racing and then drink beer were lazy. I realize this isn't the case, but it came off like that. I absolutely want to be competitive and race there every weekend I can. Drinking beer and BSing would be nice, but that's after I'm confident the car is ready for the next day. Usually when I don't have time for beer is when something breaks and I'm scrambling to get it fixed. Most of my adjusting would be done at home. But tweaking something at the track by turning a wrench isn't going to take away from miller time.

 

When I first saw a CMC car, I was surprised at how modified they are. Two things confuse me for a mostly stock series. Why coil overs? What's wrong with stock style springs? Also, how did adjustable spoilers make it into the rules?

 

I don't know, sometimes I want more adjustability, and sometimes I want a more stock series. I'll probably be happy either way as long as it doesn't end up like AI and more expensive than I can afford.

 

Why on the stock style springs.....

Once you get out on track and realize how undersprung you are on those 550lb'ers, you will know why the 4th gen was allowed this modification. There are zero manufactures of OEM style springs for a 4th gen over 550lbs. Due to the odd design of the OEM spring, something had to give.

 

Stock style also demands a much higher cost. The limited market restricts sales.

This is the EXACT same problem the 70-04 Mustang has but nothing has been done to help it. There are no available linear springs above 900 lbs that will fit without without either cutting springs or using a massive amount of spacers.

The options are either H+R type progressive rate springs, much softer Global West springs, buying a longer spring (doing some Math) and hoping you cut correctly, or buying a much shorter spring and run a crap-ton of spacers.

 

I see the Mustang in a similar boat as the 4th gen, a tiny amount of aftermarket "stock style" springs. This is b/c 99% of the owners switch to a coil-over setup. The main difference is the 4th gen has been allowed a c/o setup but the 79-04 Mustang has not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OEM spring diameter is less than 5". So if we run a typical 5" spring, it will rub the tires. Only option is to run an OEM type spring or adapt down to a 2.5" spring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main difference is the 4th gen has been allowed a c/o setup but the 79-04 Mustang has not.

 

This is what I don't understand. Why continue to have major differences between the platforms. Why not simplify and keep the most important components the same, even or as close as possible?

It will result in less difficulty in maintaining parity, less drama, cars will have more similar on track characteristics, everyone has the same or similar opportunities to make changes/adjustment etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm travelling right now, with limited internet connectivity, so unfortunately(?), my posting will be a bit spotty for a while...

 

Once you get out on track and realize how undersprung you are on those 550lb'ers, you will know why the 4th gen was allowed this modification. There are zero manufactures of OEM style springs for a 4th gen over 550lbs. Due to the odd design of the OEM spring, something had to give.

 

This is the EXACT same problem the 70-04 Mustang has but nothing has been done to help it. There are no available linear springs above 900 lbs that will fit without without either cutting springs or using a massive amount of spacers... I see the Mustang in a similar boat as the 4th gen, a tiny amount of aftermarket "stock style" springs. This is b/c 99% of the owners switch to a coil-over setup. The main difference is the 4th gen has been allowed a c/o setup but the 79-04 Mustang has not.

 

Stock style also demands a much higher cost. The limited market restricts sales. Allowing commonly available springs and reducing the cost of putting a good spring on the car.

Also, stock does not always equate cheep.

 

That, right there, has been the crux of my argument FOR allowing C/O in the first place. I'm currently running the HIGHEST rate stock-replacement springs commercially available (progressive-rate, I may add!), with the heaviest bars that are legal, and here's the result:

 

254756_10100442461141512_297702435_.jpg

 

I would put forward that the FOX/SN95 is just as challenged by lack of aftermarket support in terms of spring rates as the 4th gen, and for all the same reasons that the 4th gen was given coil-overs, should have them as well. I don't know the front motion-ratio of the SN95 to be able to compare spring-rate to wheel-rate, but I would be willing to bet it's AT LEAST 2:1, so the 550lb 4th gen rate would equate to at least 1100lbs for the FOX/SN95, and we have nothing commercially available that's even close to that in a linear-rate. We have one progressive-rate offering that is close, but still lighter. I'm pretty sure the motion ratio is greater than 2:1, so that makes the rate differential even greater.

 

As for the whole argument about whether the adjustable perches should be rendered nonadjustable after adjustment, well, I'll save that for another day. Just having access to the "good" springs, and a much better variety of rates is worth it; priceless when you consider the reduced cost! It's pretty obvious that I need springs that are significantly higher in rate than the ones on the car, and nobody makes them. That leaves me with the options of custom-fabricated spacers and cut-down springs ($$$) or custom-wound springs ($$$). For the guys that have been in CMC for a long time, and who have their setup together already, it's no big issue. For those of us still working on setup, or new players coming into the series, the cost of the coilover kit is chicken feed compared to the alternative. If you assume that the "front runners" in the FOX/SN95 chassis have already jumped through the hoops, spent the money, and done all the screwing around to get their car where it needs to be, this RCR isn't going to affect them one bit. They're done with the basic setup, and have all the adapters and spacers they need for the tracks they run. For those that are still working on the setup, though, this will help us get the car together without spending unnecessary money or time on the project.

 

So, again, we have:

 

1) Will reduce cost: 2.5" coilover springs are considerably cheaper than either cut springs with spacers, or custom-wound springs, by Glenn's own admission.

2) Will increase car count: Allows for cheaper introduction of FOX/SN95 chassis into the series.

3) Will increase series parity: If it's goodness for the 4th Gen and S197, then it's goodness FOR THE SAME REASONS for the FOX/SN95. Rates are available in coilover springs that are simply not available in stock-replacement format.

 

In the end, this is a perfect example of how the rules simply make it MORE expensive, and MORE difficult to get a car put together properly. It's time to change this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys have a reading problem.

4th gens have coilvers from the OEM. So this was not given to them.

4th gens can't run a common 5" spring (like everyone else can) cause it will not clear the tire.

Everyone is allowed to run any size spring diameter they want.

You are allowed to adapt any spring. It you run an OEM type spring and are using it as a negative it is your fault. The rules allow you to run any spring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys have a reading problem.

4th gens have coilvers from the OEM. So this was not given to them.

4th gens can't run a common 5" spring (like everyone else can) cause it will not clear the tire.

Everyone is allowed to run any size spring diameter they want.

You are allowed to adapt any spring. It you run an OEM type spring and are using it as a negative it is your fault. The rules allow you to run any spring.

So the 4th gen came from the factory without front adjusters but the rules now allow them to run adjusters.

The Mustang (non S197) came from the factory with out front adjusters but the rules DON'T allow them to run adjusters.

I just want to make sure I have that correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys have a reading problem.

4th gens have coilvers from the OEM. So this was not given to them.

But S197s DON'T come with coilovers, and they WERE given the ability. Nowhere in 7.33.5 does it mention ANY OE part for the 4th Gen.

4th gens can't run a common 5" spring (like everyone else can) cause it will not clear the tire.

Everyone is allowed to run any size spring diameter they want.

You are allowed to adapt any spring. It you run an OEM type spring and are using it as a negative it is your fault. The rules allow you to run any spring.

 

Maybe the rules allow it, but they also restrict how the spring can be mounted... Can't modify the chassis, per 7.33.6, so we're limited, AGAIN, to either cutting springs to length (which also alters the spring rate), or adapting with some rube-goldberg setup of bolted in seat adapters. 5" springs are available in a variety of rates, yes, however they are NOT available in a WIDE variety of free lengths, hence the need to cut them down to hit both the rate and final ride-height targets. So, the bottom line is that you are against having a SIMPLE, SANE OPTION that DOESN'T INVOLVE FABRICATION AND CUSTOM PARTS to achieve a goal that is specifically allowed by the rule set. Apparently it's OK to order set after set of non-OE springs to cut up and/or fabricate perches and spacers and test ride-height versus installed spring rate with, but it's NOT okay to buy the one set with the final rate you want, then spin an adjuster to get the ride height right. How much time and money do you think we have to be screwing around with modifying and customizing non-OE parts to fit a nonsensical rule? This goes FAR beyond "tweaking" something in between races...

 

To sum up:

7.33.1, 7.33.4, combine to allow ride-height adjustment and open spring selection, and 7.33.6 then prevents us from doing so with any sense of simplicity or ease, and essentially forces us to fabricate to take advantage of .1 and .4... We're told "this is not a builder's series," but then to be able to make simple changes to the car, we're told to "build something." Which is it? Also, it's apparently NOT a "stock part" series either, since the intimation from the last line in your post certainly suggest that we SHOULD or "MUST HAVE" non-OE springs... I don't think it's a reading comprehension issue on my part at all.

 

I still haven't heard ANY reason why allowing coilover sleeves on ALL chassis will A) destroy parity, B) reduce safety, C) Increase cost for participation D) Increase the cost-of-entry for prospective CMC drivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we as a group have a meeting somehow where we can talk for real instead of just typing stuff. Maybe a class wide conference call?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys have a reading problem.

4th gens have coilvers from the OEM. So this was not given to them.

4th gens can't run a common 5" spring (like everyone else can) cause it will not clear the tire.

Everyone is allowed to run any size spring diameter they want.

You are allowed to adapt any spring. It you run an OEM type spring and are using it as a negative it is your fault. The rules allow you to run any spring.

So the 4th gen came from the factory without front adjusters but the rules now allow them to run adjusters.

The Mustang (non S197) came from the factory with out front adjusters but the rules DON'T allow them to run adjusters.

I just want to make sure I have that correct.

 

You got a better idea on how to allow open spring rates on a 4th gen?

Show me a spring that isn't made for street use (as an OEM replacement) that will fit on a 4th gen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys have a reading problem.

4th gens have coilvers from the OEM. So this was not given to them.

4th gens can't run a common 5" spring (like everyone else can) cause it will not clear the tire.

Everyone is allowed to run any size spring diameter they want.

You are allowed to adapt any spring. It you run an OEM type spring and are using it as a negative it is your fault. The rules allow you to run any spring.

 

I am with Glenn on this one. Coil overs is not the answer here. I don't see how the mustangs couldn't just use the same adjusters in the front as the third gen uses and make them non adjustable without removing them. Am I missing something?

 

Like this;

http://drivingenthusiast.net/sec-ford/unused-obsolete/my-projects/suspension/rear-solid/ground-control/default.htm

 

ignore the rear setup, but the front set up is exactly the way my car is. Put a bolt throught the top and bottom and double nut it, so you have to take it out for adjustment and you have all kinds of spring options.

 

http://www.bluecoilspring.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys have a reading problem.

4th gens have coilvers from the OEM. So this was not given to them.

But S197s DON'T come with coilovers, and they WERE given the ability. Nowhere in 7.33.5 does it mention ANY OE part for the 4th Gen.

 

last time I checked.. 197s do in the front... The spring is just not adjustable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are all trying to make the cars all the same, why not just skip all this BS and go straight to this:

StockCarRoller.jpg

 

Then we all just move our CMC legal drivetrains over to it. But I guess as long as there are ANY differences, there will be folks upset over being short changed. Untill we all have to run SPEC oil and SPEC air, someone is going to find a way to feel disadvantaged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are all trying to make the cars all the same, why not just skip all this BS and go straight to this:

StockCarRoller.jpg

 

Then we all just move our CMC legal drivetrains over to it. But I guess as long as there are ANY differences, there will be folks upset over being short changed. Untill we all have to run SPEC oil and SPEC air, someone is going to find a way to feel disadvantaged.

 

OR, I have a better idea. Instead of going to a single tube frame, lets just make the current platforms similar, whenever its simple to do so. I'm sure that would be cheaper and easier. So, just for clarity and to hear myself say it again:

If it's legal for one platform it should (if reasonably possible) be legal for the others. Why is that difficult or why is that necessarily expensive. Similar cars with similar suspension will have similar characteristics, which would be EASIER to manage parity within the class.

 

You make a great case for the 4gen needing coilovers, and I think that is a good solution, I just don't know why those principles dont apply to other cars? yes they are slightly different, but same principles apply.

 

I have to agree with the statement about conflicting messages about the intent of the class. It's not supposed to be a builders class, but in certain areas, the direction is to just build it, or fabricate it yourself, even if there is a simple , inexpensive off the shelf solution.

 

Glenn you certainly take the brunt of the discussions, and certainly keep it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn, Spec Air might me difficult. too many different regions

 

Dave, Didn't your car win nationals with Anders driving it at Miller?:wink: but yes.. I have people ask me if something is broken on my car because how much roll it has.

 

I think a spring adjuster would be helpful to "tweak" in between races.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OR, I have a better idea. Instead of going to a single tube frame, lets just make the current platforms similar, whenever its simple to do so. I'm sure that would be cheaper and easier. So, just for clarity and to hear myself say it again:

If it's legal for one platform it should (if reasonably possible) be legal for the others. Why is that difficult or why is that necessarily expensive. Similar cars with similar suspension will have similar characteristics, which would be EASIER to manage parity within the class.

 

Dave - simple for one is not always simple for another. And similar is possibly good for you, but what happens when you have been w/ CMC for 8 years and some new guys want to come to CMC and make things exactly the same? Will you be OK w/ that? So why not make a change now and "rip of the scab" in one fell swoop? Why keep messing around w/ these OEM designed (poorly at that) chassis never intended for racing an go to something commonly available and cheeper in the long run? Repair costs are cheep (no frame machine required to fix crash damage). Used parts are cheep and plentiful. Is is cause you drew a line in the sand in your head and it lies between a tube chassis and where you want CMC? So what is wrong w/ the line where it is now? Is it about how broken CMC is, or about you trying to come in and make CMC what you want, or to leave your mark on the class?

The class works as is. Are you willing to be responsible to CMC failing after you make it the way you want it? CMC is not mine, or yours. It has been around long before me and I hope it will be around long after you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn, Spec Air might me difficult. too many different regions

 

Dave, Didn't your car win nationals with Anders driving it at Miller?:wink: but yes.. I have people ask me if something is broken on my car because how much roll it has.

 

I think a spring adjuster would be helpful to "tweak" in between races.

 

You can't use air from there. We will have to bottle it and ship it to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn, Spec Air might me difficult. too many different regions

 

Dave, Didn't your car win nationals with Anders driving it at Miller?:wink: but yes.. I have people ask me if something is broken on my car because how much roll it has.

 

I think a spring adjuster would be helpful to "tweak" in between races.

 

You can't use air from there. We will have to bottle it and ship it to you.

 

ah ha... NASA air..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OR, I have a better idea. Instead of going to a single tube frame, lets just make the current platforms similar, whenever its simple to do so. I'm sure that would be cheaper and easier. So, just for clarity and to hear myself say it again:

If it's legal for one platform it should (if reasonably possible) be legal for the others. Why is that difficult or why is that necessarily expensive. Similar cars with similar suspension will have similar characteristics, which would be EASIER to manage parity within the class.

 

Dave - simple for one is not always simple for another. And similar is possibly good for you, but what happens when you have been w/ CMC for 8 years and some new guys want to come to CMC and make things exactly the same? Will you be OK w/ that? So why not make a change now and "rip of the scab" in one fell swoop? Why keep messing around w/ these OEM designed (poorly at that) chassis never intended for racing an go to something commonly available and cheeper in the long run? Repair costs are cheep (no frame machine required to fix crash damage). Used parts are cheep and plentiful. Is is cause you drew a line in the sand in your head and it lies between a tube chassis and where you want CMC? So what is wrong w/ the line where it is now? Is it about how broken CMC is, or about you trying to come in and make CMC what you want, or to leave your mark on the class?

The class works as is. Are you willing to be responsible to CMC failing after you make it the way you want it? CMC is not mine, or yours. It has been around long before me and I hope it will be around long after you.

 

 

Some of your comments directed toward me, are out of line. I never indicated that CMC is broke. I don't need to leave my mark anywhere. I don't expect all of my views to become new rules. I'm simply detailing my point of view passionately.

Do you realize that your explanations for the way things are, can easily be used to explain why some of us think some things should be different.

 

I'm not a nembie to racing or CMC and I understand the point of the CMC class. I've raced a few CMC cars over last few years. I was in CMC when I first started racing, it was a 95 Mustang. I raced that car in several different configurations. All the way up to the full blown AI car before I sold it. I've been behind the wheel of a CMC 3rd gen and have many laps in a CMC4th gen, along with the development and racing in my current or former AI 4th gen. I even know a lot of the history of CMC over the last few years, including a lot of the year end rules discussions. And No, I don't claim to be an expert.

 

 

If you're paying attention, most of the changes I favor have no benefit to me or my car of choice. And I'm not advocating anything that isn't either already legal on another car, or is just a simple and minor tweak. I think it could be better, and actually think the older cars are getting the short end of the stick. And that a few simple additionas would be helpfull. So molding the class in my image is not in the cards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your opinions have been heard, and the reasons for "why not" have been given. But that doesn't stop the endless "why not" from you and others.

All I have told you is the reasons why rules are the way they are. I haven't once told you that your ideas don't have merrit. You can be right, and that doesn't mean the CMC rules will change. It also doesn't mean the CMC Directors are wrong for not changing them. Surely you understand that, right?

 

No answer ever seems to be good enough. You have constantly pointed out where CMC is "unfair". To me, that endless list of minor tweaks is telling me the siries is broke. All platforms have pro's and con's. It is part of CMC. Don't look at CMC as a list of technical data points and find where this doesn't measure up w/ that, but rather a list of platforms where things are so different yet the results are so close and evenly matched.

 

I'm one of 12. If 7 (or more) vote a certain way, things will change. I find myself onthe sideof the majority most of the time. I must have a fairly accurate feel for what CMC is about.

 

I have to quit this back and forth w/ you. Find another Director to do this with. You and I will just not agree at any point. But there is hope. You have 11 other Directors who may side w/ you and your POV.

Good luck.

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...