2012 RCR #15 Allow drain/fill plugs on diff cover

[Smike]

 

Dave,

 

Thank you.

 

I really fail to see some of the logic here as well. Caps on rear end covers that really are more preventative over lap time advantages. Yet other areas wide open?

 

It's a diff cover. Not a $1000 custom 5th gear (which we can do).

[suck fumes1548534743]

I'm still in shock that there is actually an argument over a diff cover!

[D Algozine]

Regardless of the type of legal rear end you put in your car. If you have gone to the time and effort to assemble a good, solid rear end, why not allow a simple cover on the rear that aids in general maintenance (drains) and/or helps keep it cooler (aluminum, finned), which will add to the life of the rear.

If it's a cost issue, then just do a half day of testing, instead of a full day, that will more then pay for the cost of the cover.

 

We we allow all the things that only cost a day of testing or a weekend on track, none of us would race. We would all be home buying parts for cars that never take the track so we can have all the things you seem to be able to justify in one way or another.

If you were in charge of CMC, where would the line be drawn? AI?

 

Not even close to AI. My CMC would look very much like the present day. Just a few changes.

I would even out the rigidity of each platform, and allow some bracing and such

S197 solid and the bench mark

4th gen ok, but not as solid, I would allow additional bars to match

3rd gen same as above

Fox/SN cars- not very solid, I would allow additional bars to match

 

I wont launch into a complete detailed answer ( I know, some of you are happy to hear that.......I can hear you saying those things, through my computer ) Although it would be cool to be king for a day.

 

I've said it before, tough job and easy to lob remarks in from the cheap seats, But.....we all have opinions, and we've been asked, so I've been providing mine

I think I've made my point a couple times.... but

 

In a general sense, I would consider any part or mod that isn't a performance advantage that can be proved to be cost effective in the long run, that would assist with longevity and help minimize repairs and limit part failures. I think the basic and major components for each platform should be similar or as similar as it can be. A lot said there, but I wont go into the detials

 

Torque arm for Fox/SN cars

Adjustable spring perches

Stock or readily available trans gear limit

Rear end gear limit, maybe 4.11 maybe a little higher

Leave the rear end options as they are

Allow rear end covers, aluminum, with fins, drains, support bolts

5.3 ...in

Sway bars stock design but allow aftermarket

S197 may still need some adjusting to fit in with the rest of the group

 

 

Of course there's plenty more, but I assume that was a rhetorical question.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Guest

[D Algozine]

Fast forward to 2005 when I started w/ CMC. I explaind to the Directors at the time that one could sell the 9" or 12 bolt set-up as a 100% bolt-in (as required by our rules since none of the chassis pick-up points can be modified) and buy a couple OEM diff and have cash left over. It was a win win from my POV since it got us back to OEM diffs and put cash in folks pockets. There is a huge market for those diffes w/ the drag racers. No sale.

 

Again, what about the DNF and lost time racing for the broken parts.

 

I don't see those problems here in TX.

 

I know, either does CA. But a lot of our tracks are bumpy and tear up parts.

[Glenn]

[.....yet we can jump the shock cost cap by $400?

 

Do you even have any idea how we set that price point?

 

And where would you like to see it set?

[soundguydave1548534741]

Most likely it's keyed to a particular manufacturer's product, and when it went up, so did the cap. I would also bet that's most likely to prevent competitors from having to replace theirs simply because of a price increase exceeding the cap. I get that, no problem.

 

I honestly don't care what "the number" is, I'm fine with whatever it happens to be. $800/pair, $1000/pair, all good. I think you missed my point, though. Preaching "stock!!!" and "Cost containment!!!" on one hand, and then going to $2K for dampers on the other just isn't consistent. Some of the RCRs have been pooh-pooh'd on a "too expensive, not stock, don't need it" basis, but we can put something like 20-25% of the value of the entire car into dampers? How does that fit with the "spirit of CMC?"

[Glenn]

Its in the spirit of CMC because it is based on the price of the most expensive OEM shock for a legal platform (4th gen). The price goes up every couple of years to match what Koni DA's (OEM replacements) cost.

 

 

The point is, the rules are just places where the line was drawn in the sand. You got what you got. Don't like the sand, go find another sandbox.

[AllZWay]

I actually agree with Dave I think... Are we a stock class or a cost containment class?

 

You can't claim cost containment out of one side of your mouth, yet allow expensive shocks and brakes.

 

You can't claim stock class... when so many other things are already allowed.

 

I prefer a cost containment model, but we should have never allowed the expensive brakes.

 

I understand the shock allowance, but just don't like it.

[soundguydave1548534741]

 

The point is, the rules are just places where the line was drawn in the sand. You got what you got. Don't like the sand, go find another sandbox.

 

The Constitution has amendments, and the CMC rules have annual updates, driven by RCRs. So what you're saying is that a series participant can't argue the merits of a proposed rule change? Really? Please note that NONE of the RCRs came from me.

[rsmith350]

"Glenn wrote:

 

 

The point is, the rules are just places where the line was drawn in the sand. You got what you got. Don't like the sand, go find another sandbox."

 

Careful.....almost sounded like Ginsberg there....we get your point Glenn but there's too much "if you don't like it, go away" to grow the series in my opinion......of course I've never raced CMC. I'm just the lowly tech guy, so according to some my opinion means nothing, so feel free to disregard!

[suck fumes1548534743]

Yah considering that people have a choice as to what class to run, some directors are making it a lot less "about the racers and input" and making it more of a dictatorship. We as a group are just trying to add a simple cover that will decrease maint cost in the long run but yet it feels like our input and very good suggestions are just shut out and not even considered! Really!!! I understand if just one person is pushing this and it gets shut out. But the entire forum seems to be for this as there are options that serve no performance gain. If someone beats me the last thing I'm going to think is "oo he has a diff cover so he has more cooling and power"!

[ls168camaro]

This forum is a very small sampling of CMC. And its only the vocal ones. Now it seems there are a few newbies around here quesitoning everything-why can't I run this-what about that. Remember there are people that have been doing this 10 years and they have been screwed alot with in the last few years changing there cars.

Give some consideration to having a class that doesn't change much year to year. I believe some of the new vocal guys are descendants of AI. I know we have picked up lots of new racers from AI in the last 2 years. There reason I have been told they left AI was rules changing every year and having to buy new stuff.

After you are racing here for a few years you will start to understand. This class has already evolved enough and suffered because of it trying to evolve. The last thing we need is another slew of little items allowed.

[cozog1548534733]

IMHO, what you're all seeing is a cross roads for CMC and it's future. Some want the series to stay as close to "stock" as possible, as it was in the beginning. Then there's the racers who want to update the rules to a more modern level. Even though adding things rear diff covers and after market sway bars makes some maintenance and racing easier, it goes 180deg against what the "old school" people want.

It's one hell of a balancing act and I know that your CMC directors, nat'l dir and NASA mgt are trying very hard to accommodate everyone, while still growing the series.

 

Glenn isn't saying "piss off if you don't like it"... what he IS saying is "These are the current rules we all have to race by".

 

Personally, I'd love to see more updating of the rules, but in a shorter amount of time and leave them set for a while. Allow addt'l weld points, adjustable spring perches, after market sway bars, etc. All of those things would make the racing easier and cheap to maintain... in *MY* opinion.

[marshallmosty1548534738]

I believe some of the new vocal guys are descendants of AI. I know we have picked up lots of new racers from AI in the last 2 years. There reason I have been told they left AI was rules changing every year and having to buy new stuff.

 

I think that it wasn't having to buy new "stuff" as much as the S197 B302S and R were kicking everyone a new one and until we stabilized the ABS rule for 2012, the FR-ABS unit was a deal killer for a bunch of 4th gens... Otherwise the rules have been pretty rock solid for 3-4 years and will be again this year except some minor tweaks.

[wastntim]

Personally[/b], I'd love to see more updating of the rules, but in a shorter amount of time and leave them set for a while. Allow addt'l weld points, adjustable spring perches, after market sway bars, etc. All of those things would make the racing easier and cheap to maintain... in *MY* opinion.

 

All in favor?

[Steve91T]

Aye

[Glenn]

 

The point is, the rules are just places where the line was drawn in the sand. You got what you got. Don't like the sand, go find another sandbox.

 

The Constitution has amendments, and the CMC rules have annual updates, driven by RCRs. So what you're saying is that a series participant can't argue the merits of a proposed rule change? Really? Please note that NONE of the RCRs came from me.

 

"

The point is' date=' the rules are just places where the line was drawn in the sand. You got what you got. Don't like the sand, go find another sandbox.[/quote']

Careful.....almost sounded like Ginsberg there....we get your point Glenn but there's too much "if you don't like it, go away" to grow the series in my opinion......of course I've never raced CMC. I'm just the lowly tech guy, so according to some my opinion means nothing, so feel free to disregard!

 

 

Yah considering that people have a choice as to what class to run, some directors are making it a lot less "about the racers and input" and making it more of a dictatorship. We as a group are just trying to add a simple cover that will decrease maint cost in the long run but yet it feels like our input and very good suggestions are just shut out and not even considered! Really!!! I understand if just one person is pushing this and it gets shut out. But the entire forum seems to be for this as there are options that serve no performance gain. If someone beats me the last thing I'm going to think is "oo he has a diff cover so he has more cooling and power"!

 

 

OK, now that I've been compaired to another Director, obviously I've been a little too harsh w/ my words. I don't want anyones input to stop. I encorage it from everyone. But consider the way you made me feel w/ every effort to explain the reasons why the rules are the way they are. No answer was good enough. I'm starting to think I should not post here anymore as well. It does no good to offer an answer. Sometimes the rules are just the rules. I'm one of the few Directors who is willing to come on here daily and debate w/ you guys and explain the history and reasoning. At some point, you just have to accept that you were happy enough w/ the class rules to decide to build/buy a car, and that the rule really are not that bad. Credit goes to the Directors (from the past to present) who do the best at keeping CMC ..... well, CMC. Sure there are plenty of rules I personally don't like, but I'm happy enough w/ CMC as is to try my best to not mess w/ the formula we have.

 

We have seen some really good RCR's over the years from everyone (racers and directors). Alot of blame is being placed on the current director staff. And it really isn't fair. Alot of what we try to do is protect the series we race in and try to be responsible for what we do w/ it while in a leadership role. Not all directors are happy w/ the brakes for example. Alot of us voted against them, but obviously not enough or they would have never been allowed. The reason they were passed was a cost issue. Some regions were spending alot of money each year on brakes. Enough to easily pay for a nice 4 piston kit. There was also a rash of crashs on the east cost that totaled some cars that was the result of reported brake failures. Enough Directors believed it was a good move that the rule passed. That doesn't mean the door is now wide open to justify anything we feel is correct. It still has to pass the 3 criteria that Al posts in the annual RCR thread.

1) safety

2) cost reduction

3) does it make the cars faster

 

No where in that list do you see "cheeper than other allowed parts upgrades". There is no "might as well" clause either.

"You allow this, you might as well allow that."

 

Brakes passed the safety criteria.

They passed the cost criteria based on long term costs. I was against them if you want to keep score.

The majority believed the cars would not be faster as the tire is the limiting factor of how much you can deccelerate. I disagreed w/ this as well.

So they passed.

 

Diff covers don't add safety.

They don't add cost reduction.

They don't make the cars faster (a good thing).

 

I don't see diff failures as a result of not having a aftermarket cover. A bumpy track is still a bumpy track w/ or w/out a cover. Living outside the freeze zone does not mean Texas has no bumpy tracks. ECR is one for example. I also don't see failures related to any cooling issues. It just does not get hotter anywhere w/in NASA than in Texas at Texas Wold Speedway (a very fast track) in August. We have run that track during that month from 2005-2011. I don;t recall any failures.

With all that said, my vote is one of many. It didn't pass this year, and it didn't pass the last time it was proposed. Seems my line of thinking is about average for the Director staff w/ regards to a diff cover.

 

Have I seen diff failures on track? Sure. I grenaded a 10 bolt on a botched downshift. Guess what, I had a diff cover on it w/ the main cap preload studs on it. Ring gear and pinion had sheared teeth. My street car. It was there cause I took it to the drag strip as well. Those things are for drag launches on tire better than a RA1 on cars w/ set-ups the transfer weight to the rear during that launch. Last I checked, I'm running about 2.5 times stiffer rear spring that any 4th gen drag racer I know.

 

Sorry if you took offence to my "go away" comments. Obviously I was fustrated of defending the rules and not seeing any end result to any answers you were given. I'm not the one who banned non-OEM diff covers. And I'm not likely going to be the one to allow them either.

[Glenn]

Yah considering that people have a choice as to what class to run, some directors are making it a lot less "about the racers and input" and making it more of a dictatorship. We as a group are just trying to add a simple cover that will decrease maint cost in the long run but yet it feels like our input and very good suggestions are just shut out and not even considered! Really!!! I understand if just one person is pushing this and it gets shut out. But the entire forum seems to be for this as there are options that serve no performance gain. If someone beats me the last thing I'm going to think is "oo he has a diff cover so he has more cooling and power"!

 

This I felt needed a direct responce.

I don't see this as a Dictatorship. We have 10-12 National and Regional Directors who vote on rules changes. It takes a majority to pass and Al votes in the event of a tie. Once we are done, NASA HQ looks it all over for the final approval. Far from a dictatorship. We also don't want to let the kids run the cany store. I assure you that your thought proccess will change when you are the responsible person for the path CMC takes.

 

We can't take a vote from the CMC racers either. Not all racers have a registered account here. Some don't have a home PC from what I am told. They are still racers in CMC and we still have to think of them. Do we only allow active CMC'ers? Past points collectors? Active NASA members? What's fair?

Obviously, if every Texas CMC racer told me they were in favor of an RCR and I wasn't, I would have some obligation to represent them w/ my vote. It have never been the case.

 

I understand the cover is a simple bolt on. I get it. It costs nothing as well. And I see a few here in favor of this cover, but I really don't think you (those in favor of this here in this thread) represent CMC as a group.

The reason you feel as though you are being shut-out is this is not the first time CMC has been down this road on this issue. We have talked about it many times. The result is the same. It failed this year, last year, and many times before. The majority of, if not all the Directors agree it is not needed.

 

 

One last thing. When a new guys wants to come to CMC, one of the first things they do is put the pencil to the paper. What is it gonna cost for me to put a car together. The bigger that number is, the fewer guys will pick CMC. You can justify all you want w/ longterm cost savings, but the first obsticle that guys sees is the $$'s to get the car built and on track.

[cozog1548534733]

It still has to pass the 3 criteria that Al posts in the annual RCR thread.

1) safety

2) cost reduction

3) does it make the cars faster

 

Maybe we need to add a criteria for "Ease of Maintenance" or "Paddock Time Savings" or whatever. I see things like spring perches, non-OEM diff covers, etc. falling into that scope. There are some things that are a benefit for most racers, but don't really fit the Top 3 reasons.

[Glenn]

http://www.camaromustangchallenge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=36175#36175

 

Enjoy.

[suck fumes1548534743]

Fair enough. I'll just see how many if anything breaks next year and go from there.

[D Algozine]

One last thing. When a new guys wants to come to CMC, one of the first things they do is put the pencil to the paper. What is it gonna cost for me to put a car together. The bigger that number is, the fewer guys will pick CMC. You can justify all you want w/ longterm cost savings, but the first obsticle that guys sees is the $$'s to get the car built and on track.

 

To add to your statement, i would consider this, "who are the new guys joining CMC?" Are they mostly racers from other series (AI..etc.) or other associations (SCCA, etc..), or HPDE or TT ? I certainly don't know myself, but nearly everyone of those TYPES of new recruits, have an existing car, and I would bet that in most cases, those cars are already built beyond the CMC rules. How many times have you talked to a potential CMC racer and look at his car and say, "sure come join the fun, but the sway bards need to go, the 14" brakes need to go, you need a stock intake, headers need to go"...And thats fine, I'm not saying change all those items, but just know, most parts are likely coming off and finding stock parts is more the situation. So, for a lot of new cmc racers, its likely a matter of what has to come off the car to be cmc legal. Just so we are clear, I am fully aware that there are many current and active racers, and that changing rules to only accomadate incoming racers, is a slap in the face of the existing. and I'm not advocating trastic changes to help lure new racers. But I think the reality of how newbies join the ranks is importnat to note.

The only item of any consequence is the torque arm proposal. MOST everything else is trival and not a performance advantage. They are options. Of the racers encouraging the minor changes, I have not heard anyone insist that if changes aren't made, then they are going elsewhere. I've heard a lot of guys simply giving their opinions. History of the class is very important, but you can't get shitty with someone or discount them for expressing there opinoins, especially when you asked for their opinions, in the first place.

 

Obviously there is a ton of history behind this rear diff cover thing. Can you believe the press this thing has gotten? It's seems like such a trival matter to a CMC newbie, who new the reality ??

As is often the case, words get twisted, i don't think anyone believes that an aluminum diff cover with fins and even with cap supports is going to save a rear end. This idea apparently got twisted when somehow the suggestion to ban all NON stock rear ends got inserted into this discussion (not sure how we got there, but we did). Diff covers and rear end failures of any kind have not ever been linked together in this discussion.

 

HERES the deal : Simply the covers with drains make it easy to change the fluid. The fins and caps just so happen to be part of many of the aftermarket covers, and they provide a SMALL minor benifit.

It appears this minor part change has become more of pissing match then anything else.

[Smike]

It still has to pass the 3 criteria that Al posts in the annual RCR thread.

1) safety

2) cost reduction

3) does it make the cars faster

 

Maybe we need to add a criteria for "Ease of Maintenance" or "Paddock Time Savings" or whatever. I see things like spring perches, non-OEM diff covers, etc. falling into that scope. There are some things that are a benefit for most racers, but don't really fit the Top 3 reasons.

 

This.

 

Now, how about we argue about transmission gearing?

[mitchntx1548534714]

Wow? really? all this posturing over a diff cover?

 

My dad always told me to pick your battles. This one is silly.

 

If you don't want to crack open the diff once a year to do a thorough inspection, then fine.

 

$10

http://www.amazon.com/Powerbuilt-648756-Suction-Gun/dp/B004KEJXZA/ref=sr_1_5?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1351288732&sr=1-5&keywords=grease+suction

 

Problem solved.

[Glenn]

One last thing. When a new guys wants to come to CMC, one of the first things they do is put the pencil to the paper. What is it gonna cost for me to put a car together. The bigger that number is, the fewer guys will pick CMC. You can justify all you want w/ longterm cost savings, but the first obsticle that guys sees is the $$'s to get the car built and on track.

 

To add to your statement, i would consider this, "who are the new guys joining CMC?" Are they mostly racers from other series (AI..etc.) or other associations (SCCA, etc..), or HPDE or TT ? I certainly don't know myself, but nearly everyone of those TYPES of new recruits, have an existing car, and I would bet that in most cases, those cars are already built beyond the CMC rules. How many times have you talked to a potential CMC racer and look at his car and say, "sure come join the fun, but the sway bards need to go, the 14" brakes need to go, you need a stock intake, headers need to go"...And thats fine, I'm not saying change all those items, but just know, most parts are likely coming off and finding stock parts is more the situation. So, for a lot of new cmc racers, its likely a matter of what has to come off the car to be cmc legal. Just so we are clear, I am fully aware that there are many current and active racers, and that changing rules to only accomadate incoming racers, is a slap in the face of the existing. and I'm not advocating trastic changes to help lure new racers. But I think the reality of how newbies join the ranks is importnat to note.

The only item of any consequence is the torque arm proposal. MOST everything else is trival and not a performance advantage. They are options. Of the racers encouraging the minor changes, I have not heard anyone insist that if changes aren't made, then they are going elsewhere. I've heard a lot of guys simply giving their opinions. History of the class is very important, but you can't get shitty with someone or discount them for expressing there opinoins, especially when you asked for their opinions, in the first place.

 

Obviously there is a ton of history behind this rear diff cover thing. Can you believe the press this thing has gotten? It's seems like such a trival matter to a CMC newbie, who new the reality ??

As is often the case, words get twisted, i don't think anyone believes that an aluminum diff cover with fins and even with cap supports is going to save a rear end. This idea apparently got twisted when somehow the suggestion to ban all NON stock rear ends got inserted into this discussion (not sure how we got there, but we did). Diff covers and rear end failures of any kind have not ever been linked together in this discussion.

 

HERES the deal : Simply the covers with drains make it easy to change the fluid. The fins and caps just so happen to be part of many of the aftermarket covers, and they provide a SMALL minor benifit.

It appears this minor part change has become more of pissing match then anything else.

 

Guys coming to CMC from other series or org's are the exception and not the rule. In fact, I think I know of one TX CMC'er that raced w/ someone other than NASA prior to CMC. Dan Alford. We have a new AI guy that I recall being from SCCA as well. Beyond that, all my CMC guys were new to wheel to wheel when they came to us. I'm sure that does not reflect the national view. But it can't be too far off either.

 

I agree w/ you on where our racers come from and that most if not all have a car beyond CMC limits. My "street car" was beyond AI limits w/ power and tire size. Lots of guys sell that street car to fund the other. I parked mine and used it as a weekend driver, then sold it to offset racing costs.

We can't compromise what CMC is about because there are potential racers who like CMC. That would be selling out our current racers. It would be a benifit if rules changes could attract cars from other classes, but should never be used as a reason to do so.

 

 

Comment on the brakes....

13 brakes were OEM on the S-197. The idea of asking them to drop down to 12" seemed unrealistic. So the thought was to allow 13" rotors no matter what. Putting the S-197 on 16's was also unrelistic. So 17's was the new norm. The 4 piston calipers just made sence when we were already that close. Looking back now the possibility of removing the S-197, those changes were a bad idea. Point in case about making changes to the series for potential racers (brings us full circle). We really shot ourselves in the foot w/ CMC(2). Don't blame the current Director staff for that either. NASA HQ sent down a list of "thou shalt's" and adding the S-197 was a requirement. We did the best we could.